October 12, 2008
Macomb tests jury reform
Move aimed to simplify duty
BY AMBER HUNT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
The Michigan Supreme Court is debating whether to change how juries operate during trials
-- and some Macomb County residents will be among the first to test the proposed rules.
For the next 14 months, jurors in Circuit Judge David Viviano's courtroom could be allowed
to discuss the trial with each other before the case wraps up. And they'll be encouraged
to submit questions to the judge in writing before a witness is excused.
The changes are part of a potentially statewide jury reform that aims to make
jurors' jobs easier to understand.
"It's sort of to address human nature," Viviano said. "We tell people they can't talk to anyone --
not their spouses, not even the people they're serving with on the jury -- about the case
while it's happening. That's counterintuitive to human nature."
Viviano is one of 12 judges across the state whose courtrooms have adopted the rules
for the trial run that began at the end of August.
Among the proposed changes:
Viviano said the latter change concerns him the most because his summary would be subjective,
possibly opening the door for an appeal if he's slanted too much toward one side.
"These changes aren't easy," Viviano said.
Prosecutor Eric Smith said he plans to meet with Viviano about the changes.
He said some of the changes -- such as allowing jurors to have the judge pose specific questions to witnesses -- are easier than others. Circuit Judge Matt Switalski already encourages jurors to submit questions to him in writing.
But Smith said he's concerned about having dueling experts engage in a debate.
After each trial, Viviano said he would talk to jurors and lawyers to find out which rules should stay and which should be tossed out. Then he'll report back to the Supreme Court, which is to decide whether an overhaul is needed.
The pilot project is set to wrap up in December 2010.
is effective, other states may also make changes. would you want Texas to follow suit?
Why or why not?
Posts
3 comments:
Hallelujah! It’s about time we bring some common sense to the jury trial process. Having participated in more jury trials than I care to remember, I never have understood the unrealistic expectations we place on jurors. The comment about the jury process being ‘counterintuitive to human nature’ is dead on! However, I do agree that a judge’s summary of the case would be unfairly subjective. We expect jurors to limit their discussion, not ask questions, have limited review of evidence or testimony, etc. The shortcomings of the current jury system are apparent to anybody who has recently participated in, or witnessed, a jury trial. Unfortunately, I think that frustration with the jury system, and its limitations, lead to improper verdicts, nullifications and inappropriately reduced sentencing. I wish Texas courts would get with the program and work towards a solution instead of perpetually being one of the last states to accept, and adopt, judicial and legislative changes. (Can anybody say .08 blood alcohol level…?)
Juries as they are now, are supposed to make a decision about cases that they really don't even know the law for. This an unrealistic goal to have for our jury system. However, I do not believe that the judge should make a summary of both sides of the arguement and read it to the jury because this would impose to many appeals due to the judge leaning more towards one side of the arguement. I think Texas should come up with a way to make the jury impartial to either side, yet informed on what they are really there to decide in the case presented before them.
Taylor McNeely
This change in the courts could be very beneficial in many aspects. Deciding a man's fate for the rest of his life is put in the hands of the jury who might not have a clue what's going on. This will get the jury more involved in what is happening within the case instead of being pushed into the situation. As far as the judge summarizing either side of the case, I don't think this should happen. Whether or not he meant to, the judge might implement his own opinion into the summary, therefore making it his own judgment instead of a summary of what is happening. I definitely feel Texas should implement this plan of action immediately. There is no harm in helping the jury to understand what lies behind the case. Giving them a more in depth look at what is happening can only make the case stronger. It will be a big change, but for the most part, I feel it will be a positive change and benefit the courts greatly.
Jesse Alldredge
Post a Comment