Opinion ID: 2590536
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Questions Past and Present

Text: To set the stage for our decision, we give a brief history of how the manner in which the jury conducts its charge has evolved over time. The current criminal justice system has progressed from one where bad luck and poor social status were factors that were more likely to result in a conviction than actual proof of a criminal act. In Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, the noted jurist gives an account of the many ways in which a criminal trial proceeded prior to our understanding of the adversarial criminal trial. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, -351 (Cooley ed. 1899). These early tests of guilt incorporated society's preoccupation with the supernatural and included trial by ordeal, test of the morsel, and trial by battel. [6] The presumption underlying these tests was that God would intervene and, through a miraculous sign, indicate which party was in the right. Landsman, Development of the Adversary System, 44 Ohio St. L.J. at 718. Such methods of determining guilt by way of divine intervention fell out of use as the age of reason made clear the folly and impiety of pronouncing a man guilty, unless he was cleared by a miracle. Blackstone, Commentaries, at . The early Anglo-American jury system originated sometime in the twelfth century. The trial by jury in the English system of justice grew out of a general apprehension of state power denigrating the rights of the common man. Our law has therefore wisely placed this strong and two-fold barrier, of a presentment and a trial by jury, between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the crown. Blackstone Commentaries, at . These juries were composed of qualified individuals, chosen by the king, and who reported to the court on facts or issues in dispute. See generally, Landsman, A Brief Survey of the Development of the Adversary System, 44 Ohio St. L.J. 713 (describing the evolution of the jury). Jurors did not hear witnesses, but rather conducted investigations of those who had knowledge of the facts. [7] Then, in the fifteenth century, juries began hearing the testimony of witnesses in court, a practice that became commonplace in the sixteenth century. Id. at 723; 2 McCormick on Evidence § 244, at 90-91 (J. Strong et al. 5th ed.1999); 5 John H. Wigmore, Evidence § 1364 (Chadbourn rev.1974). Thus as part of the search for truth, jurors, judges, and counsel in the English courts were allowed to ask questions and call witnesses. See John Langbein, The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial 319 (A.W. Brian Simpson, Oxford University Press, 2003). Concern over state power in the administration of justice carried over to the framers of the United States Constitution who consistently agreed on the right of an individual to be tried by a jury. See Albert W. Alshuler & Andrew G. Deiss, A Brief History of the Criminal Jury in the United States, 61 U. Chi. L.Rev. 867, 870-71 (1994). The jury provided protection against failures inherent in our system, and served to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power  to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over-conditioned or biased response of a judge. Fields v. People, 732 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Colo. 1987) (quoting Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530-31, 95 S.Ct. 692, 697-98, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975)). The jury's presence thus provides a formidable restraint on government power in our criminal courts. Therefore, it is only logical that jurors who are the arbiters of truth and hedge against government power also have the tools available to think critically and to seek clarification of the issues presented to them. Allowing jurors to ask witnesses questions is neither radical nor a recent innovation. State v. Doleszny, 176 Vt. 203, 844 A.2d 773, 778 (2004). It is a practice with deeply entrenched roots in the common law. United States v. Bush, 47 F.3d 511, 515 (2nd Cir.1995). In 1907, the Supreme Court of North Carolina recognized the long history of allowing jurors to ask questions and the potential benefits that the practice provides in the search for truth. The court stated: This course [of allowing jurors to ask questions] has always been followed without objection so far as the writer has observed, in the conduct of trials in our superior courts, and there is not only nothing improper in it when done in a seemly manner and with the evident purpose of discovering the truth, but a juror may, and often does ask a very pertinent and helpful question in furtherance of the investigation. State v. Kendall, 143 N.C. 659, 57 S.E. 340, 341 (1907); see also Schaefer v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co., 128 Mo. 64, 30 S.W. 331, 333 (1895) (stating: We ... do not see why [asking questions] was not a commendable thing in both the court and the jury ... so that they could properly determine the case before them.); Chicago Hansom Cab C. v. Havelick, 131 Ill. 179, 22 N.E. 797 (1889). The purpose of the jury in criminal cases [is] to prevent government oppression and to assure a fair and equitable resolution of factual issues. Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U.S. 149, 157, 93 S.Ct. 2448, 2453, 37 L.Ed.2d 522 (1973). While the manner in which the jury conducts its charge of finding facts in a criminal case has changed over time  from being inquisitors directly involved in the gathering of evidence and testifying to that evidence, to a more passive role where it considers the evidence presented by the government and the defendant  jurors have consistently been empowered to ask questions of witnesses so as to satisfy their weighty responsibility and purpose. This historical trend continues to the modern day where the vast majority of courts from other jurisdictions allow jurors to ask questions in criminal cases with only a handful of states disallowing the practice. While the United States Supreme Court has not specifically decided the constitutionality of juror questioning, none of the federal circuits prohibit the practice. [8] In addition, the majority of state courts also allow jurors to ask witnesses questions [9] and several states specifically provide for juror questions in court rules or state statute. [10] The reasons for adopting the practice vary, however, a general theme appears from these jurisdictions. These courts do not believe that allowing jurors to ask questions prejudices a criminal defendant nor does it deprive a defendant of his right to an impartial jury. See e.g., State v. Fisher, 789 N.E.2d at 229 (stating: the mere possibility that a juror may submit a biased question or engage in premature deliberation does not violate the Ohio or United States Constitution (emphasis added)). Instead, these jurisdictions believe that if proper procedures are put in place by the trial court to screen objectionable questions, a number of benefits from jury questioning may be realized without prejudice to the defendant. See e.g., State v. Doleszny, 844 A.2d at 779 (allowing trial courts in their discretion to allow juror questions and finding a significant recent trend towards endorsement of the practice and emphasis on its benefits). Juror inspired questions may serve to advance the search for truth by alleviating uncertainties in the jurors' minds, clearing up confusion or alerting the attorneys to points that bear further elaboration. Richardson, 233 F.3d at 1290 (quoting United States v. Sutton, 970 F.2d 1001, 1005 n. 3 (1st Cir.1992)). Commentators also agree that juror questioning facilitates the search for truth and justice, clarifies the facts in complex cases, provides the jury with an essential tool to fulfill its role as the finder of fact, and increases juror attentiveness during trial and satisfaction with the judicial process. [11] Despite this national trend toward allowing jurors to ask questions through the court, a handful of state courts have decided to prohibit the practice of allowing jurors to ask questions altogether. [12] These courts have held that juror questioning has the potential of disrupting the neutral role that jurors play in the adversarial system of justice. Costello, 646 N.W.2d at 213 (stating: we conclude that maintaining the neutral role of jurors in an adversarial system outweighs whatever enhancement to the truthfinding function that juror questioning allows). Thus, these jurisdictions chose not to allow the practice due to potential problems that may arise.