Was there ever a time where people thought of the use of Juried Trial helpful or not? Normally, during a justice process, there will always be a number of jury together helping near the end of each case. What is a jury? Jury is a number of people that give a verdict during a legal case, depending on what evidence is given to them in court. Even though it is the jury’s duty to give the verdict near the end of each court, there are some times where things can get very unfair to the people in society. The use of juried trials could hinder the justice process depending on the jury’s verdict on specific cases. For some juries, possibly there could be some bias juries giving the verdict to help the accused. Some juried would have feelings, where they could have been feeling the same as the accused, which could affect the trial. When the juries state their verdict, they don’t need to explain their reason to their answers and it could leave people confused and asking themselves “why did they state this verdict?”.
During a justice process, some juries could be very unfair by helping the accused. This means that the jury is being bias to the accused by giving unfair better treatment to only one person while the others does not get the treatment at all. For example there a case called “Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado” (Totenberg, “Supreme Court Hears Case On Racial Bias In Jury Deliberations”) where a man named Pena-Rodriguez went into a girls washroom and ask two girls if they wanted to party, the two girls said “no” and tried to leave. But the man turned off the lights, then committed unlawful sexual conduct and harassment to them both. ‘Based on these affidavits, which related racially biased statements about Pena-Rodriguez’s likely guilt and the alibi witness’ lack of credibility because both were Hispanic, Pena-Rodriguez moved for a new trial.'(Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado) Adding this up, it means that one of the juror was being racially bias during jury decision making because the accused and juror are both ‘hispanic’. In the conclusion of the case it said “Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.” Overall the used of juried trials are a waste of time because of some relied on racial stereotypes for their decision making.
Through many cases, decision making of a juror could be affected by depending on what the defendant/accused side of the story is. Sometimes the jurors could have already had a setted mood before the trial or during the trial, which again could affect their decision making because of the emotions they are in. As expected, by the written work on evaluating the behaviour, the jurors process evidence in a consistent manner with hidden judgments form of their emotional state.(Maroney, “Emotion in the Behavior and Decision Making of Jurors and Judges”) Therefore the ones in a emotional condition would have an impact, which is impossible for the jurors to be responsive on what the evidence are. For an example, there is a case called “Maryland v. Craig” where a woman named Sandra Ann Craig who is a operator of a kindergarten/ preschool facility, was accused of sexually abusing a child (age six). The trial court allowed the unproven victim to give evidence as a witness outside the courtroom with using the one way closed circuit television over the accused’s objections. What is a Closed Circuit Television(CCTV)? ‘It is a secured video system in which signals are transmitted from a video camera to a specific television monitors.’CCTV would be used as a room for the witness that could be traumatized/ nervous while giving evidence in front of their sexual abuser. (Closed-Circuit Television Statutes). After the Judge and jury viewed the evidence, the accused was charged but was later on reversed in the Maryland high court. The example of this case, shows that if the victim never shows emotion in front of the jury, it would not impact the decision making of the jury because they could easily be affected but it could be affected the other way around. Overall the used of juried trials could hinder the justice process because of their feelings.
Generally speaking, there are times where juries are helpful during justice process without any flaws. But in the end, the used of juried trials hinder the justice process because of some major mistakes they could make depending on what the cases are. Possibly there are many cons for juries in a trial, but there mainly two important reasons. Which possibly the jurors could be bias to the defendant/accused during the verdict. Another reason would be how sometimes the jurors could be emotionally unstable to the evidence in the case and it could affect the decision making.