This one will be a sort of quickie, but I am quoting from page 163 and 164 of “Consequences,” regarding trial by jury. It is a thought 99% of lawyers and citizens have never questioned, and take it as law and un-changeable.
Try these on for size. “In England, juries are generally picked by the judge. The judge is permitted to question the witnesses, unlike in America. The British not only allow the judge to select the jury, question the witnesses in front of the jury, but perhaps most importantly, the loser pays. In England, if you bring a frivolous suit and lose, you pay not only your own legal fees, but the winner’s.”
“The main problem with current trial by jury, is that it is necessary to have a unanimous verdict to convict a criminal. We are so used to that system, few have ever questioned it. The Constitution says nothing about a unanimous verdict. Amendment 7 of the Bill of Rights reads, “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise examined in any court of the United States, according to the rules of common law.” In other words, a man has the right to a jury trial, not a unanimous jury trial. The Supreme Court isn’t unanimous, and neither are military tribunals, other multi-judge panels, or some civil jury trials. Elections aren’t unanimous and for that matter, I can think of no other segment in our civilization which requires unanimous anything to be passed or enabled. Why isn’t a 65% vote sufficient for a jury verdict? Why does it have to be unanimous? The consequences of requiring a unanimous verdict, are that thousands of guilty are set free each year.”
I thought all but a very few of “I Hold These Truths” were gone, but I found a case full which had escaped me, so a few are available, at the same $9.95 rate, shipped to you. Only singles please, as there are far too few for more than one to a person. Don Stott 1-888-786-8822