 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 
|
|
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bar News - March 7, 2003 Faith in Juries - Would Cameras in Jury Rooms Spoil the Magic? Editor's note: The following editorial ran in the Keene Sentinel on Jan. 3, 2003 and is reprinted with permission. THE TENTATIVE DECISION - it's under appeal - of a Texas judge to allow a TV camera to record a jury's deliberations has unleashed a flood of commentary. Almost all of it has been negative, most bitterly so. Opponents of televised jury deliberations contend that jurors would play to the camera and neglect their duty; that the secrecy of the jury system has served the nation so well throughout its history that it shouldn't be tampered with; that televising juries' discussions would insert entertainment values into something that is, as an Ohio newspaper put it, "one of the most sacred parts of judicial proceedings." Maybe these critics are right. Maybe the jury system is indeed such a marvel of righteousness and wisdom that we shouldn't tamper with it. But how can we be sure if we can't examine what goes on in jury rooms without disturbing its precious balance? The available evidence is not particularly comforting. Did no juries slip up in all those recent cases of falsely convicted people who have been released from death row? Was the juror-boggling lawyer flimflam in the O.J. Simpson trial an aberration? Are the recent studies indicating many jurors don't understand judges' instructions in error? Were the TV and newspaper examinations of cases involving serious criminal-justice errors so atypical as to be inconsequential? Did the Louisville, Kentucky, jurors who flipped a coin two years ago to convict a man of murder make a mistake unique in the annals of American jurisprudence? Surely it would have been a good idea to have a camera watching those jurors. The Louisville case ended in a mistrial because somebody broke the fabled secrecy of the jury room. Good thing. At the time, an assistant professor of law at the University of Louisville was quoted in the local newspaper as saying, "There are problems with the system, but (the coin flip) doesn't shake my faith in it." Faith in the system? Sacred part of judicial proceedings? Is the American justice system built on a foundation of law and reason, or simply attached to a wing and a prayer? The PBS documentary series "Frontline" wants to put cameras in a jury room to examine how the system works. The case in question involves a 17-year-old boy on trial for murder in Texas. The defendant has agreed to the cameras. The trial judge has agreed. It's now up to an appeals court. Regardless of whether its answer is yes or no, the overwhelming criticism that has greeted the "Frontline" request has already served one purpose. It has shown how reflexively and reverentially most commentators, lawyers and academics defend the current system. Where jury trials are concerned, we are, it seems, a nation of true believers. Wouldn't it be nice if, under carefully limited and controlled circumstances, we could examine whether our faith is fully justified and, if it is not, take steps to remedy the situation?
|
|
Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store New Hampshire Bar Association |
