The state of justice seems to be getting worse across America, and not enough is being done to address its many problems. However, if more states were to adapt a few good changes, then the outcomes for most criminal trials would be much enhanced. Have 9 or 11 jurors, not 12. Having an odd number of jurors will eliminate the possibility of a hung jury. The US Supreme Court has nine, so what's good for the highest court in the land, is good enough for everyone else. Eleven, with one or two alternates is an ideal standard. The idea of having twelve jurors is just a tradition carried over from England. However, it is not mandated in the Sixth Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Never require a unanimous verdict, only a majority. Even though only about 6% of cases end in hung juries, many cases, as we are seeing with the trial of Sen. Menendez , end in mistrial because of one person with differing---often very suspect---ideas, prejudices, cultural norms, biases or agendas. Again with the highest court in the land, they only require a majority, even in life or death cases. As it is also an outdated tradition, having everyone in this day and age in a criminal court agree on most topics is long gone, certainly in diverse communities. Almost everyone that knows anything about criminal justice, knows jury nullification is most commonly practiced by Black people. Some have even openly called for it, like Elie Mystal: “Maybe it’s time for black people to use the same tool white people have been using to defy a system they do not consent to: jury nullification,” he wrote in an op-ed published Wednesday. “White juries regularly refuse to convict or indict cops for murder. White juries refuse to convict vigilantes who murder black children. White juries refuse to convict other white people for property crimes.” “Maybe it’s time minorities got in the game?” he went on. “Black people lucky enough to get on a jury could use that power to acquit any person charged with a crime against white men and white male institutions.” He added that the severity of the crime shouldn’t be a factor in this practice. “Assault? Acquit. Burglary? Acquit. Insider trading? Acquit,” he said. “Murder? … what the hell do you think is happening to black people out there? What the hell do you think we’re complaining about when your cops shoot us or choke us? Acquit.” http://thegrio.com/2016/12/09/lawye...-not-to-convict-blacks-who-kill-white-people/ Just having one fanatic like Mystal on a jury requiring a unanimous verdict would be enough to obstruct justice. There is no possible way to know that a potential jurist is really a moral and just person. As these people will always slip though the cracks and end up in juries, they can at least be voted down by a majority of righteous people. Require Jurors to stand in court and individually give their verdicts. Trials should almost always be held openly in front of the people, and the jurors representing the people need to held individually accountable for their judgments. Trial verdicts should not be hidden like a black ball placed in a bag for a club vote. Jurors visibly and audibly giving their verdicts before the judge and court is a needed check for keeping the scales of justice in balance. Any community that would allow thugs to take reprisals against a jury member for giving an honest verdict against a fellow thug, has no room to complain about justice or safety of their own. What do you think?
