Analysis of Jury Composition

As I began my blog on jury composition I approached it with a modernistic viewpoint. I considered jury composition to be a worry of the past - something that history had corrected over time. I was completely unaware that it was a problem which still lingered on today. Despite many advances in our country for minority rights, the rights of minorities still have yet to be secured in one of the most important parts of our government - the judiciary.

Entering into this project I considered jury composition to be a matter concerning just minorities. I was completely unaware how the issue could also affect caucasians as well. In the O.J. Simpson case there was an entirely disproportionate number of black jurors in comparsion to white jurors. Although this was perhaps a rarity, it is nonetheless proof that we must keep in mind the rights of all citizens as we continue to push towards equality in the justice system. When me make efforts to help the traditionally disenfrancised, we must make certain that we do not overcompensate. Although that point is far from being reached, it is an important thing to keep in mind nontheless.

For the topic of jury composition, a solution is required. We are promised a "jury of our peers", yet for many, this is a promise unfulfilled by the government. Of course, it can be debated, what is a jury of our peers? Is it simply a jury proportionate to the nationwide racial distribution? Or, rather, is it proportionate to the composition of the locale in which the trial is taking place? Perhaps the traditional answer would have been the latter. However, the former appears to be the most likely to ensure a diverse jury capable of better interpreting the truth; a fact which was demonstrated in the cases Emmet Till and OJ Simpson.

Why would a jury based on national racial composition be more effective than one based on local composition? Simply put, a jury reflective of nation wide statistics is guaranteed to be diverse, however the diversity of specific locations can vary greatly. For example, the city of Detroit is 81.6% black, whereas Seattle is only 8.4% black. Local values can be dramatically different from those held nationwide, as they are subjective to the experiences of an unexposed people. One should be able to receive an equal trial regardless of where the crime was committed, and jury composition plays a pivotal role in achieving equality.

The composition of our juries is a large flas in our justice system. However, it is far from an uncorrectable - in fact, there are many small changes which can eliminate the problem. One such example is in Indiana, where the jury pool has been expanded by simply comparing lists of drivers and taxpayers. Equally, a similar reform has passed in Pennsylvania, in which those on lists for welfare and food stamps are considered as well. This reform is particularly important, because minority status and socioeconomic status are often linked, thus increasing the potential number of minority jurors.

The aforementioned reforms, although small, can make a huge difference in the racial composition our juries. It makes logical sense that if more minorities are summoned for jury duty that the actual number who serve will be greater. However, simply summoning more minorities can still leave holes. There is still the peremptory challenge, which can still be used to weed out potential jurors. But, with a greater number of potential minority jurors, it becomes increasingly difficult for prosecutors to remove all of them. Nonetheless, the peremptory challenge still needs to be modified. The mere concept of being able to dismiss a person, potentially on race, alienates the equal protection clause in our constitution, and is therefore violating some of the most basic rights given to us. If minorities are unable to represent themselves in all facets of our government, their voice is not heard, and they will continue to be oppressed.

Ending oppression, specifically in our court system, is a goal which may be statistically impossible to achieve, despite reforms. In some cases, the best we can do is hope to do is simply hope to improve upon the current situation. For example, consider a small town in which the number of whites far exceeds minorities. Even if new lists statistically increase the probability of minority jurors being summoned, a highly disproportionate population (say 50:1) could still be statistically impossible to overcome. As well, it would be impractical in these situations to enforce a quota for juries, because with a limited number to choose from, people would have to serve on juries many times over to ensure equality. This would most likely lead to unhappy jurors (and everyone knows happy people make better decisions) and inevitably work against fairness. Unfortunately, no amount of reform for representation can make the cities and towns from which jurors are chosen more diverse. The only conceivable ways to handle such cases would be to have them moved to a different locale, or to have jurors picked from other locations - both of which would retard the legal process and violate the concept of a "jury of peers".

Although the importance of diverse juries seems clear, there are still instances where nothing is being done to correct it. In fact, exactly the opposite is taking place in Michigan, where the state Supreme Court adopted a rule discouraging the pursuit of diverse juries through aggressive or imaginative approaches. If there is no reform in how our juries are selected, there will continue to be travesties like the O.J. Simpson trial. After so many years of allowing inequality, haven't the court systems learned from their mistakes? One can only hope that the progressive reforms passed in Indiana and Pennsylvania infect the rest of the country as well, for the sake of fairness.