Don’t Rush to Judge the Jury System : Simpson trial revives half-baked proposals for change

It is irresponsible for politicians to rush forward with sweeping proposals to change the jury system in the aftermath of the O. J. Simpson acquittal. Many of the so-called reforms proposed in the months before Tuesday’s verdict--and reiterated since by Gov. Pete Wilson and state Sen. Charles M. Calderon (D-Whittier), among others--are based on little more than speculation and presumption. Though this reaction to the trial’s outcome is understandable, speculation and presumption are not good bases for overhauling the jury system.

Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Scholars of the American jury have learned much about how individuals process information and how groups reach decisions. Now is the time to listen to respected experts’ empirically based suggestions for improving the process--suggestions more modest than the sweeping changes being advanced by some politicians.

THE ROLE OF RACE: The “reasonable doubt” standard on which our criminal justice system is based properly gives an advantage to the defense. The defense need only raise reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror, while the prosecution must overcome the reasonable doubts of all 12. The Simpson jurors who have spoken publicly say they found holes in the prosecution’s case large enough to raise reasonable doubt about his guilt. They say that’s why they acquitted the former football star, not because nine of the 12 jurors are, like Simpson, African American. Indeed, jury research indicates it is the evidence presented in cases, not race or gender, that is the single most persuasive determinant of a jury’s verdict.

Those who study criminal and civil trials agree that jurors by and large do not have full or accurate memories of trial testimony. Like most individuals, jurors have trouble understanding and making decisions based on statistical data, and they often enter the jury room with a tentative belief as to guilt or innocence. Even though the public generally thinks that criminal juries are too lenient, juries in criminal trials convict defendants more often than they acquit them.

With this in mind then, how constructive are proposals to require jurors to deliberate a minimum amount of time, to allow jurors to discuss the case among themselves before they enter deliberations and to ban cameras from courtrooms? And since the Simpson jury achieved unanimity quickly and reportedly without rancor, why the renewed call to eliminate the requirement that verdicts be unanimous?

BARRIERS TO JURY DUTY: Admittedly, there is much room to improve the conditions of jury service, particularly in Los Angeles County, and to draw the widest possible range of jurors. Employers and the courts themselves often transform jury service, the civic obligation of every citizen, into an onerous financial and personal burden. Thus too many of us find a way to avoid serving--and then disparage the results of those who do. Shortening the term (currently 10 days or one trial in Los Angeles County), raising the pay (now only $5 per day) and permitting more employees paid leave to serve would help greatly.

Beyond this, however, judges would be well-advised to think hard before sequestering a jury for anything like the length of the Simpson trial. Many California judges need to keep tighter rein over criminal proceedings, to write jury instructions in plainer English and to encourage jurors to ask questions when they don’t understand something.

Finally, those people complaining about the Simpson verdict should remember that there is only one system of justice in this country. Too many--perhaps even some of those now so angrily expressing their outrage--have evaded jury duty and thus have failed to support that one system that serves us all.