Many people dread jury duty. It means taking time off work, rearranging schedules, and spending free time catching up on everything neglected while sitting in a courthouse. There may have been a time when more people viewed jury service as an honor worth sacrificing for. After all, juries perform one of the most consequential functions in a free society: resolving disputes and determining whether the government has proved that someone deserves to be convicted of a crime. But modern life has made the time commitment increasingly inconvenient, and the ordinary trial offers little excitement to compensate for the disruption.
The exception has always been the high-profile case. A celebrity, politician, corporate executive, or other public figure may find themselves on trial. Alternatively, an otherwise unknown defendant may become the center of national attention because the case touches on a controversial issue. In recent years, some of the most widely discussed trials have attracted attention that extends far beyond the courtroom. Race, sex, healthcare, political ideology, and other contentious issues can transform a court case into a public spectacle.
What has changed is not simply the amount of attention these cases receive, but how that attention begins. Social media has made that spectacle bigger, faster, and potentially more dangerous.
In some instances, a case gains traction on social media before traditional news outlets devote significant coverage to it. A short video, a dramatic allegation, a controversial arrest, or a compelling narrative can spread rapidly, encouraging millions of people to form opinions before they have seen the evidence presented at trial.
And somewhere in the middle of this spectacle may be 12 ordinary people who are supposed to decide the case independently.
Why would anyone want to serve on a high-profile jury? Some potential jurors may be curious about the private lives of celebrities or public figures. Others may relish the prospect of participating in an event that will be discussed across the country. A few might imagine that an interview after the trial could bring them attention or even a measure of celebrity themselves.
A prospective juror might see a case involving healthcare, race, gender, policing, or corporate misconduct as an opportunity to influence public debate or to change behavior. The verdict could be viewed as a chance to condemn an institution, vindicate a perceived injustice, or send a message to society.
The court of public opinion may have already declared the defendant guilty. Or they are sympathetic to the defendant as a symbol of resistance against an unpopular institution. In either situation, the public may expect a certain verdict without seeing or hearing the evidence that the jury sees.
A juror who returns an unpopular verdict will be despised, and the public will demand to know his or her identity. Some may attempt to identify them through public records or other clues available online. Others may seek to expose their family members or employers to pressure them into explaining or defending their decisions. This form of doxing can turn an otherwise private citizen into a public target.
A juror who knows that an unpopular vote could lead to harassment, professional consequences, or threats against family members may feel pressure to conform. Even a conscientious juror may wonder whether it is worth enduring the consequences of a verdict that much of the internet will condemn.
These concerns bring us to one of the most controversial features of the jury system: jury nullification. In its conventional sense, jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite believing the prosecution has proved the elements of the offense because they object to the law or believe applying it in that case would be unjust. The acquittal may be motivated by conscience, sympathy, disagreement with government policy, or a desire to resist what the jurors consider an unjust application of the law.
The gravest concern is not simply that a guilty person might go free. It is that the outcome of a trial could depend on the popularity of the defendant, the identity of the victim, or the social cause attached to the case.
Social media adds a further complication. A juror may be influenced not only by personal convictions but also by the fear of public condemnation. If an online movement demands acquittal, a juror might feel compelled to comply even when the evidence supports conviction. If the public demands conviction, a juror might feel pressured to disregard reasonable doubt.
Fortunately, it seems like most jury nullification cases involve setting a guilty man free. While it is troubling to see a guilty person walk, it is more troubling where jury nullification is used to either put an innocent person in jail or issue a disproportionately harsh punishment.
There are several criticisms of jury nullification. First, it makes laws useless. Some laws, while unpopular are required to maintain an orderly society. A jury shouldn’t impose their own law because they think the current law is stupid. If a law is unjust, it should be changed through the legislative process.
Also, jury nullification can violate equal protection of the laws. Should a murderer receive a different verdict because the murderer is liked and the victim is widely disliked?
If high-profile trials create a genuine risk of jury intimidation, courts should take that risk seriously. Courts should seal juror identities before the voir dire process if the judge sees that the public attention to the case could result in juror intimidation. Attorneys from both sides can still interview the jurors and select the jury composition. But the public should not be able to obtain the juror’s identities if it only serves to expose them to public outrage.
Social media and other modern forms of communications have created more high-profile court cases which could improve interest in serving in a jury. Participating as a juror in one of these cases is exciting and for some could lead to their 15 minutes of fame. But if you do not vote the way the online community wants, some people may try to dox you. A jury box should not be a soapbox. A jury’s purpose is not to produce a verdict that pleases the public, advances a social movement, or makes its members famous. Its purpose is to determine the case fairly under the law. Otherwise, the law will be inconsistently applied.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.
The post Being A Juror In A High-Profile Court Case Could Be Exciting, But It Comes With A Huge Cost appeared first on Above the Law.
Recent Comments