Do defendents get a fair shake in jury trials?

Question

I was called to do my civic duty and was amazed to find that I would never want to go on trial in my state. The judge informed us all that we MUST be fair and unbiased. He said that we must be fair and that we could not even speak to one another about the trial. He also said that on our journey that we would learn all about the system. Well he was right I learned more then I really wanted to know. While I was sitting in the jury room there was all sorts of pastimes such as a good game of dominos or if you so desired you could break out your laptop computers and use them right there. In my state there is a open records act that allows you to pull records on defendents therefore exposing thier past and people being human I wonder how many look at this. There was also many cell phones with internet access. Would this not create bias if just one potential juror looked to see what a defendents past was like? And if so should thier sentences they got be looked at ? Is that fair?

Answer 1

The system will never be "fair" - but it is as close to fair as possible. You are right, there shouldn't be internet access in a jury room. You should write your Congressmen and the Assignment Judge for the court you served in.

The jury system is based on 12 humans who together, will abide by the judge's instruction and the law. This peer pressure helps to prevent jurors from using the internet to research a defendant's past.

ALSO, the jury system is just one of the many features built into the "justice" system to help prevent innocent people from going to jail. There is the arrest procedure - there must be probable cause for arrest and/or indictment. There are motions that can be filed during the discovery process to get the charges dismissed. There is the judge who oversees the trial and prevents certain evidence from reaching the jury. There is the jury... and then there is the appeals process.

While the American justice system is not perfect, it is the best system in the world. There definitely needs improvement of course - but it is improving over time.

Answer 2

Studies that have compared jury verdicts with judge's decisions in trials have demonstrated that they concur about 80% of the time and that when they don't largely, judges would have CONVICTED when juries would have acquitted. Combine that with the fact that only about 5% of all criminal cases actually go to jury trial, and that the vast majority of jurors are conscientious and follow the judge's instructions regarding how to decide the case, I think they're doing a pretty good job.

Answer 3

Human beings arrive at their own conclusions, based on their own life experiences, observation and information. The jury system is not perfect, but it's the best we have to use.

Innocence and guilt are usually more a function of the savvy of the attorney or the ability to drag things out (People v. OJ Simpson)

Answer 4

If even one defendent has had this happen all cases should be reviewed. Exzample Joyce Gilcrist in the state of Oklahoma I believe was exposed for intentionally saying that dna was that of defendents that she knew was not and they were convicted of crimes they didnt commit and some later released innocent of all charges. computers should not be allowed in the court house for jury duty or cell phones for that matter and yes it is normal for people to be curious, that is why it should not be allowed.

Answer 5

I am astounded at what you are telling me occurred while the jury was deliberating! This was a gross miscarriage of justice. Who the f*ck was the Judge? Extreme Akeem? If these things are true, that defendant is entitled to appeal his case.