Friday, November 12, 2010
Chesterton on Juries
"Almost 80 years ago, G. K. Chesterton, the English essayist, observed the following about a jury: Our civilization has decided, and very justly decided, that determining the guilt or innocence of men is a thing too important to be trusted to trained men. It wishes for light on that awful matter, it asks men who know no more law than I know, but who can feel the things I felt in the jury box. When it wants a library catalogued, or the solar system discovered, or any trifle of that kind, it uses up its specialists. But when it wishes anything done which is really serious, it collects twelve of the ordinary men standing round. The same thing was done, if I remember right, by the Founder of Christianity.Gilbert K. Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles: The Twelve Men (New York, Dodd Mead and Company, 1922) at p. 86-87." United States v. Diggs, 52 M.J. 251, 256 (C.A.A.F. 2000)
HT: Brandon Hale
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/chesterton-on-juries.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
" . . . it asks men who know no more law than I know . . . "
Has anyone ever devised some empirical test of the wisdom of juries made up of non-experts? Suppose you filmed ten actual trials in their entirety, and showed the films to a significant number of "juries" selected from (1) actual jury pools, (2) lawyers only, (3) judges, (4) police officers. The comparisons might be interesting, but of course one would have to know what the "right" verdict was to fully evaluate the results.
I was on jury duty once -- a personal injury case -- and one of the women in the jury pool was a nurse (who I believe specialized in some area that may have been relevant to the injury). The lawyers asked her if she could set aside her own medical knowledge and decided the case solely on the testimony of the medical witnesses. Does this mean if the plaintiff's expert witnesses say a sprained ankle is often fatal, and the defendant's expert witnesses don't dispute that, the nurse must decide the case based on the "knowledge" that sprained ankles are often fatal? And must the nurse refrain from sharing her medical knowledge with her fellow jurors? (The case was settled after the jury was selected but before the trial began.)
I never stopped to wonder, before I read this quote, about when women began to serve on juries. I can tell from googling that the history is complex and not easily summarized. But it does seem that it was only in the last quarter of the 20th century that women were fully accepted and required as jurors.