Jury Duty !

Part of living in a democracy like ours is the expectation that if we are ever charged with a very serious crime our fate will be decided by the deliberations of twelve of our peers sitting in judgement.  The jury system is the bedrock of the legal system that has served this country well.

Jury duty is an obligation that most people treat with dread.   Each year the Sheriffs office randomly picks a selection of people from the electoral roll and when a jury is required a number are notified to appear in court and face the selection process.  Legal counsel for both the prosecution and defence are allowed a number of " challenges "  to discharge members of the jury pool without giving a reason.

Sitting on a jury is both a challenge - and a vast lifestyle interruption.  Jurors usually go home each night, but in cases where intimidation is possible they may be sequestered in a hotel and denied outside contact.  They are paid for their attendance but jury duty takes precedence over employment and family obligations.  In some cases, trials may require the jury to sit for weeks or even months.

Getting called for jury duty can cause hardship. Many people ask to be excused - and few are granted. This random selection from the electoral roll means the jury pool is a mix of both genders with a varied range of ages and occupations.  That is supposed to be the fairness of the jury system.  It is the task of the prosecution and the defence to convince a jury of " ordinary " people to make a unanimous decision on the merits of the case before them.

The system recently saw a curious request for jury exemption denied.  A juror in a murder trial asked to be discharged from the jury on the grounds that his command of the English language was insufficient to continue deliberations.  In refusing the request, the court determined that the juror was of Asian descent and had entered this country at the age of fourteen.  He had completed the Higher School Certificate in Australia and gone on to University, where he graduated in a combined commerce/law degree.  The court noted that his education had been conducted in English when it denied his request.

This does raise a valid point about the jury system.  When an immigrant gains citizenship they are required to be recorded on the electoral roll for voting purposes.  This random selection for jury purposes could scoop up those with a very low understanding of English and who would struggle to understand the intricacies of legal argument presented to the jury.  The person on trial has an expectation that those deciding his or her fate were capable of making an informed decision on the evidence presented.

Judges have a high degree of discretion in their courtrooms.   They often stand down an obviously pregnant woman if they envisage a protracted trial and perhaps it would be a good idea for jurors to be questioned to determine their language skills during the empanelling process.   If for no other reason, as a means of removing a later reason for lodging an appeal.