DEFINITION OF JURY FOREPERSON
Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines “foreperson” in terms of the less-politically-correct term “foreman,” which is defined as “a first or chief person: such as a member of a jury who acts as chairman and spokesman.” Generally, a jury foreperson will preside over the jury’s deliberations and deliver all the jury’s communications to the court, including questions and verdicts.
BENEFITS OF JURY-CHOSEN FOREPERSON
One way to examine the benefits of a jury-chosen foreperson is to examine the dangers of the alternative: a judge-appointed foreperson. In many jurisdictions, the judge will appoint a juror to serve as foreperson. This practice defies Supreme Court precedent, which noted that judgments of the jury are rendered meaningless “if the trial judge…influence[s] the jury’s findings.” It is likely that the jury will interpret this appointment as a sign of the judge’s approval of this individual’s judgment. Additionally, judicial appointment of the foreperson can even affect the composition of the jury if the appointed foreperson is exempted from serving as an alternate juror.
RISKS OF JURY-CHOSEN FOREPERSON
While a judge-appointed foreperson presents structural concerns, a jury’s selection has its own
challenges. Studies show that when juries choose an “older, highly educated, extraverted male with prior jury service who was the first one to speak…and [is] sitting at the head of the table” to be foreperson. The jury foreperson typically speaks two to three times more than the other jurors. Significantly, the jury’s verdict usually reflects the opinion of the jury foreperson before deliberations began.
CONCLUSION
On balance, appointment by a judge appears to be more problematic than appointment by the jury. A jury-selected foreperson removes the risk of improper jury influence by the trial judge and allows the jury to retain total control over their deliberations.
No comments:
Post a Comment