1

Christopher Fischer
Prof. Jamie McBeth-Smith
English 1010-034
April 16, 2016
Annotated Bibliography: Should we abolish jury trials?
Lets be honest, the last time you saw a not-guilty verdict in the news for a person the
country believed to be guilty, you wondered, how did they mess that up? Among the many
controversial court cases in our history, your feelings of doubt are most likely seen in the murder
cases for O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. Dont worry youre not alone in this, many others,
including myself, completely agree. It happens all too often in these high profile cases, the jury
got it wrong. But how could such a scrutinized system fail so miserably?

Of the many parts that make up our court system, it seems that the weak-link is a jury
selected by attorneys. The process of jury selection is called, voir dire. In voir dire, the judge and
attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and
suitable to serve in the case. Each attorney attempts to select jurors that will help them win.
However, the caliber of people that these attorneys select varies depending on what side of the
case they are on, prosecution or defense.

The prosecution attorney's love to choose people who show signs of an ability to think
logically and do not sway easily to emotion. Inversely, the defense, prefers jurors with
substandard intellectual prowess that easily succumb to the emotional state of the case and the
defendant. However, it is the attorneys job to present their case at a level that the jury can
understand.

Another problem with the current jury system is that most jurors are not familiar enough
with our legal system. Some court cases are so complicated that only those with proper training
are able to articulate its complexities. Leaving the jury in the dark to make a decision they may
not be properly trained to make.

So - let's ask the big question. Should we abolish our current jury system? Should we
replace them with a panel of judges or subject matter experts? Is there a third solution?

The following presents a few different viewpoints of my argument. You will also find a
detailed analysis of my conclusions on each source and how they will help me formulate my own
opinion on the manner.

Fuchs, Erin. "This Is Why Juries Shouldn't Decide Court Cases." Business

Insider. Business Insider, 03 July 2014. Web. 31 March 2016.

Erins main argument is spread among three main topics: where and when juries
were created, juror legal intelligence, and the financial burdens that may be associated
with jury participation. Trial by jury most likely began with King Henry II, who
assembled panels of lawful men to settle land disputes. These juries were created to
protect the accused because of the harsh punishments at the time in Great Britain.
Americas founding fathers must have believed in this system otherwise they would not
have decided to include it in the Constitution. She then uses a quote from a 1946 paper
called, The Jury Problem, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
to show how a jurys lack of legal knowledge comes into play, which states woeful lack

of intellectual endowment on the part of a juror is no doubt a most serious difficulty of

common occurrence. She concludes her article by providing a solution to the jurys lack
of legal training, by replacing them with a panel of judges.

Erin Fuchs is a senior editor at Business Insider with a master's degree from
Columbia School of Journalism. Erin presented her argument in the title and provided
sufficient evidence throughout to support her conclusion, replacing juries with a panel of
judges. Her editorial is emotionally successful by referencing a murder case that we can
all relate to, O.J Simpson. For me this was especially useful since I believed that he was
guilty for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. Using this emotional connection helped
her to show why the issue is so important and that these court cases need to be resolved
more fairly. In her conclusion she displays use of logos by stating how replacing juries
with a panel of trained experts would be more productive.
Erins article has helped me understand why smarter individuals would choose to
find a way out of jury duty. They do not wish to spend time away from work because of
the financial burdens that may ensue. This effectively demonstrates why the intellectual
quality of the jury pool may be lower and lead to inaccurate conclusions. I am not saying
that these people are not able to review these cases fairly, but that the lack of influence
from level-headed people in in the jury can cause them to jump to conclusions. In my
experience, a diverse group of people are more likely to cover all the bases when
reviewing a problem and making a decision. Before conducting research I could not
understand why someone would want to eliminate the use of juries in America. However,

after reading this editorial I have learned more about the issues our country is facing by
use of a jury and why it would be beneficial to use a panel of judges in their place.

Gittos, Luke. "Abolishing the jury system would be criminal." Spiked. Spiked Magazine, 25

February 2013. Web. 7 April 2016.

Luke Gittos article seems to have been written in order to defend the intelligence
of jurors in difficult cases. He begins by referencing a well-known case in Great Britain
from 2013, Regina v Christopher Huhne and Vicky Pryce. Initially, the jurors failed to
reach a verdict and the trial was rescheduled. The publics initial question was not if she
was guilty, but how competent and useful the jury was in the process. This is because the
jury had asked the presiding judge a series of questions that could lead many to believe
that they had a fundamental deficit in understanding the trial process. However, the
jurors questions were to help them understand more about reasonable doubt and whether
or not they could make a decision based on facts with no evidence. Some saw it as a
cause for concern that the jurors lacked such basic knowledge in the courtroom.
However, Lukes argument is that their questioning had shown how engaged the jurors
were in process and that those questions may not have been needed for the entire jury. In
order for the jury to make a fair decision on the case, the elaboration on the subject matter
may have been needed. Ultimately, this is why juries were created, to make informed
decisions on their peers in court. Luke closes the article stating that a subject matter
expert is not properly equipped for jury service because, the defendant would not be
judged by a jury of his or her peers. He expertly explains his thoughts in this quote It is
not simply a process of understanding the evidence before youbut also of holding up

the actions alleged against the defendant to a moral compass developed through having
been a fellow member of society.
The rhetorical effectiveness of Lukes article, for myself, lied heavily with pathos
and ethos. For anyone that has had a loved one on trial, I could see how they might
believe it would be unfair to have subject matter experts sit in the jury. It is not just about
judging guilt based on facts, but to judge based on life experience and the moral compass
off each juror. This plays on our emotions for others and forces readers to think about it
from another perspective. Lukes appeal to ethos was especially strong for me in this
article. He made references to the counter argument which let me know that he had taken
the views of others into consideration. Additionally, that the overall tone of his article
was not that of frustration on an increasingly debated topic, but that we should not be so
quick to judge the intelligence of others.

Even though Luke is writing about the jury system in Great Britain, I believe that
there are many things we can learn from his article. Until this point, I had not read an
article on the opposing argument to my topic. Lukes work has allowed me to put myself
in the shoes of others and think about how I would want to be judged in court.
Additionally, his article has shown me the importance of ethos in writing and how I can
include it in my own work.

Lambourne, Chad. Personal interview. 26 March 2016.

My interview with Mr. Lambourne gave prospective to how jurors are selected and how
their selections can determine the cases outcome. The process by which jurors are selected is
called voir dire. Voir dire is the legal term referring to procedures connected to a trial by jury.

This process, according to Chad, is best described as a game of poker. Jurors are the cards and
attorneys are the players. Jurors are chosen based on their background, body language, and
questioned to determine possible bias. For example, a juror whose wife was killed by a drunk
driver would not be allowed to sit on a drunk driving case. The prosecution prefers educated
individuals who will apply common sense in the case. Inversely, the defense looks for potential
jurors who are less intelligent and easily swayed by emotion. In most cases, the defense attorney
is looking to play on the emotions of the jury in order to sway the decision in their favor.
However, during jury selection each attorney is allowed to strike three individuals for cause. The
striking of potential jurors is a method of eliminating those who may be detrimental to winning
the case. Just because you are called to jury duty, does not necessarily mean that you will be
sitting on the case.

Mr. Lambourne is a paralegal that works for the Schatz Anderson & Associates' criminal
defense attorney's office. He graduated from Salt Lake Community College, earning high honors,
with an AA in Paralegal Studies. As a retired Salt Lake City Police officer, his knowledge and
familiarity of the law gives him an edge. Mr. Lambournes outlook on the process is very logical.
It is important to determine ahead of time how objective a potential juror may be. However,
selecting jurors who make decisions based on emotion contradict the principles of voir dire.
While conducting this interview, he not only explained how logical the process can be, but also
how illogical. His use of logos throughout our discussion is what caught my attention and
maintained it throughout. I was emotionally connected to the discussion when he mentioned
cases of drunk driving. This was particularly effective because I have lost friends in such
accidents. This example may not apply to everyone, but it was incredibly effective in my case.

Before our conversation I had no idea that there was such a lengthy and complicated
process in selecting a jury. He pointed out how a verdict may be determined purely based upon
the caliber of individuals who make up the jury. Additionally, a verdict may be found whether or
not the jury understands the charges and evidence attorneys present. I had my doubts about
abolishing juries in our country, but after our conversation I am beginning to believe that it
would be for the better.

Lepinskas, Ronald M. "Abolishing the Civil Jury System: Jury Members May Be in over Their

Heads." Editorial. Chicago Tribune. Chicago Tribune, 3 Mar. 2002. Web. 31 March
2016.
Mr. Lepinskass main argument is that jurors are not qualified to view most cases.
As an example, he begins the editorial in reference to the Enron scandal and how it would
have taken forensic accountants months to understand what had happened.

Rather than using accountants as jurors in the case, the evidence against Enron
was stripped down to its most basic charges in order to present to the jury. This was done
because the attorneys understood that the accounting fraud charges were too complicated
for the jurors to handle, which effectively lost sight of what the case was really about.
Continuing on, Ronald explains how the general public is capable of reviewing criminal
cases, but not civil cases. That civil cases are too complicated to understand unless
properly trained in the subject area. Additionally, the inability of the jury to comprehend
the complexities of civil cases encourages unfair verdicts. The remainder of Ronalds
argument goes into detail about how juries in civil cases should be replaced by experts on

the particular subject of the case. For example, if I had a leaky pipe in my house I would
not call an electrician to fix it, I would call a plumber. Although, he strongly believes that
the average citizen is capable of processing the information presented in a criminal case.
That it reinforce our democracy and check the power of the state. In his conclusion he
shows that using a jury of peers is no longer a feasible system, for civil cases. That this
system has been outdated by changes in the American way of life and the only way to
find a fair verdict in civil cases, is by replacing juries with experts.

Mr. Lepinskas seems to be very agitated by the use of jury trials and this is seen in
the tone of his article. This has led me to believe that he might not have considered both
sides of the argument to an extent which was needed. However, his rhetorical strategy of
logos in the writing is quite effective and kept me reading. His agitated tone may stem
from personal experiences with jury trials and would allow others with the same
experience to share his feelings.

This article has allowed me to think how I would want a loved one judged. If I
would want a panel of experts deciding their fate or a jury of peers. The truth is, the
situation for which a loved one may be prosecuted would dictate my decision for the type
of judging panel I would want. At this point in the researching process, I have not come
to a formal conclusion on my argument. However, it has helped me think about it in a
more personal manner.

Wells, Thomas H Jr. "Bar Association looks at revamping jury system." Birmingham Business

Journal. Birmingham Business Journal, 09 December 2014. Web. 31 March 2016.

Mr. Wells article is about revamping the jury system in America, not replacing or
letting it stand as it is. While this article is not stating a particular view on the subject, it
is reporting on the process by which an organization is looking to improve it. The
American Bar Association started an initiative that seeks to create a better system of
jurors and judges. Particularly to show the importance of jury service to the public and
educate them in the process. The article goes on to state that many who are called to jury
duty do not show up or a find a way out it. However, it also shows that many Americans
believe in the system and look forward to answering the call. The blue-ribbon
commission is looking to set standards for potential jurors which include; the size of
juries, if the decisions should be unanimous, if the jurors should be allowed to ask
witnesses questions, and if they should be allowed to take notes during the trial.
Ultimately, the initiative is looking to bring jury duty into the current century and
maintain the publics respect for the system.
The American Bar Associations solution to Americas jury problem is very
logical. They do not see a need to abolish a system that has worked well in the past.
Instead, create new guidelines that will help the jury system keep up with changes in
society. The American Bar Association came up with this plan mostly likely because they
saw a need for it. The timing for this plan is particularly appropriate because, many
Americans believe that changes to this system need to come sooner rather than later.

The American Bar Association has presented a third option on how to handle
juries in America. Until reading this article, I had only thought about two solutions to
problems with jury trials in America. Which are; abolishing juries in favor of a panel of

10

judges or experts and leaving the system as it is. This article has helped me understand
why abolishing the system may not be necessary. Instead, look at making improvements.

Since the formation of the United States in 1776, American society has drastically
changed. Since that time this system has served us well and the founding fathers would be proud.
However, I believe that the system is outdated and needs to be upgraded for the 21st century.
Sadly, innocent people are found guilty and criminals go free, it happens. While this does not
happen as often as you would think, drastic changes in the system might prevent it from
happening at all. Before conducting this research, I could clearly see two sides of this argument.
I found that the most people who write on the subject believe in abolishing jury trials. While
others, like Wells, believe the solution is to make improvements on a system already in place.