A troubling document has fallen into the hands of the editors of CACN - the jury questionnaire used by the Pensacola court in the trial of Michael Griffin. The document is troubling not because of any peculiarity that the state of Florida has devised, but rather because it is typical of such questionnaires used in every state. The process of choosing jury members has become an "art" or "skill" for lawyers to manipulate, and it seems almost inevitable that, after all is said and done, it is justice that suffers.
Three different parties have an interest in jury selection: the court, the prosecution and the defense, Presumably the court itself (which means the judge, in practice) has an interest in selecting jurors who are competent in a general sense, which may explain why questions 66 and 67 are included: "Do you have any health or personal problems that affect your ability to serve on this jury?" "Do you have any moral, ethical, religious, emotional, philosophical or other belief that makes you unable to sit in legal judgment?" In addition, both the judge and the prosecutor are interested in weeding out people who have any disqualifying prejudice, e.g. a prejudice against imposing the death penalty. The questionnaire has several questions concerning a prospective juror's attitude toward the death penalty.
Presumably the prosecution would object to a juror who believes that the death penalty is always immoral, and the defense would object to a juror who believes that jaywalkers should be electrocuted.
These types of questions are not very controversial, but they represent a small minority of the questions being asked. A second category of questions seems to spring from the lawyers' desire to play "mind reader." What they more likely represent is simple stereotyping at work. For example, what is the point of asking what a prospective juror's job is (Question 4b), the highest grade completed in school (Question 6), the favorite television program (Question 52), favorite radio station (Question 55), or favorite famous person, "living or dead" (Question 57)? After you have finished laughing at this stupidity, you quickly realize that the only possible answer is that the lawyers "interpreting" the questionnaire believe that they can learn something significant about how a juror thinks from knowing whether he is blue collar or white collar, dropout or Ph.D., fan of "Roseanne" or of "Leave It to Beaver." This is a perfect example of stereotyping, i.e. assuming that people who share a few external characteristics will also think identically.
There is a third category of question that is perhaps the most troubling (but bear in mind that none of these questions are peculiar to the state of Florida or to abortion-related cases). Ponder questions like the following: "Have you ever signed a petition on any public issue?" (Question 16) "Have you, any family member or close friend ever run for election to public or political office?" (Question 13) "In what activities are you involved for your church, temple or religious organization?" (Question 18) "Have you ever had a bumper sticker on your car? If yes, what did the bumper sticker say?" (Question 61) "Have you ever studied or done extensive reading about psychiatry, psychology, sociology, or related subjects?" (Question 63) If you think that giving a positive answer to any of these questions will increase your chances of being chosen as a juror, go to the back of the class and put on your dunce cap. It seems almost painfully obvious that the court, the prosecution and the defense are all united in thinking that the best juror is an inoffensive nitwit who has no strong opinions about anything, someone pliable whom they can easily sway with their courtroom theatrics. It is a sad commentary on our society when the very persons whom we would ordinarily regard as the best citizens - those who sign petitions, who run for office, who are involved in church activities, who put bumper stickers on their bumpers, who read and keep themselves informed - are regarded as the least desirable for making some of the most critical and necessary decisions of all.
Those who are familiar with courtroom procedures will recognize that it is not possible, without being present, to know exactly how the prosecution and the defense will use the material from the questionnaire. Both sides will have access to all the jurors' answers, and both sides will be allowed a certain number of "peremptory strikes," i.e. the judge will allow them to remove a prospective juror without giving any explanation. There is nothing inherently objectionable in this procedure, so long as the peremptory strikes are limited. Eventually, the lawyers will use up their vetos and will have to start accepting jurors.
The aspect of the questionnaire that is unknown but potentially most troubling is how the court itself will interpret some of the information.
Prospective jurors may be dismissed for "cause" also, but what will the judge consider "cause"? Will he agree that anyone who has signed a petition should be disqualified? Here is where the danger for real abuse arises.
We repeat here our belief that it is good for Christians to sit on juries, with the proper and Biblical goal of punishing the wicked and freeing the righteous. We also remind our reader that we agree in principle with the goals of the "Fully Informed Jury Association," which publicizes the fact that juries have more power than they usually realize; in fact, the power of the American jury is almost limitless, once they retire behind closed doors.
Although judges will deny it and grow red in the face when the subject is brought up, jurors have the right under the federal and state constitutions to sit in judgment not just on the facts of a case but on the law itself.
Judges want jurors to believe that they must judge only the facts and apply the law as the judge himself explains it to them, but that has never been true and is not true today. Imagine the power of a few righteous people who find themselves on a jury and are confronted with an unjust law!
Return to March '94 Table of Contents
Return To CACN ArchiveWill you help us today?
You Can Mail A Donation To: Neal Horsley, PO Box 1081, Carrollton, Ga 30116,
Or If You Can't Donate Now, Click Below and Join The We Choose Life Network.
Use Your Internet Connection Fee To Help Deter People From Butchering God's Children
|