The Jury Trial Lottery !

Before the start of each legal year a computer randomly selects from the roll of voters domiciled within that court district a pool of  jurors who will be called upon to sit on juries.  Few are granted exemptions, but both the prosecution and the defence have the right to challenge and stand down individual jurors - without giving any reason for their objection.

In some cases, the accused is given the option of trial by judge alone, or putting their fate in the hands of twelve of their fellow citizens.  The result of jury trials are legendary.  Juries have been known to acquit, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt.  A single capricious juror can sway the feelings of others, but in the general context of results the consensus is that juries give fair consideration to the evidence presented - and deliver a fair verdict.

A trial in the Sydney District court has opened a Pandora's box when it comes to jury selection.  This involved the smuggling of 556 kilos of Cocaine from Hong Kong to Sydney disguised in a shipment of TerraCotta pots - with a street value of $ 500 million.   The four perpetrators faced a nineteen week trial.  One received a twenty-seven year prison sentence.  Another got twenty-five years. A third was ordered to face a retrial - and the last had his trial aborted when it was discovered that one of the jurors was illiterate.   All those convicted have lodged appeals and it is highly likely that the convictions will be overturned and sent for retrial.

This case involved lengthy wiretaps which were both heard by the jury and presented in written form for each juror to consider.  It was learned that this evidence was unopened by the illiterate juror, throwing a doubt about whether the evidence received due consideration.  It certainly opens an appeal avenue and if granted the costs involved will probably run higher than a million dollars.

This fiasco raises the question of whether some sort of qualification standard should be imposed on all potential jurors.  Many cases going to trial involve complexities that are contested by specialists in their relevant field and yet require determination by juries without the input to fully understand the matters involved.  It is the duty of the presiding judge to carefully explain how this applies to the case before the jury and bring that complexity within the grasp of untrained minds.  In some instances, this tests the ability of the judge to fully comprehend the intricacies of accounting or where a mechanical process is involved.

The very idea of hand picking a jury by putting them though some sort of intelligence test flies in the face of juries being composed of what the law describes as a "jury of their peers " in relation to the accused.   The whole concept of the law envisages that a jury is composed of a cross section of society and be a mix of ages, genders and social orders.   It is not the function of the jury to show above average intelligence.  It is the function of both the prosecution and the defence to explain the cases they are putting to that jury in such a manner that it can be gasped by average minds.  Such is the skill of a barrister who masters the art of reducing complexity - to simplicity !

Perhaps this case provides reason for the implementation of some basic standards that should apply to jury selection.  It would be reasonable to expect that a juror would have eye vision to at least the standard required to hold a drivers license.   It would be reasonable to expect that hearing - with the aid of hearing aids - would preclude a juror from a definition of being totally "deaf "!   It would be reasonable to expect that a juror would have at least a basic literate ability to read and understand the oath each is required to swear to enact their jury duty.

That would not seem to be straying too far from the definition of "jury of their peers " and would preclude the sort of situation that waste court times and inflicts a heavy monetary penalty on the public purse.