Author Topic: Sitting on a Jury (Read 1349 times)

Dolores · « **on:** April 15, 2015, 01:15:10 PM »

Is the concept of ordinary individuals sitting on a jury in a criminal trial consistent with Catholic teaching? There are many discussions among Catholics about the best form of government, but rarely is the judicial system discussed, and I was wondering what the Church teaches about this, if anything. I am asking in both a theoretical and a practical sense.

On the theoretical side, in an ideal Catholic State, would or could the judicial system include the concept of a trial by jury, or would it be more like continental Europe where the presiding judge (or perhaps a panel of judges) decides innocence or guilt?

On the practical side, could a Catholic morally sit on a jury in a modern secular state? Would it perhaps depend on the crime charged? For example, I don't think any Catholic would say that the crime of murder is an unjust imposition by modern governments, but there are others that may be. Would there be any other considerations? If a Catholic was called in for jury duty, what should he do?

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2015, 02:11:51 PM »

I know of no Catholic moral doctrine that would prohibit or even discourage a Catholic from sitting on a jury. Perhaps someone may be able to provide something.

Since, in the United States anyway, the jury has an absolute right to reject the argument that a crime has even been committed--even if the prosecution proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused as violated a statute--I think a Catholic should serve on a jury if called. If the violation of statute is clearly a violation of an unjust law, the Catholic should refuse to convict using the principle of "jury nullification".

So, to answer your question, it would not depend upon the charge or the jurisdiction of the court. If convicting the accused would offend justice, even if he clearly violated a statute, the jury's refusal to convict is the last protection against injustice and tyranny.

Remember that even the "rulings" of the courts, while they do apply absolutely in particular cases, are still called "opinions" because they are intended to argue the case on law. When the judge tells you what the law "is", he is telling you his opinion and if he is not persuasive in his reasons and you still see that the law is unjust, then you are duty bound to reject his opinion. Any unjust law is not law--it is tyranny and must be rejected.

Dolores · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2015, 03:28:44 PM »

Interesting point on jury nullification, TKGS. However, could a Catholic ever vote in favor or jury nullification, as it would likely violate the oath that he took when he became a member of the jury? For example, in the US federal courts, jurors must take an oath to follow the law as directed by the judge, and that the jurors may not substitute their own opinion of what the law should be in place of the judge's directions. In order to vote for nullification, the juror would have to break this oath, and presumably commit the sin of lying.

TKGS · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2015, 03:55:08 PM »

The principle of jury nullification is not contrary to law or rules. John Jay, the 1st Chief Justice of the supreme court, in 1789, wrote, "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

In Marbury vs. Madison, the ruling of the supreme court said, "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

In, U.S. vs. Dougherty, the supreme court held, "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge."

I would like to see the precise wording of the oath that you reference. Which laws must we follow? Which rules? It is already clear that federal laws and rules conflict in many cases. Are oath-bound to treat the judge sitting in that particular court as infallible? Or do the federal judges merely provide instructions and make suggestions during the course of jury selection and the trial that they must ignore reality and truth in order to come to the verdict desired by the government?

I truly doubt that voting to acquit a defendant because the convicting him would violate law or justice would be to break the oath. It is inconceivable to me that federal courts require an oath that is, on its face, immoral. Can you tell me what the actual oath is?

This is from Wikipedia:

Quote

In the United States, a federal juror's oath usually states something to the effect of, "Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?"

Jury instructions sometimes make reference to the juror's oath. For example, the Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions developed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit for use by U.S. District Courts state:

"You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

"You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took."

If Wikipedia is correct, then clearly one could vote to acquit because the evidence clearly shows the a conviction would not be just. The judge's instructions shown above make a lot of claims, but clearly it is intended to intimidate not elucidate.

I couldn't find any other specific quote of a federal juror's oath on the internet.

Miseremini · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2015, 05:34:17 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Interesting point on jury nullification, TKGS. However, could a Catholic ever vote in favor or jury nullification, as it would likely violate the oath that he took when he became a member of the jury? For example, in the US federal courts, jurors must take an oath to follow the law as directed by the judge, and that the jurors may not substitute their own opinion of what the law should be in place of the judge's directions. In order to vote for nullification, the juror would have to break this oath, and presumably commit the sin of lying.

Is a Catholic even allowed to swear an oath? In Canada witnesses are asked if they will tell the truth but are not required to Swear.
It took multiculturalism to get rid of swearing because to so many the bible means nothing.

Doesn't the bible actually forbid swearing an oath?
:geezer:

JoeZ · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2015, 07:49:51 PM »

The whole point of having a jury is to safeguard the people from a bad law. If the jury is restricted to determining only if the accused breached the law and not if the law is wrong, then professional juries would serve us better as they won't fall for the defense lawyer's tricks as easy as a jury of peers. So even if the judge instructs the jury to only determine breaking of the law or not (if he does he he is wrong); a jury must, under pain of sin, find guilt only when the defendant has done something morally wrong, i.e. sinned. A person is only guilty if they have sinned.

God bless,
JoeZ

poche · « **Reply #6 on:** April 16, 2015, 10:53:25 PM »

Is a Catholic even allowed to swear an oath? In Canada witnesses are asked if they will tell the truth but are not required to Swear.
It took multiculturalism to get rid of swearing because to so many the bible means nothing.

Doesn't the bible actually forbid swearing an oath?

It is an erroneous interpretation of some Protestant sects that it is forbidden to take an oath.

poche · « **Reply #7 on:** April 16, 2015, 10:56:43 PM »

In some countries which have juries it is a duty of citizenship to be available to participate in juries. This obligation is based on the fourth commandment to honor your mother and father and by extention respecting and obeying all legitimate authority in ways which to not contravene teh divine law.

ThomisticPhilosopher · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2015, 11:47:41 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

I know of no Catholic moral doctrine that would prohibit or even discourage a Catholic from sitting on a jury. Perhaps someone may be able to provide something.

Since, in the United States anyway, the jury has an absolute right to reject the argument that a crime has even been committed--even if the prosecution proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused as violated a statute--I think a Catholic should serve on a jury if called. If the violation of statute is clearly a violation of an unjust law, the Catholic should refuse to convict using the principle of "jury nullification".

So, to answer your question, it would not depend upon the charge or the jurisdiction of the court. If convicting the accused would offend justice, even if he clearly violated a statute, the jury's refusal to convict is the last protection against injustice and tyranny.

Remember that even the "rulings" of the courts, while they do apply absolutely in particular cases, are still called "opinions" because they are intended to argue the case on law. When the judge tells you what the law "is", he is telling you his opinion and if he is not persuasive in his reasons and you still see that the law is unjust, then you are duty bound to reject his opinion. Any unjust law is not law--it is tyranny and must be rejected.

I would second what TKGS has said, jury nullification is the way out in cases where the law is truly against either natural law or divine law. Which in our modern era can be quite often, there is nothing immoral with sitting as a part of a jury case, to judge your peers. The only thing that these individuals should do of course is make their judgment based on true law, rather than what they think is right, or even what the law of the land currently declares as good or bad. Most human laws, are not contrary to natural law, or divine law, so this is not something we would always have to recourse to.