AND THEN THERE WERE NONE - THE DIMINUTION OF THE FEDERAL JURY

• NCJ Number: 57295
• Journal: University of Chicago Law Review Volume: 38 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUMMER 1971) Pages: 710-724
• Author(s): H ZEISEL
• Date Published: 1971
• Length: 15 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Chicago
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF REDUCING THE SIZE OF FEDERAL JURIES FROM 12 TO 6 AND OF ABANDONING THE UNANIMITY RULE IN FAVOR OF THE MAJORITY VERDICT ARE EXPLORED.

Abstract

IN 1971, 17 FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS ADOPTED 6-MEMBER CIVIL JURIES AS PART OF AN EXPERIMENT SPONSORED BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE. IN THE DECISION THAT LAID THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THE JURY SIZE EXPERIMENT, THE COURT CITED SCANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION THAT 12-MEMBER AND 6-MEMBER CIVIL JURIES MIGHT BE EXPECTED TO PERFORM COMPARABLY. EVEN WITHOUT SPECIFIC DATA, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE WITH SIMPLE STATISTICAL TESTS THAT 6-MEMBER JURIES ARE LIKELY TO BE LESS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY, TO PRODUCE MORE VARIED DAMAGE VERDICTS, AND TO RESULT IN FEWER HUNG JURIES THAN 12-MEMBER JURIES. NEITHER SIZE REDUCTION NOR ADOPTION OF THE MAJORITY VERDICT WAS BEING CONSIDERED FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL JURIES AT THE TIME THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN, BUT THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY SUCH CHANGES ARE EXPLORED. THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT APPLY TO THE 6-MEMBER CIVIL JURY APPLY WITH MINOR VARIATIONS TO THE CRIMINAL JURY, WHERE DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATIVENESS HAVE THEIR IMPACT ON PERCEPTIONS OF OFFENSE SERIOUSNESS AND STANDARDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT, RATHER THAN DOLLAR-EVALUATIONS OF CLAIMS. SIX-MEMBER CRIMINAL JURIES, WHICH WOULD CONTAIN FEWER OF THE RELATIVELY RARE JURORS WITH EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH STANDARDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT, WOULD PROVIDE A LESSER SAFEGUARD TO DEFENDANTS THAN IS THE CASE WITH 12-MEMBER JURIES. ABANDONMENT OF THE UNANIMITY RULE IS MERELY ANOTHER WAY OF REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE JURY, BUT ITS IMPACT WOULD BE EVEN GREATER. MINORITY VIEWPOINTS (E.G., THOSE OF JURORS WITH HIGH STANDARDS OF REASONABLE DOUBT) FARE BETTER ON A JURY OF 10 THAT MUST BE UNANIMOUS THAN ON A JURY OF 12 WHERE 10 MEMBERS MUST AGREE. MODIFICATIONS OF JURIES MAKE FOR DIFFERENCES IN ADJUDICATION THAT APPEAR NEGLIGIBLE UNLESS ACCORDED THE CAREFUL SCRUTINY THEY DESERVE. FOOTNOTES AND TABLES ACCOMPANY THE TEXT. (LKM)