There are certain tools and practices a jury has in some States within the
U.S. that
others do not. I feel that three such procedures would benefit the process of
seeking the truth in the court room.
Let the Juror's ask questions: This is a practice done in
Arizona. Jurors at
specified times in the trial may ask questions to clarify information. I
remember when I was a juror on a case that I desperately wanted to ask a
question of one of the witnesses. However I was blocked by
New York law. I felt it was unfair as I felt
that I could not properly make a judgment on the guilt or innocence of the
defendant. Likewise, many of my fellow jurors felt the same. Sure, it may slow
down the court some by the jury being able to ask questions themselves, but in
order to ensure the jury properly understands the facts they need certain
questions answered. In the case I served on, we came to the conclusion
reluctantly that the defendant was guilty. We only found out later that he was
a big time drug lord which was the sole reason that made us all feel better. So
why not give the jury a chance to go into the deliberation room and come up
with a few questions that they can ask the witnesses?
A Juror should be allowed to take notes: Another issue I
found in
New York's
jury system was that we jurors could not take notes on the case. So we would
forget facts and events that occurred in the case which could have potentially
lead to an innocent man going to jail. Sure we had access to all the evidence,
but we were left to try and figure it out at the end on what event took place
and when. Thankfully my fellow jurors had really good memories or we would have
gotten lost with all the different evidence that was just dumped on us. By not
taking notes we could not spot inconsistencies in different testimonies or get
a handle on the different events and how the evidence flowed together. Jurors
can be easily instructed on how they should take notes so as to avoid confusing
themselves and the different testimonies if that is needed. So let them take
notes.
A smaller Jury: I like how
Florida has a smaller number of jurors. In
Florida there are six
jurors and two alternates. In
New
York there were 12 of us and two alternates. Is it
really that necessary to have that many people serving on a single jury? Would
it change the chances of a person being declared guilty or innocent? I think
not. After serving my self I can say that the result would generally have been
the same whether we were six jurors or 44. The reason I say this is because of
the evidence. If evidence is collected properly and presented to the jury in a
clear and concise manor, then there should be nothing to cause any justice
seeking individual cause for alarm. Also, a smaller juror means a faster jury
selection speeding up the trial a bit. It would also save the courts some money
as well.
Conclusion: These are what I feel would aid in making it
easier for a juror to do their duty. I still believe that a professional jury
is best, but with these tools and practices it should be easier for a juror to
do their job.
No comments:
Post a Comment