Are Judges and Juries Impartial?
The U.S Constitution states in the 6th amendment that each individual has the right to a fair trial without any bias; is this truly possible in the society we live in today?
The 6th Amendment (the right to a fair speedy trial) and the 14th Amendment (established birthright citizenship) were made to ensure that each individual has the right to equal protection regardless of who they are. To ensure this, the court uses a process called voir dire, when a multitude of possible jurors stand before a judge and answer questions about their different qualifications so that the judge can assure that the prospective jurors do not have a personal interest in the case and that they can render an impartial verdict.
However, does the process of voir dire actually produce an impartial jury? If conducted correctly and thoroughly, it could. Defense attorneys use this process to understand if there is anyone who has a fixed opinion on something that would create a biased trial. Oftentimes, if the court allows for it, the defense may dive into personal histories to understand a person's perspective better. For example, if a survivor of sexual abuse has to defend someone being accusing of rape, they may struggle to remain impartial.
However, ensuring impartiality in practice extends beyond jury selection to the dynamics of the courtroom itself.
Gabby Lazzaro, a Brooklyn Law School graduate who practices family law across five New York City-area counties, observes that bias often depends on the jurisdiction.
“I work in five different counties, some of which are smaller and some of which are larger,” says Lazzaro. “Sometimes the small-county judges know the attorneys on a first-name basis, and in those courts, it is less likely for an attorney from another county to get a fair trial for their clients.”
Asked whether she had experienced first hand bias within a courtroom, Lazarro discussed a case where a couple was fighting over custody of their child. One of the parents was gay and the judge awarded custody of the child to the other, straight parent. She further explained that when the judge explained his decision, it was clear that he was conservative and did not want the gay parent to have custody of the child.
Perspectives from civil practice echo similar structural concerns. Michelle Sharoni, a University of San Francisco School of Law alumna and managing attorney at a Los Angeles business and civil litigation firm, notes that a juror's bias is based on their history and experiences as well as their upbringing. For example, Sharoni described how she handled a case involving a business dispute between two partners and during the period when she engaged in the voir dire of the jury, it became clear that one of the jurors has preexisting bias against one of the parties in the dispute due to their race. That juror was excused from the panel because it was clear that he could not render an unbiased decision. “There are times where jurors are not honest about their true feelings and opinions which can result in a mistrial,” said Sharoni. Decisions that are made based on emotions or opinions rather than actual facts and evidence can make a trial completely unfair and can result in charging innocent people with crimes they did not commit.
Judges must also be cautious not to form relationships with parties and organizations that may cause the public to question the integrity of the justice system. A jury or judge with any type of bias affects not only the defendant but can also cause a significant loss of trust within the justice system.
A judge must also be careful not to make online comments about the case that they are presiding on that may be construed as biased. Social media has a strong influence on the public's opinion and is easily accessible to everyone, and so judges must also be careful with what they say and consume. Therefore, judges in particular have to be extremely cautious in how they proceed with their daily life during a highly publicized trial.
As a general rule, judges are not prohibited from utilizing social media while they serve on a particular case. This is true even when a case is highly publicized. The only restrictions applicable to judges in this regard concerns the importance of maintaining their independence, impartiality, integrity and avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
High profile trials are usually more likely to contain a type of bias or “potential juror misconduct.” During O.J. Simpson's trial, a highly publicized case in 1995, jurors were isolated for almost a full year to avoid any possibility of bias or any juror misconduct.
Another potential factor that may contribute to a bias in a courtroom are racial and social dynamics. Sometimes jurors' personal experience or upbringing may affect their view on race and social status which could possibly bring bias to a trial. The O.J. Simpson trial is relevant to this once again because many people believe that his defense benefited from mostly black jury members (9 out of 12).
Additionally, homicide cases involving white victims are known to be more likely to result in death sentences than those involving black victims. Three quarters of death penalties involve white victims.
Within the last 40 years, about 35% of the individuals that were executed under the death penalty were black. To put this in perspective, African Americans represent about 13% of the population.
Even with Voir Dire, it is extremely difficult to fully ensure that there is an unbiased juror or judge. There are many preventative measures taken to try and avoid it but it is a complex system. Ensuring that any potential judge or jury does not have any biases or personal opinions that may affect the outcome of a case is extremely vital because the goal is to avoid any individual getting charged with a crime that they did not commit.
Comments