Juries

Justice Antonin Scalia claims that “juries are the spinal columns of American democracy.” Perhaps Scalia meant that the juries support democracy, just like the human spinal column gives our bodies support. Without this important entity and our government would find it difficult to be a working democracy. A jury should be comprised of unbiased citizens that are similar to the defendant, if these prequisite fail to be enforced, the rule of law is no longer applicable. A jury of your peers is how America enforces the rule of law. Rule of law is the principle that both those who govern and those who are governed must obey the law and are subject to the same laws. John Peters Humphrey wrote in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Section 5 that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This staple in human is made possible because of the twelve chosen people that determine the results of the trial, called a petit jury. The Sixth Amendment provides people accused under the United States the right of a fair and speedy trial. It guarantees that juries follow a just protocol when dealing with alleged criminals. A limited government is a government in which the powers are prescribed, limited and restricted by law. The government has the power to vary case by case. Courts have the power to decide every case arbitrarily. The Magna Carta is the document that gave us limited government and trial by jury. As the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press …” The first and sixth have conflicted many times because the press could get into the way of what otherwise would be known as a fair trial. The framers believed that a fair trial was a trial without bias or prejudice to the accused. If someone is denied any of their constitutional rights, such as the right to an attorney, and speedy trial, then it is evident that the accused with not have a fair trial. The press writes about certain details that could put bias and or prejudice into the readers head. Press can write anything as long as the facts are correct and not libelous to anyone. In the William Penn trial of 1670 helped establish the jury as a fundamental force in the preservation of liberty. This also helped so that jurors could act on basis of their own conscience. In high profile cases, such as the recent Olten case here in Jefferson City or celebrity cases, the media can cause such uproar it is called a “media circus.” A media circus is defined as a situation in which there is so much frantic activity by the news media around an event that the coverage overshadows the event and distorts its significance. However, in some important and extreme cases, the judge can tell the reporter or newspaper it cannot cover such a trail, also known as a gag order. Judges can also change the venue, postpone the trail to try to get the media a chance to die down, and even question the jurors about how much they know about the case from the media. This process is referred to as "voir dire," which means the judge or parties ask jurors questions in order to determine their biases and opinions. In that case, jurors are not allowed to read or hear any part of the case that they are sitting in on. The media and press also conflict in the matter of Nebraska Press vs. Stuart. In conclusion, juries are said to believe that they are the spinal columns of the American democracy because of the support they provide the rest of the government, limited government and the right to trial go hand and hand, and there are many ways the first and the sixth amendment conflict with one another. “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.” Harper Lee