In the U.S., a Jury of One's Peers Usually Decides Guilt Or Innocence. But in a multiethnic society... WHOSE PEERS?

• Share

Just how carefully balanced does a jury have to be in order to render a fair verdict -- not to mention one that the public will believe is fair? In language dating back to the Magna Carta, the English common-law tradition promises defendants a jury of their "peers." The U.S. Constitution mandates "an impartial jury," and American law requires that it be drawn from a representative cross section of the community.

None of those guarantees has been interpreted by U.S. courts to mean that defendants have a right to be tried by jurors of their racial or ethnic background. But in a society that is increasingly racially mixed, the pressure is on to fashion juries that look something like the panel of judges at an Olympic diving meet: one from this nationality, one from that.

The acquittal of four police officers in the first Rodney King trial raised havoc in large part because they were freed by a jury with no blacks, drawn from a California community with very few. In May the retrial of Hispanic police officer William Lozano, whose 1989 shooting of a black motorcyclist set off three days of rioting in Miami, was shuffled five times among three Florida cities in search of a "balanced" jury. Ultimately, a jury consisting of three whites, two Hispanics and one black acquitted Lozano.

Studies of trial outcomes show that in cases in which evidence of guilt or innocence appears to be clear, the ethnic and racial makeup of juries % "doesn't seem to matter," says University of Iowa law professor Michael Saks. Many immigrants come from cultures in which anyone charged with a crime is presumed guilty, and they tend to apply this standard even to defendants of their own background. On the other hand, many are also deeply suspicious of authority because of their experience with prejudice or police harassment. Whatever the case, the presence of jurors who share the background of a defendant or plaintiff is useful in pointing out to other jurors cultural differences and confusions. Paul Igasaki, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco, recalls a recent lawsuit heard by a jury containing only one Asian American. The panel was puzzled by the failure of the plaintiffs to demonstrate sufficient passion over the damages they claimed to have suffered. More Asian Americans on the jury might have illuminated matters by pointing out that the plaintiffs came from a Chinese-Filipino culture that frowns upon public displays of emotion.

"We don't all see things in the same way," observes Beth Bonora of the National Jury Project, a trial consulting firm. "That's why the jury system exists in the first place." But how to arrive at the proper mix to ensure justice? The simplest step would be to expand the pool of potential jurors. The federal courts and nearly all states currently use the list of registered voters. Because minorities, among others, are underrepresented among voters, half the states and some of the federal courts add other lists, most commonly those of licensed drivers. That has problems too. Driver lists, for example, can underrepresent city dwellers, who are less likely to drive, but include ineligible nonresidents and noncitizens.