About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

32 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 481 (1998-1999)
Jury Room Secrecy: Has the Time Come to Unlock the Door

handle is hein.journals/sufflr32 and id is 491 raw text is: Jury Room Secrecy: Has the Time Come to Unlock the Door?

Juries are a great institution, with a proud history. As we approach the 21st
century, however, we need to make sure we do not remain so wedded to
practices hailing from the 20th, or the 18th, or the 13th, that we make it
difficult for juries to do their jobs well. It is my hope that everyone concerned
with the proper functioning of our justice system will take this issue seriously,
to think hard about ways in which juries can be made to work better, and not to
fear change simply because it is different.I
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States has, from the inception of its Constitution, considered the
right to a trial by a jury of one's peers to be a fundamental right.2              The
American jury system represents a strong commitment to the belief that a panel
consisting of lay members of the community shall be vested with the power to
deprive one of their fellow members of his or her property, freedom, or life.
Accordingly, when a member of society faces the possibility of losing one of
these fundamental rights, a panel of individuals from the community is called
upon and entrusted with the power to determine that individual's fate.4 After
hearing the evidence presented by the parties, these individuals are permitted to
deliberate in secret and report their verdict without offering any reasons for it.5
Not surprisingly, scholars have debated the merits of the jury system
throughout American history.6 In addition, courts have also been called upon
recently to consider questions regarding the ability of juries to understand the
1. Sandra Day O'Connor, Juries: They May Be Broken, But We Can Fix Them, 44-Jun. FEDERAL
LAWYER 20, 25 (1997).
2. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI (securing criminal defendant's right to trial by impartial jury); see also
U.S. CONST. amend. Vl1 (preserving right to trial by jury where amount in controversy exceeds threshold
requirement). While the Seventh Amendment is not applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment, each state has a similar provision preserving a right to a jury trial for civil litigants. See Paul B.
Weiss, Comment, Reforming Tort Reform: Is There Substance to the Seventh Amendment?, 38 CATH. U.L.
Rsv. 737, 739 (1989).
3. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV (guaranteeing no individual shall endure deprivation of fundamental
right without due process of law).
4. See supra note 2 and accompanying text (explaining individual's right to trial by impartial jury).
5. See United States v. Virginia Erection Corp., 335 F.2d 868, 872 (4th Cir. 1964) (recognizing principle
that jurors must deliberate in private and that deliberations must remain secret); see also GuiDo CALABRESI
AND PHILLIP BOBBIT, TRAGIC CHOICES 57-64 (1978) (noting jurors not required to explain their decisions).
6. See HARRY KALVEN, JR. AND HANS KEISEL, THE AMERICAN JURY 4 (1966) (listing numerous legal
scholars throughout American history who have commented on jury system). Interestingly, the arguments
formulated by both sides of the debate point to the same characteristics of the jury system for support. See id.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most