nothin Jury Trials: Democracy? Or Buck-Passing? | New Haven Independent

Jury Trials: Democracy? Or Buck-Passing?

Paul Bass Photo

John Cirello.

When we think about the value of our jury system, many of us want to believe that our jury system is the purist form of democracy.

As the late Harper Lee put it in the famous To Kill a Mockingbird:
I’m no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of our courts and in the jury system — that is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury is only as sound as the men who make it up… In the name of God, do your duty.”

As we know, the Constitution provides that, In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” This was obviously an important right of the people that the founders felt compelled to enumerate in the Constitution.

I propose that there is a different purpose for our jury system: to allow our political leaders to pass the buck” on difficult and politically consequential decisions.

When I was a little boy I used to love to go to church on Palm Sunday. As a Roman Catholics, we celebrate Palm Sunday one week before Easter and the palm branches are given out to the people in the congregation. My Father and Grandfather would weave the palm into baskets and crosses and it kept me distracted during mass.

After I graduated from law school, Palm Sunday was still one of my favorite masses, but for very different reasons.

A tradition in the Catholic Palm Sunday mass is the reading of the Passion. This is the story of how Jesus was tried and put to death as found in Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22. Usually the entire congregation participates in the reading, with lay people reading the part of the narrator, Peter, Judas, and Pilot. The priest reads the dialog spoken by Jesus and the congregation reads the quotes for the people” or the crowd.”

As a lawyer, I thought that the scripture reading was like an episode of Law and Order and could have been written by Executive Producer Dick Wolf. There is the scene where Judas kisses Jesus on the cheek to identify who he is to the police. Then Jesus is taken to the chief priests for his first trial. The chief priests are trying to convict Jesus of claiming to be the messiah. They even use false evidence to convict him. Then they try to get Jesus to incriminate himself. They present testimony that was meant to show that he was claiming to be the messiah. The chief priests said, Have you no answer to give to this accusation against you?” But instead of responding Jesus keeps quiet.

This could be the first recorded account of the accused pleading the Fifth. The chief priests find him guilty of blasphemy and sentence him to death. This ends the first trial.

Then Jesus is taken to Pilate for a second trial, because in the time of Jesus, Jerusalem was an occupied city. The chief priests were the religious governing body representing the Jews in their homeland and Pilate, who represented Rome, was the occupying governor who was in charge of the secular government. 

During this trial Pilate again tries to get Jesus to incriminate himself by asking him about the accusations that the chief priests were making. But Jesus refused to answer a single word.” Once again Jesus pleads the 5th.

This puts Pilate in a very awkward position. Jesus is a charismatic, popular upstart, who has a large following. On the other hand, the chief priests and the elders in the temple view Jesus as a threat and a blasphemer. What is Pilate to do? If he sentences Jesus to death as the chief priests want, he is sure to get a backlash from Jesus’s followers. If he releases Jesus, he will have challenged the authority of the chief priests which could be a political nightmare.

To make the decision even more difficult, Pilate’s wife weighs in and sends him a message saying, Have nothing to do with that innocent man because in a dream last night I suffered much on account of him.” If only there were some way for Pilate to pass the buck” and have someone else make the decision.

So Pilate, being politically savvy, comes up with a solution. At every Passover Festival the Roman governor was in the habit of setting free any one prisoner the crowd asked for. At that time there was a well-known prisoner named Barabbas. So when the crowd gathered, Pilate asked them, Which one do you want me to set free for you? Barabbas or Jesus.” To which they responded, Barabbas!”

This could be considered the first ever jury trial. What a lovely invention for people in positions of power who are faced with making tough decisions: bring together a group of random citizens and have them make the decision for you! Then, if the consequences of the decision are disastrous, you are not to blame.

Think of some of the most infamous examples of jury verdicts. The O.J. Simpson trial, Rodney King, To Kill a Mockingbird, the Ferguson police officers, etc. No politician or judge had to be controversial or suffer consequences of the decisions that were made. Regardless of the outcome, the blame rested with the people of the jury.

Which begs the question: Is our current jury system democracy in action or is it just passing the buck” on difficult, politically sensitive and awkward decisions?

Actually, I am a huge fan of our country’s jury system. Our system is designed to protect individual rights and maintain a rule of law.

The purpose of this article is not to tear down our current system, but rather look at it in a different light.

Juries are tasked with a very difficult job trying to put into balance people’s lives. I believe a majority of juries come to the right decision and that they follow the law with an eye to social justice. I believe this despite the fact that I have lost jury trials.

When a conflict comes before a court, and is tried to a jury, someone will win and someone will lose, and regardless of who gets the blame, I believe a group of common citizens is the best way to make that decision. 

John Cirello is an attorney who practices in New Haven lives in the Morris Cove neighborhood.

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for Brutus2011

Avatar for Pat from Westville