One aspect of the legal system that trial lawyers hold sacred is the jury system. Unfortunately, it is also what non-lawyers dread the most. One of my colleagues recently shared a YouTube video that humorously explains why.
In the video, a professor stands in front of a classroom of bored-looking students and begins, “I realize that you were summoned to this class without signing up for it and you haven’t even been told what this class is about. This course could take a few days or a few weeks. It could be taught by 10 or 20 different teachers. And it will involve a subject you know nothing about. In fact, if you knew something about the subject, you couldn’t take the class. I will not tell you what is important and what isn’t.
Not only must you determine what is consequential, but you must also figure out which teachers have told you the truth. And you can’t take notes to remind yourself of what you’ve heard or what you thought was important. You may not ask your teachers any questions, no matter how confusing the lectures are. However, we will let you look at some of the materials while one of the teachers is lecturing on another important aspect of the course. When I do explain the final exam, I will spend only 10 or 15 minutes on it. And I will probably use unfamiliar or technical terms that I won’t explain. The final will involve only one or two questions. You will also be locked in this room until you reach an agreement. Depending on your answer, someone you don’t even know will either win or lose.”
There are reasons for all these strange rules, and there have been attempts to do away with some of them, such as the prohibitions on taking notes or asking questions during a trial. The most disliked aspect of the jury system is that it forces people to take time away from their work and personal lives with minimal compensation. However, I have been happy to find that, overall, people who have served on juries have valued the experience.
Two New Boston residents, Cyndie Wilson and Tammy Peirce, were jurors in the trial of a medical negligence case involving the death of a man from a cardiac condition that was improperly treated. What impressed many lawyers who learned about the case was that, even though a “screening panel” (made up of a lawyer, retired judge, and physician) had ruled against the man’s family, the jury decided in their favor and awarded a large amount of damages.
This was because, during deliberation, the jury had the man’s medical records with them, and Peirce insisted that, to be sure they knew all the facts, they review the records, even the ones not specifically discussed by the lawyers. The jury found one record that strongly contradicted the arguments made by the defendant’s lawyers and supported the family’s position. She told me it was a little intimidating to insist that they go through all the records because some jurors were in a hurry to be finished. Wilson told me that the “back and forth” among the jurors in the jury room was very valuable. Peirce agreed that having the benefit of several viewpoints was helpful and that the experience “broadens the meaning of the word peer.”
That is the intent behind the jury system and why lawyers believe it is so valuable. Instead of the old English system of having lords decide legal disputes, our founders established the right to a jury trial. The colonists wanted to ensure that members of their community would be responsible for safeguarding their liberty. As Peirce told me, it felt good to know that, even though one side had more money or power than the other, they were on the same footing.
Wilson mentioned the great responsibility she felt, especially in the criminal trial she sat on, where the standard for deciding a person is guilty is proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“I’d go to bed thinking he’s guilty, then the next day I would learn information which made me question that,” explained Wilson.
Both women emphasized how well they were treated by the judge and court personnel and agreed that the experience is one they were glad they had.
“I was doing my civic duty and was proud to do that,” said Wilson.
“It was a very rewarding opportunity to see how our system works,” Peirce said. “Everybody should do jury duty at least once.”
Our system of justice depends on citizen volunteers to work well. When I bring a client’s case to court, I want to be sure that the jurors deciding it are fair and open-minded and take their job seriously. Although there have been many times during my career when I have been disappointed by the behavior of other lawyers, litigants, and even judges, I am glad to say that has never been the case with jurors. I hope when you are called for jury duty, if you have the ability to serve, you will do so and will come away glad that you did.
