The Jury’s Role in American Society, or How I Learned to Love the Jury Box (Part 2)

Part 2

Introduction

This blog post is part of a two-post series exploring how the jury box—both historically and in the modern legal landscape—serves as the cornerstone of American justice. The first post Can Be Found Here and delves into the origins of the jury, tracing its path from England to colonial America and into its enshrinement in the Constitution, as well as the philosophical underpinnings regarding the importance of the jury box. This follow-up post examines the jury's place in American criminal and civil cases, reflecting on how the American jury’s role differs from other English common-law traditions and highlighting the foundational assumptions of U.S. governance. In so doing, we at Camuti Law Group APC hope to provide an informative and enlightening perspective on why jury service stands as one of the most critical and profound elements of the American legal system. If you have a civil litigation matter involving your intellectual property, copyrights, trademarks, or patents, whether as a plaintiff or whether you were served with a lawsuit as a defendant, the intellectual property and litigation professionals of Camuti Law Group APC can help you seek a resolution to your case.

Role of Juries in Criminal Cases

Accordingly, nowhere is the jury’s role more critical than in criminal cases. These cases place an individual’s liberty—or even life—at stake and at the mercy of the state’s hands. Under the U.S. system anyone accused of a “serious crime has the right to be tried by a jury of his or her peers​. These crimes are generally those punishable by six or more months in jail. This right to a fair, speedy trial forces the government to prove the accused’s guilt before a group of ordinary citizens, beyond their reasonable doubts and under the watchful eye of a neutral judge. Generally, the jurors must even unanimously agree before someone can be convicted of a crime. This purposefully high threshold is designed to err on the side of an individual’s liberty, which reflects the idea that it’s better for ten guilty persons to go free than for one innocent to be wrongly convicted. It also reflects profound trust placed in the collective judgment of everyday people.

The jury’s presence fundamentally changes the dynamics of criminal justice. Prosecutors know they must satisfy the minds of twelve jurors rather than just persuade a single judge, which discourages arbitrary or weak charges. Further, the jury’s verdict must be based solely on evidence presented to them in open court and the law as explained to the jury by the judge. Jurors deliberate away from the court in secret to reach a verdict, a process kept free from outside influence. When they finally return to the courtroom to announce “guilty” or “not guilty,” that decision carries the legitimacy of the community’s decision making ability. Effectively, the jury box serves as a counterweight against government power within criminal justice. By standing as a final barrier against potential government overreach, the jury aims to ensure that no one is punished unless the We the People ourselves are convinced of guilt.

History provides dramatic examples of juries tempering justice with community values. Colonial American juries sometimes refused to convict neighbors under British laws they felt were unjust, such as laws against criticizing the Crown​. In doing so the jury acted as the conscience of the community, effectively nullifying unjust law. While this is effectively the concept of jury nullification (deciding a case contrary to the law or evidence) and is a controversial topic today, these episodes underscore that the jury serves as a safety valve for the system. The mere existence of the possibility of jury nullification means lawmakers and prosecutors must consider community moral standards when crafting and enforcing laws.

Comparatively, the American reliance on juries in criminal cases is distinctive. While other democracies certainly use juries (for example, Britain, Canada, and Australia all have jury trials for serious offenses) some differences stand out. Many of these other countries do not require unanimous verdicts; a 10-2 or 7-5 vote may be enough to convict. By insisting on unanimity in serious criminal cases, the U.S. sets a higher bar for conviction​ than is found in many other countries. Some nations also use smaller juries (for instance, six or nine jurors), or utilize professional judges alongside jurors. And quite a few countries simply entrust criminal decisions entirely to the state’s judges. Other free, democratic societies either abolished or never adopted criminal juries in the first place. For example, countries like Chile, India, Mexico, the Netherlands, and South Africa all utilize judge-only trials in criminal cases​. These choices made by states often reflect different philosophies: a greater confidence in professional judges, or different historical experiences regarding the exercise of state power. In contrast with the above, the U.S. philosophy has long favored maximizing the involvement of citizens as a check on capricious authority. The result is that an American defendant can take comfort in knowing that they are relatively lucky to have the right to a jury trial, even if they had the misfortune to end up in criminal court in the first place. The jury’s role in criminal cases is nothing less than to ensure the justice and fairness of the legal system by making the community’s voice an integral part of the decision-making process when the government accuses someone of a crime.

Role of Juries in Civil Cases

That jury service is also utilized in civil cases is another area where the U.S. stands out. The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil lawsuits involving claims “at common law” above a small dollar amount​. Essentially, these are claims for money damages based on causes of action that existed at the time of the Constitution’s framing; a tort claim like battery is an example. Many state constitutions have similar provisions, meaning that in a typical personal injury case, contract dispute, or many other civil lawsuits, either party can often request a trial by jury. The jury then becomes the finder of fact in the case, deciding key issues like who was negligent or at fault, or how much money to award in fair compensation for an injury. American jurors in civil cases have delivered many famous verdicts, from billion-dollar damages awards against corporate polluters to decisions holding a criminal defendant who was found not guilty of murder civilly liable for the victim’s death. The civil jury is a way of injecting common societal values into civil justice, just as the criminal jury does in criminal justice.

Most countries do not use juries for civil cases. The United States is one of the few nations that broadly allow civil jury trials​. For example, England has largely restricted the use of civil juries except for rare, specific situations or when one is ordered by a judge. While Canada and Australia permit civil juries in some instances, they are used much less frequently than in the U.S. And many civil law countries (like France, Germany, and others in Europe) have no tradition of civil jury trials at all. Instead, civil matters are decided by professional judges or mixed tribunals of judges and lay assessors.

This drastic difference partly stems from the legal theories embraced by a particular populace and justice system. In civil disputes between private parties, many other systems prioritize regulations and statutes ruled on by expert decision-makers, whereas Americans have historically mistrusted judges (as elites, the apparatus of the government, or simply seen as potentially biased) and accordingly demand society at large have a say even in most private lawsuits. The American civil jury reflects the belief that justice is better served when the community helps decide what is reasonable, what is fair, and what values to uphold in society. In serving to democratize the civil justice system, the jury box helps prevent courtroom procedure from becoming a purely insiders’ game played only by lawyers before judges.

That said, the civil jury has faced numerous criticisms over the years. For example, concerns about jurors being swayed by emotion or delivering inconsistent damage awards are regularly expressed. In response certain reforms and limits have been implemented, such as statutory caps on damages in certain cases or allowing judicial scrutiny of verdicts deemed “excessive.” Yet, the American civil jury endures as a cherished institution. It provides a balancing counterweight to otherwise overwhelmingly powerful or influential groups: a big corporation facing a lawsuit must ultimately make its case before a group of average citizens who decide the fate of the matter. This can somewhat serve to level the playing field for an individual plaintiff. It is no surprise then that the Founders saw jury trials in civil cases as another of liberty’s bulwarks, as the jury box ensures that disputes are largely resolved not by diktat of the state or appointed officials but by the “lawful judgment of [one’s] Peers.” Even before the application of the Seventh Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, many state constitutions picked up the same principle. To this day when stepping into an American civil courtroom one often finds a selection of ordinary citizens waiting to be empaneled—a reminder that self-governance in the U.S. is realized not just at the ballot box, but through the jury box as well.

Jury Systems Worldwide Display Contrasting Philosophies of Governance

Now looking beyond just the U.S., jury systems around the world exhibit wide variations in implementation. These reflect the different historical and philosophical pressures placed upon a state’s citizens by prior governance. Broadly speaking, common law countries (those with legal systems derived from England) tend to use juries more than civil law countries (those more influenced by continental Europe’s legal traditions). Accordingly, there are notable differences in the importance and primacy of the jury’s role found throughout westernized democracies.

In Britain, the birthplace of the American jury system, trial by jury remains for serious criminal offenses. As the American legal tradition is derived from the English, British juries likewise symbolize the citizen’s role in checking ill-exercised state power. However, the British have curtailed the use of civil juries extensively as far back as 1933, and even in criminal cases the English system allows for verdicts by a 10-2 majority if jurors cannot all agree. While Canada and Australia also use juries in criminal trials and have similar English roots in seeing juries as important, a Canadian or Australian civil trial featuring a jury is a relatively rare one. Though these countries all share similar ideals with the American system of liberal democracy, their practical choices about when to use juries differ.

On the other hand, many European countries with civil law traditions historically saw juries as far less central to the fair administration of justice. For example, Germany and Italy do not utilize purely lay juries for ordinary criminal trials; instead, they often use mixed courtrooms where a panel of professional judges and citizen lay assessors decide the case together​. While France introduced jury trials for serious crimes around the time of its revolution (unsurprisingly inspired by ideas of popular sovereignty much like America’s​ own) it later developed a hybrid system: in modern French assize courts, several citizens sit alongside professional magistrates and vote on the final verdict, typically by supermajority rather than unanimity​. Some countries that once had juries have abolished the practice entirely. For instance, South Africa ended its use of jury trials in the 1960s​, and many other nations never adopted the practice at all, instead preferring the use of career judges to determine guilt or liability.

These choices generally relate back to the different views a populace takes of state and society. In countries that experience harsh authoritarian rule, jury trials are often viewed as an impediment to centralized control and are regularly an early casualty of despots. For instance, one of the first things the Nazi regime did in Germany was to effectively eliminate jury trials and transfer the power and mechanisms of justice into the arms of hand-picked judges who expressed the “right ideas.” By contrast, countries with strong democratic traditions tend to value jury participation as a sign of the state’s compact with its people. It’s telling that after the fall of undemocratic or despotic regimes, some nations reintroduced juries or the use of lay judges as a signal of the government’s return to people-centered justice. Japan is a notable example even in modern times, as in 2009 the country instituted a mixed jury system (involving both citizens and judges) for serious crimes as an effort to increase public involvement in the legal process, a major shift from its prior judge-only system.

Overall, the U.S. jury system is a stand out for how broadly it relies on everyday citizens. This is inextricably linked to the American ethos of government: a deep-seated skepticism of unchecked authority and a commitment to the idea that the government only exists to act by the consent of the governed. By requiring that We the People exercise our voice before the state can hijack the freedoms guaranteed to us the Constitution clearly shows that the state is beholden to the will of its population, not the other way around. While many other democracies share a similar goal of fair trials and justice, they achieve it through structures that sometimes place more faith in bureaucracy (judges) rather than the voice of direct democracy (juries). Neither approach is “wrong.” They are simply products of unique historical trajectories. What’s clear, however, is that the American jury embodies a specific, very distinctive vision of governance: one where individual citizens are trusted with enormous responsibility in administering justice and keeping the incredible power ceded to the government in check. As one participant in the process stated, the American jury is “the purest example of democracy in action that I have ever experienced.”​ Juror letter to Hon. Raymond J. Brassard, quoted by him in Juries Help Keep Our Democracy Working, Boston Globe, May 1, 2003 at A19.

Jury Service as a Civic Duty and Privilege

Because the jury is so fundamental to the concept and administration of justice in the U.S., serving on a jury should rightly be viewed as a civic duty on par with voting. Courts rely on ordinary citizens to answer their call when summoned. Without a large pool of willing jurors, the entire system grinds to a halt. But beyond necessity, there’s the profound civic significance standing behind jury service. When a citizen serves on a jury, they aren’t working for the government; they are telling the government how society insists things should go down. They become, in that courtroom for that case, the stand in for all of our voices. This is why many judges and civic leaders emphasize jury duty’s importance. As the City of Missoula, Montana put it in an outreach message: serving as a juror, along with voting, is “the ordinary citizen’s greatest opportunity to participate in, and protect our democracy.”​

City of Missoula, https://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/FAQ.aspx?QID=852. It is a chance to directly uphold the principle that our government and laws operate only with the people’s consent, and for their benefit.

Practically speaking, jury duty can be challenging. It means taking time off work, listening to sometimes lengthy or circuitous testimony, and wrestling with complex facts, instructions, and laws. Yet, those who serve often report it to be a rewarding and eye-opening experience. They gain insight into the justice system, bond with fellow jurors from different walks of life, and have the satisfaction of knowing they played a key part in the delivery of justice. Jury service is one of the most important exercises of civic virtue a citizen can undertake: the putting aside of one’s personal agendas or biases to fairly judge a dispute or accusation according to the law and evidence presented. In a very real sense, jurors perform the most direct form of self-governance imaginable. They effectively tell the government or other citizens how the law should work. Further, even the jury room itself is a microcosm of democratic deliberation, and participation in the process can cement ideas of fairness, balance, understanding, and resolved compromise.

It’s also worth remembering that jury service hasn’t always been open to all Americans—it was historically limited by race and gender. In the early republic women were barred from jury service and African-Americans, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, also had no such rights. It took many generations of struggle (and cases like Taylor v. Louisiana in 1975) to ensure juries are drawn from a fair, representative cross-section of the community​. Today, virtually any adult citizen, regardless of status or background, can be called to serve. Thus, service on a jury is not only an important duty but also a crucial foundational privilege that truly equal citizenship necessitates. It’s a role in which all members of the community stand on equal footing. The millionaire and the minimum-wage worker, the college professor and the cab driver; all can sit side by side in the jury box, sharing an equal voice, and vote on the direction justice takes. A powerful statement about American equality and popular sovereignty in a time of massive campaign donations and the outsize voice held in politics by special interests.

Conclusion

The American jury is clearly far more than merely a fact-finding panel; it is the very touchstone of a justice system that answers to the people it adjudicates over. The jury’s history from English common law, through the trials of colonial America, and to its enshrinement in the Constitution reflects an ongoing commitment to the idea that tyranny is oppressed and liberty and justice thrive best when the people themselves hold power. The jury brings the ideals of the Revolution—government by consent of the governed, the struggles against despotism, and the primacy of individual rights—into the courtroom in tangible form. It ensures that our legal system does not become distant or detached from the society it serves. Every jury verdict, whether in a small civil dispute or a high-profile criminal case, is a reaffirmation that here in the United States, the people rule. Not a king, a prime minister, or a president, who all instead exist to serve the will of the governed. Not the other way around.

So, the next time you receive a jury summons, remember that it’s calling you to uphold a tradition at least as old as Athens and as vital to democratic survival as voting. It is an invitation to step into the shoes of the generations of citizens who have guarded our liberty through jury service​. In a country with no king or queen, we are each the sovereigns. And by serving on a jury, we exercise that sovereignty. Though jury duty may sometimes be inconvenient, it is also an important act of patriotism and an important cornerstone to maintain so that the justice and fairness in our system are preserved. The jury’s role in the courtroom stands as one of the three boxes by which the government of the United States is mandated to truly serve its people. The humble jury, in all its democratic glory, remains forever essential to the character of American freedom and the enduring idea that the governed, not the government, are the ultimate arbiters of law and justice.

Post by Andrew Cowan