« Off to Temple to participate in great program on prosecutorial discretion | Main | New report on mandatory minimum sentences from Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing »
October 18, 2009
Effective review of the decline of the criminal jury trial in Virginia and elsewhere
The News Virginian has this interesting and effective article, headlined "Number of juried trials slumps both in Virginia, nationwide," that spotlights a trend that many shrewd criminal justice observers have known for some time. Here are excerpts from the piece:Jury trials remain a favorite of American film and literature but not of the criminal-justice system, where their use long has been in decline here and across the country. The trend has accelerated in recent decades as tougher sentencing laws leave more defendants unwilling to assert a right found in Magna Carta and the U.S. Constitution and that is recognized by all states.
In the year that ended June 30, 2008, little more than 1 percent of felony convictions in Virginia courts were at the hands of jurors. Nearly 90 percent were the result of guilty pleas and the rest in trials before judges.
Guilty pleas help keep courts running efficiently, but as relatively fewer people perform one of the most serious of civic duties, experts believe public confidence in the criminal-justice system, if not justice itself, might suffer.
Josh Bowers, a professor of law at the University of Virginia, said, “We’re already at what would seem to be almost a bare minimum of jury trials for a criminal-justice system that recognizes a jury trial right.” It did not happen overnight.
Thirty years ago, Albert Alschuler, a law professor at the University of Chicago, complained in Time magazine that “here we have an elaborate jury trial system and only 10 percent of the accused get to use it.” “That’s like solving America’s transportation problems by giving 10 percent Cadillacs and making the rest go barefoot,” he said. Reached by telephone recently, Alschuler said “things are much worse” these days.
“Trials and, especially, sentencing proceedings have become ever more complicated, and legislatures have made many additions to the prosecutors’ ‘tool kit,’” he said. The jury trial rate has been cut in half across the country — even more so in Virginia — since Alschuler’s complaint of 1978....
According to the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, in the year that ended June 30, 2008, juries were responsible for just 1.3 percent of 27,195 felony convictions in Virginia — the lowest percentage yet recorded by the commission. Nationally, of the more than 1 million felony convictions in 2004, 95 percent were resolved by guilty pleas, with the remaining 5 percent in judge or jury trials, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bowers, Alschuler and others believe that tough sentencing laws passed by Congress and the states in the 1980s and 1990s in response to rising crime — and predictions of rising crime — are a factor contributing to the national decline in jury trials....
Virginia is one of only a handful of states where juries sentence in addition to determining guilt. Also, since 1994, juries here have been told about a defendant’s prior criminal record when deciding on a sentence. Unlike judges, juries are not informed of the sentencing guidelines and must sentence within the minimum and maximum terms that remain in the state code.
So in cases where the state law calls for a minimum sentence of five years, five years is the best a defendant can hope to get from a jury. If the defendant pleads guilty, however, a judge complying with the guideline can suspend four years of the five-year term. Also, because the judge, defendant and the prosecution must all agree to waive a jury trial, by threatening to demand a jury, prosecutors are in a better position to negotiate, or force guilty pleas.
In the first full fiscal year after the 1995 truth-in-sentencing reforms, jury convictions in Virginia were cut in half — from 4 percent of all felonies to 2 percent. The number has risen and fallen since, to the most recent level of 1.3 percent. And since 1995, jury sentences tend to be far stiffer than those from judges.
In a 2004 study of jury sentencing in Virginia and two other states, two professors at the Vanderbilt University School of Law confidentially surveyed judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys. They found that jury sentencing is supported overwhelmingly by Virginia prosecutors — and among some defense attorneys — because they believe it deters jury trials....
John Douglass, a former federal prosecutor and dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, said, “It’s ironic — jury sentencing in Virginia is suppressing the right to jury trial.” “The notion that your opportunity for a jury trial should come at the cost of a significantly higher sentence is troubling,” he said. “It seems odd that a jury can be used as a threat, rather than a right, or an opportunity.”...
Bowers said the trend toward fewer juries was going on before tougher modern sentencing and the use of guidelines. Long ago, he said, when there were far fewer procedural protections for defendants, there were far more jury trials. “It wasn’t uncommon for a court to hear 20 felony jury trials in a day in the 18th-century court.”...
The full jury trial of today, however, is expensive and time-consuming. Douglass said heavy caseloads make it difficult to try many cases. “So prosecutors and defense counsel are looking for an alternative, and it leads to plea bargaining,” he said.
October 18, 2009 at 02:59 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a6499820970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Effective review of the decline of the criminal jury trial in Virginia and elsewhere:
Comments
I'm a former public defender and prosecutor in Virginia (now with SMART at DOJ) and the #1 reason for a lack of jury trials is the jury sentence--in Virginia, the custom is that jury sentences are not touched by a judge after being handed down...nothing suspended at all. as a defense attorney, you just can't risk it most times, and as a prosecutor, it's the hammer to compel a plea.
Posted by: Lori McPherson | Oct 18, 2009 5:37:13 PM
Prof. Berman: Glad to see you posting again. I may not be the only one who would appreciate a post on the highlights of the conference on prosecutorial discretion. It is a lawyer abomination that has historically immunized genocide and other massive criminality.
There is no big loss if jury trials are declining, if one leaves the jury system as it is today under lawyer control.
The jury of 1000 AD had knowledge, knew the parties, and much about the matter. It provided good wisdom of the crowd. It rounded off rough extreme decisions at either end of the spectrum.
Today, those with knowledge get excluded. Citizens are dragooned from their lives and put into forced labor at little or no pay. They are therefore ignorant and grumpy. The lawyer wants to control the dueling fairy tales that is the modern trial. They must work from memory even in long trials. They are not allowed to ask questions of fact to the witnesses nor of law to the judge. They have to stay ignorant.
Then the lawyer puts out this ridiculous propaganda about the jury. They are the finders of fact. They detect the truth by using their gut feelings. Perhaps they make a Psychic Friends Connection. What they do is decide whom they like as persons. That gives the edge to the slick sociopath.
Then, the jury is subject to every single one of these cognitive biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Each violates the procedural due process rights to a fair hearing of the defendant, and likely account for an unconscionable rate of false conviction. Each makes a good basis for an appeal.
If the lawyer ever decides to improve the jury and to recapture its former advantages, it must include people with knowledge; allow inquisitions; have only one secret vote. If it has a super-majority for one verdict, that is end of the trial. Discussion and heated arguments mean the feeling of the loudest member get to be the verdict.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 18, 2009 9:00:02 PM
Lori: Great to hear your experiences.
Quick question. I have advocated that the personal and work computer of the federal prosecutor be demanded in discovery (for improper motive). Would we find a ton of child porn on these? Is the federal government the biggest subscriber and downloader of child porn? If true, that casts doubt on the motivation for its prosecutions of child porn possession as justified by its inducing more child porn by paying for it. What should be done to the case, if child porn is found in the possession of federal prosecutors?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 18, 2009 9:09:28 PM
personally i think we are long long long past time for a law forbiding plea bargains. We gave govt a tool to be used in the rarest hardest cases where a trial would hurt the victim's since they would be almost impossible to prove and NOW it't used for them ALL.
Posted by: rodsmith3510 | Oct 19, 2009 2:39:41 PM