Black participants were more likely to raise novel, race-related issues than White participants in diverse groups. Larger group sizes mean that there is a larger representative sample. In addition to increasing the likelihood of diversity, a larger jury is more likely to have a wider range of talents, skills for performing specialized tasks, and knowledge.
As group sizes increase, there is an increasing organization and division of labor amongst the members. Also, Hans conducted an experiment where she asked judges and juries to watch a mock trial in which mtDNA was at issue and then take a quiz testing how well they understood the scientific evidence.
She found that college-educated jurors were more competent at fact-finding than jurors who were not college educated. Jurors outperformed judges on a question about the maternal heritage of mtDNA, which highlights the value of juror deliberation.
Hans, 44, Judges, Juries, and Scientific Evidence If larger juries make it more likely that there will be a juror with a background in science, one can infer that larger juries are more likely to be capable of handling scientific evidence presented at trial.
This is supported by an experiment with mock jurors which found that twelve-person juries recalled more probative evidence and relied less on non-probative evidence than six-person juries.
Additionally, it should be noted that efficiency is one justification for using smaller juries. Most research indicates that, on average, larger juries spend a longer time in deliberation than smaller juries. Saks and Marti report that the unweighted mean length of deliberation time was 53 minutes for small juries and 70 minutes for large juries.
While this finding supports the efficiency justification for smaller juries, it is possible that the greater deliberation time indicates a more thoughtful and collaborative review of the trial testimonies and evidence. Smaller juries thus might save a marginal amount of time but result in reduced deliberation.
Below is a chart of the mean length of deliberation time for small and large juries in different studies:. Probabilities and distributions were calculated for this project. Search this site Search Cornell.
Student Projects. Shari Seidman Diamond, et. Florida ii and the Jury of Six During the s, court reform movements pressed to both increase the efficiency and decrease the cost of court proceedings. Joiner, Civil Justice and the Jury 31, 83 concluding that the deliberative process should be the same in either the six- or man jury. Summary In , the Supreme Court further reconsidered the constitutional requirements of jury sizein Ballew v.
Empirical Data presented by Ballew First, the Court looked at contemporary research demonstrating that smaller juries were less likely to facilitate effective group deliberation. A study by Thomas and Fink showed that group size was an important variable in the qualities of group deliberation.
After reviewing 31 studies of small groups where group size was the independent variable, they found that there were no conditions under which smaller groups showed superior skills in group performance and group productivity. In smaller groups, members are less likely to make critical contributions to solve a given problem. Second, the Court found that smaller juries were less likely to reach accurate results.
Larger juries are better than smaller juries in ways important to the process and the product. Second, in an age when fewer and fewer civil cases are tried, each civil jury trial takes on added importance. In , when Williams was decided, 4. These are critical signals to parties and lawyers about how to evaluate similar cases, whether to settle, and on what terms. Outliers — in either direction — exert an even greater influence as the number of verdicts shrinks. We should avoid them if we can.
Returning to person juries will help do that. Third, fewer jury trials also means fewer opportunities for citizens to serve as jurors. Civil jury service is one of the truly exceptional features of the American justice system. Every empty jury chair is a missed opportunity to strengthen the bonds between the people and the courts. Fourth, we should choose inclusiveness and broader representation. We know that smaller juries are more likely to be more homogenous and lack even a single member of a minority group that constitutes a significant part of the community.
We should move in the direction of making sure that the few jury trials we do have are more representative of the community, not less. Fifth, the cost arguments against larger juries have always been weak. This is not the place to pinch pennies. That was true in the s when the Court and the Judicial Conference first latched onto the cost-savings rationale for smaller juries, 71 and it remains true today. But even the most cost-conscious should consider modern factors that have already slashed the amount federal courts spend on civil juries.
Most obviously, we are already spending comparatively less on civil juries because we have fewer of them. Since , the civil jury-trial rate has dropped from 4. We can afford to invest in the few civil jury trials we are fortunate enough to still have, while we still have them.
It just takes fewer court personnel less time to manage juries than it used to take. To recap, we know that larger juries are better than smaller juries in ways that really matter.
And we know that the time and expense saved by seating a smaller jury is minimal at best. But our data clearly show that most judges are not choosing to seat full juries. How do we change that? How do we flip the model and make person juries the default and not the excep-tion? An essential first step is to keep reminding judges and lawyers of what is at stake. Not anymore. The topic is as timely and important today as it was in the s or the s, even more so in this age of vanishing civil jury trials.
As a starting point, we have three suggestions:. Our first suggestion is simple and could be implemented immediately. This may be the best way to make a difference in the long run. Experience shows that judges are reluctant to alter their jury-trial practices once they become fixed.
As new judges begin to adopt their own jury-trial practices, they should know that there is a choice to be made and that they can choose to seat person juries, even if the culture and practice in their court is to seat smaller juries. It is equally critical that new judges know the social science demonstrating what is gained when judges seat a full person jury.
Without this information, we expect many new judges would understandably follow past practice in their home district, without giving much thought to what their own practices should be, and perhaps without even realizing that the choice is theirs to make.
And as new judges make informed decisions for themselves, it is essential that they learn the history, social science, and civics that will allow them to make a fully informed choice. Reminded of the jury-size debate, trial judges at all levels of experience can and should make their own informed choices, and not just follow what they otherwise may see as the norm.
Unfortunately, if a judge were to seek guidance from the federal judicial resources available today, those resources would not be of much help. For example, a federal district judge might turn to the Benchbook for U. Almost all of the federal district courts have local rules that provide for 6-member juries in civil cases, and such rules have been upheld by the U. Supreme Court. On the following page, the Handbook provides an example of how to calculate how many panel members to call to seat a jury, considering challenges for cause, peremptory challenges, and the seating of alternates still the practice then.
The problem lies in what they collectively do not say. None reminds judges that Rule 48 gives them a choice on the size of the jury to empanel. None addresses the pros and cons of jury size. Not a single word. We hope that, at the very least, the Benchbook and the Manual would be revised to remind judges that they may choose to seat a traditional jury of 12 and include some meaningful discussion of jury size.
We also encourage the Federal Judicial Center to consider issuing a new edition of the Handbook to include a full discussion of the benefits of larger juries and to revamp the illustrations, so as not to send unintended signals that smaller juries are preferred. We encourage judges and lawyers to add this topic to the menu of topics addressed at different bench and bar events, continuing education programs, and similar exchanges.
Lawyers can be reminded that they can ask for a jury of Everyone can be reminded of the many reasons why the jury system works better with A good conversation is rarely a bad thing; here, it could really help. Over the last plus years, the person civil jury has gone from being a fixture in the federal courts to a relative rarity.
We should all be concerned. That the Supreme Court has allowed us to use smaller juries does not require us to use them. We can use person juries. The benefits are large; the disadvantages marginal. We are simply suggesting that judges not reflexively pick six, or eight, or even ten, and instead remember their authority to seat And the great benefits of doing so.
As civil jury trials resume, some may urge us to bring them back in even smaller form. These arguments are easy to understand. Smaller juries require smaller venire panels. Jury selection and trial with social distancing may be easier to achieve with a smaller jury. We cannot ignore these points. Nor can we minimize the important role of social distancing in these difficult times. But we should be careful not to let these short-term concerns overtake everything else or chart our long-term path.
First, we have to be able to seat 12 in order to have a criminal jury, and that means we can do it in civil cases as well. What we learn in one setting will help with the other. A study published in Law and Human Behavior refuted each of these reasons. The Court in Ballew v. Georgia reviewed many of these studies before reaching the conclusion that a five-person jury violates the Sixth Amendment.
That alone does not mean, however, that six-person juries for cases involving serious offenses are constitutionally insufficient. Allowing six-person juries to convict defendants and sentence them to one of the strictest sentences available in our country at best toes the line of what is constitutionally permissible.
In this age of the Internet, social media, and a robust court of public opinion, it is increasingly important not only that courts actually deliver justice, but also that they give the appearance of doing so.
In high-profile trials like that of George Zimmerman, all sides of the debate would benefit from a fortified sense that justice was served, and a twelve-person jury arguably advances not just the reality of justice, but also the perception by the public that justice has been done.
Posted in: Constitutional Law , Criminal Procedure. While I agree with Mr. Kemp, I feel I must point out that the jury in Zimmerman voted unanimlously 6 to 0 so even with a twelve person jury it would have been 6 to 6 and Mr.
Zimmerman would have at worst faced another trial. I am not by this opinion agreeing or disagreeing with the verdict, facts obtained from news reports are terribly deficient.
I do prefer the idea that a unanimous verdict is preferable in criminal trials for guilty verdicts and not majority rulings, but that is from my bias as a criminal defense lawyer,. Share Tweet Share Share. Posted in: Constitutional Law. The Role of the Jury in Criminal Trials Juries have played a central role in trials at least as far back as the Thirteenth Century, and were solidly part of the English system at the time of the founding of the United States.
Jury Size and the Severity of the Charge As the Court was developing its new jurisprudence on jury size and unanimity requirements, one core consideration was the severity of the charge at issue.
Among these reasons were: A jury of six would be sufficient to promote group deliberation, to insulate members from outside intimidation, and to provide a representative cross-section of the community.
There was no evidence that six-member panels were less reliable than twelve-member panels. There would be no significant differences in results, including hung juries. A reduction in size would not cause the representative or cross-section character of the jury to suffer. Stephen C says:.
0コメント