×

Jury system antiquated

DEAR EDITOR:

In a recent jury trial, Paul Manafort was found guilty on 8 of 18 charges. According to one of the serving jurists who appeared on MSNBC later, the jurors were well-versed on the charges but one juror held out. That dissenting juror was probably a Trump loyalist. In such a case, U.S. law says that a judge may declare a mistrial on the 10 charges, set a new trial date and the jury process begins all over.

For the sake argument, say that in a second trial, a Trump loyalist hangs the jury on 9 of those 10 charges. In other words, the dissenter argues that Manafort is not guilty on 9 of those charges and the other jurist cannot convince him otherwise. Remember, according to U.S. law, in such a case, a judge may declare a mistrial, set a new trial and the jury selection process begins all over. The accused now will be tried on 9 charges.

What if in a third trial, some crazy jurist hangs the jury on all 9 charges. This mistrial and jury selection process can go on and on until the accused is eventually found guilty on all 18 charges. That’s unfair, and there is no full-proof method of selecting an objective and unbiased jury.

In the Manafort trial, one dissenting juror forced plans for a retrial. That was ended only when a plea deal was struck Friday. What’s the purpose of hanging a jury on 10 charges if it can’t change a final result? Our system is antiquated. In Canada, a jury’s verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous. The U.S. needs to adopt the Canadian system.

ALFRED SPENCER

Warren

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
     

Starting at $4.85/week.

Subscribe Today