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