The Inexperienced Juror

During voir dire, jurors are asked whether there is any reason why they can’t be fair and impartial. One juror in Massachusetts answered the question honestly.

Q.: You feel like you might have a bias in the case?
A.: Yeah. I worked with, like, low income youth in a school setting. I worked a lot with people who were convicted of — like teenagers who were convicted of drug crimes. And frankly, I think the system is rigged against young African American males. I’m happy to serve on the jury trial — on the jury because I think it’s important, but —

Q.: You think that belief might interfere with your ability to be fair and impartial?
A.: I don’t think so.

After further prodding at the bench, questioning by the court concluded with this:

Q.: I have to be assured that you can though. You think you — as — as you sit in there, it might — your experiences with — with people in that type of a situation is going to have you look at it differently?
A.: Probably.

So she was removed for cause. On appeal, the defense challenged the removal.

The defendant argues on appeal that it was error to dismiss the prospective juror for cause because neither her work experience nor her belief that the criminal justice system is unfair to African-American men rendered her unfit to serve, and further that the dismissal was prejudicial. We agree that holding particular beliefs about how African-American men are  treated in the criminal justice system should not be automatically disqualifying. See Mason v. United States, 170 A.3d 182, 187 (D.C. 2017). However, that is not what happened here. The judge undertook to determine whether, given her opinion about the criminal justice system, the prospective juror could nevertheless be an impartial juror in the trial of an African-American man.

Jurors exist in the system as the conscience of the community, a bulwark against the government. Jurors are expected to bring their life experience into the box. Indeed, it would be impossible for them not to. But the issue raised here is whether life experience that leads them to conclude that the system is unfair precludes their service. Are only jurors who like the system acceptable for jury duty? It’s hardly such an odd question, given “death qualified” juries are restricted to only those jurors who believe that execution is an appropriate punishment.

We have not been particularly precise when discussing the handling of juror opinions, and, as a result, our jurisprudence is somewhat muddled regarding the proper procedure for determining impartiality when a prospective juror expresses any preconceived opinions he or she has regarding the case to be tried as compared to an opinion formed based on his or her life experiences or belief system. Nonetheless, there is an important difference between the two: asking a prospective juror to put aside his or her preconceived notions about the case to be tried is entirely appropriate (and indeed necessary); however, asking him or her to put aside opinions formed based on his or her life experiences or belief system is not.

The court draws a very nuanced distinction between a juror who can’t be impartial as to the specific case to be tried before her, as opposed to one whose life experiences might impair her ability to be impartial in general. Does this mean that a juror who expresses a hatred of cop in general, that they’re all racist or violent thugs, but expresses no specific hatred of the officer who will take the stand in the case on trial, is suitable?

Where, on the other hand, a prospective juror has expressed an opinion or world view based upon his or her life experience or belief system, rather than asking him or her to set it aside (which is difficult if not impossible to do), a judge must determine whether, given that particular opinion, the juror nevertheless is able to beimpartial in the case to be tried.

Thus, we emphasize that, in determining each prospective juror’s ability to be impartial, although a judge may require a prospective juror to set aside an opinion regarding the case,
the judge should not expect a prospective juror to set aside an opinion born of the prospective juror’s life experiences or belief system.

Much as this nuance may seem wonderful, and that it will provide defendants with a jury more of their peers, sharing similar life experiences, that’s merely how it plays out in under the facts of this particular case. What if the questioning at the bench produced a response from a potential juror that “black men are more prone to crime, more inclined to drugs and violence, but that doesn’t mean this particular defendant committed a crime, so I can be fair to him”? Too racist? Then what about “cops are brave heroes who save lives and aren’t appreciated for their sacrifice, but doesn’t mean the cop who will testify in this case is a hero”?

Every juror brings his or her life experience into the courtroom. We know it. We expect it. We want it. But what we don’t want is the person for whom the love is too great or the hate too deep to overcome the evidence in the case. Contrary to popular belief, lawyers don’t select jurors in the expectation of getting a panel that’s favorable to their side, but one that isn’t favorable to the other side.

Does it matter, then, where the juror’s prejudice comes from, specific to the case or just generic prejudice based on their life experience? The easy answer is that we shouldn’t absolve the police, the system, from its unfairness by precluding jurors who experience the world as one that treats a black defendant poorly. But are we prepared to seat badgelickers as well, for their life experiences are theirs, just as the juror in this case had hers.

A judge should not assume that a prospective juror is unable to be impartial merely because he or she expressed uncertainty about being able to put aside his or her firmly held beliefs.

The word “merely” carries a lot of weight here. And as the defendant in the case learned, it’s ultimately about prejudice no matter what, as his conviction was affirmed because he could not show that he was prejudiced by the dismissal of the potential juror for cause.

The Inexperienced Juror curated from Simple Justice