OUR JURY SYSTEM - TIME FOR THE SCRAP PILE?

Not Guilty!

We, as a society, have learned to expect shocking verdicts after well publicized criminal trials.  The recent "not guilty" verdict in the Casey Anthony trial is just the most recent example.  Whenever I counsel clients with respect to potential civil lawsuits, I almost always reference the fact that, assuming the case will be tried by a jury (or by the court - judge), there is a chance, a good chance, that the case will result in an incorrect verdict - my "OJ Factor".  There are simply times when a jury does not interpret the facts with the correct "interpretation" or understanding of the law that guides them.

Our jury system, at least in the criminal court, is based on the constitutional right to a trial by our peers.  Who ends up being in that "peer" description, however, is often a toss up.  Our system generally requires a unanimous "guilty" verdict.  As most juries are comprised of between 9-12 jurors, that can seem daunting, especially considering that one can only be found guilty if the jury finds that person responsible for the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Beyond a reasonable doubt ... the description of this phrase can take up 3-4 weeks of intense discussion in law school; yet, layperson (non-lawyer) jurors are often required to understand its meaning in hours after being handed the case upon completion of closing arguments.  Or at least, they are supposed to understand the terminology after receiving the case and determining the facts in light of such law (among others). 

I recall vividly my criminal law and criminal procedure classes in law school because both occurred around the time that OJ was tried and found innocent - much to the dismay of LA DA, who I recall, adamantly confirmed that Mr. Simpson was guilty (prior to any criminal court proceedings).  The elements of various crimes appear straight forward, and yet, the specificity of the various elements is critical in understanding how those elements either exist or not in any particular set of facts.  Again, each of these courses was an entire semester.  We expect our juries to understand the nuances of the law and how to interpret the facts in light of such nuances.

After once again observing a case that, frankly, should have resulted in a "guilty" verdict, be absolutely muddled by the jury, I renew my opinion that a jury should not be of one's peers, but should be a group of professional jurors, with the knowledge and, importantly experience, to handle the often intricate issues surrounding criminal law.  We already allow civil matters to be heard by a judge; other countries have done away with the jury system (Israel, for instance).  Some states have grand jury systems which stay "in session" for one year.  The issue is not a new one. 

What are your thoughts?  I will provide more of my own in the near term.