Book Review of “The Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom”
The book of Adler reveals that the American jury system is essential element of the criminal justice system, but criticized the incompetency of some members of the jury. In fact, there are many instances when the jurors have clearly performed unsatisfactorily in arriving at important decisions which lack valid reasons. In most cases, the jury makes a decision for its own beneficial gain. Adler condemns the jurors for making tainted decisions, but he does not make criticisms directly on the actual performance of the jury, but considered some external factors that are beyond the control of the jurors, which do not make them accountable (Lasso 674). The jurors who must be selected should possess the right attitudes and characteristics before they are allowed to decide on a case. Adler provided several methods on how to improve the present jury system by changing the jury selection process and to improve the communication between the judges and the members of the jury.
In the present American criminal justice system, jury trials are indispensable. For the present-day jury trial, the first step of a jury trial starts with the opening statements of both the prosecutor and the defense in the presentation of cases. This will give both parties the opportunity to present their cases and prove the facts, introduction of witnesses to be able to prepare the jury for their testimonies. After the opening statement, the prosecution will be given a chance to present evidence to the court through their witnesses. After the presentation of the witnesses, the defense will be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness to clarify the involvement of the defendant in the crime. After the prosecution closes its case, the defense may ask the judge to rule on a motion for a direct verdict. Is the motion of the defense counsel will be sustained by the court, the judge may direct the jury to acquit the defendant and end the case. The direct verdict is a manifestation that the prosecution was not able to present sufficient evidence to prove its case. After the presentation of the defense of its case and closes it, the government may present rebuttal evidence that the prosecution was not able to present during trial. The author cites that the entire jury process is flawed since the jurors are uneducated about law and lack legal background.
Adler cites that since the jurors are not lawyers, they often reach an incorrect verdict. Another issue that was raised by the author is that the jury rely on the jury consultants, who have the ability to rig the results leading to a wrong verdict. In most instances, the jury consultants had unfairly caused a disadvantage on one of the parties to the case for manipulating the evidence presented during the trial. The jury consultants only based their conclusions on common mythology instead of relying on empirical research (Lasso 666).
Furthermore, Adler argues that simple jurors do not have the capacity to handle complex cases. The result of lack of legal background of the jurors may lead to incorrect verdict for failure of the jurors to grasp the complex issues of law and evidence. Due to the technical and legal jargon used during the trial, the jurors cannot fully understand the evidence presented in court by the prosecution and defense (Lasso 667). The lay jurors are uneducated about legal issues which render them unfit to reach a correct verdict. Since jurors are average citizens, they have shortcomings in terms of calculating damages for lack of legal education. This is particularly evident in resolving products liability cases and civil cases.
In addition, Adler contends that the jury do not represent the community since the jury selection system is wanting. There is lack of effort exerted to enforce jury duty and there are many more capable citizens who are exempted from jury duties. Despite the valid arguments presented by Adler, there are flaws that were revealed in the book specifically in Chapter 1. In the first chapter, the analysis of the jury trial based on random sampling of jury verdicts that was done by the author failed to show the actual operation of the jury system. The generalization and assumption on the overall effectiveness of the jury led to biased conclusions on the enhancement of jury performance (Lasso 673). The conclusion made by Adler lack accuracy since there is no evidence to prove that he was present during the jury deliberations to make credible assumptions. The claims of the author are too broad and general the validate trustworthiness. To illustrate, the author’s opinion that the jurors are uneducated is offensive and elitist for lack of reliable basis (Lasso 673). This will lead to a conclusion that the assumptions made by the author can be troublesome.
The unyielding attack of the author on the jury proves that his conclusion is tainted with biases and sweeping theories on how the jury system works. Even though there are instances when the jury system does not always render the best decisions, the arrogant statements produce an offensive sentiment. The jury system works efficiently most of the time. In fact, a jury trial is an option given to the litigants upon their request. After the request for a jury trial the litigants, some members of the community will be asked to be designated as jurors who shall render a decision in a case. Thus, the jury selection operates well as the jurors are chosen randomly by the Clerk of Circuit Courts coming from a listing that has been empowered by a statute.
It is unfair for the Andler to make sweeping conclusions without any reliable basis to justify his statements. He cannot presume that the jury decisions are always incorrect since he is not actually present during the jury deliberations where the jurors will discuss the case privately in a deliberation room to arrive at a verdict. The presiding juror is in the fitting position to arrive with the verdict since he is the moderator and given the chance to express his opinions as a juror. The jurors express their opinions as honestly as well possible and communicate well with the judges. After the deliberation of the jurors, the final verdict is announced in open court. Hence, the team work of the judge and the jurors cannot be attacked without legal basis, just as how Adler presented them in his book. The American jury system is efficient in most cases and has become an integral part of the justice system. After completion of the jury duty, most of the judges interact with the jury to extend their gratitude for spending time to participate in the verdict.
Works Cited:
Adler, Stephen J. The Jury: Trial and Error in the American Courtroom. New York:
Times Books, 1994. Print.
Lasso, Rogelio A., “Book Review”: The Jury: Trial and Error in the American
Courtroom”. Santa Clara Law Review 36.2. (1996): 655-675. Print.
