The jury system has literally been around for millennia. Early Greek democracy included citizen juries; our modern system has its roots in medieval England. The fundamental idea was that fairness could be better achieved if a group of one’s peers in the community had input into the final decision of the court and could advise the judge according to their deliberations.
When you think about it, getting twelve random citizens to agree on any subject might be quite a challenge, and thus the notion of the “burden of proof” came into being. It’s not enough for someone to accuse someone else of breaking the law, even law enforcement agencies themselves; they must be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a high bar that has allowed respect for the court system to continue even through controversial and unpopular decisions.
Which brings us to the most recent controversial court decision, the conviction of Donald Trump on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to influence the 2016 Presidential election.
I was expecting acquittal on at least some counts, and possibly even a mistrial or hung jury, since I can do the math: 12 opinions on 34 counts means 408 separate opportunities to say Yes or No. The jury may have been from the same general area of New York City, but they had different backgrounds and different views of the world, including how they felt about Trump. Both prosecution and defense had ample opportunity to challenge and dismiss jurors, which they both did. The jurors were truly a cross-section of Trump’s “peers” in New York.
The shock of the unanimous verdict – that’s four hundred and eight total agreements – was stunning, and then the spin doctors spun into action. Almost every Republican legislator joined the MAGA folks to denounce the trial as invalid, blaming not only the judge but the prosecutors, the state and city of New York, Joe Biden and the jurors. The evidence was discounted because the outcome was not what these Republicans wanted. Their automatic assumption regarding Trump being found guilty was that the entire justice system must be corrupt or else it never would have produced such a bad outcome.
It is a frequent criticism of Trump that he has made denying responsibility fashionable again. Usually the realm of the psychopath and the toddler, refusal to accept unwanted facts and refusal to acknowledge losses or mistakes has become the hallmark of even once-credible Republicans such as Senator John Cornyn. The rule of law has apparently become optional for these people.
Have you ever served on a jury? If not, perhaps you can imagine the state of mind that often occurs as one is placed in the position of evaluating evidence. Regardless of assumptions prior to the trial, once sworn in, most jurors take their job extremely seriously. Most judges, similarly, feel an enormous responsibility to protect the sanctity of their juries. Judge and jury both seem to understand the power that they possess and the importance of using it in the service of truth and fairness.
Of course, it’s possible to cite horror stories of miscarriages of justice at the hands of biased juries, especially in the post-Civil War/Reconstruction years when Jim Crow laws were designed to keep Black citizens in their place. But our world is different now, and missteps in judicial matters are usually carefully scrutinized. And yes, judges can and do step outside the boundaries of their proper roles, but again, the justice system is structured to allow for appeals of contested rulings.
The one thing that is so precious about our justice system is the requirement that evidence be presented. Not opinions, though those can also be presented, not assumptions based on circumstances that suggest but don’t prove anything, not rumors or gossip. Actual evidence, first-person experience, written or texted documents. Who must the evidence be presented to? Who must decide if a case has been made beyond any reasonable doubt? The jury, which means you, me, your neighbors, regular people who are willing to step up and give serious thought to a case that will have a winner and a loser.
Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters don’t like the justice system, because it has not given them the results that they want. It’s as if they take their delusions out into the real world, where judges and juries look at the evidence and don’t see enough to convince them. Then they blame the judge and jury and try to prove the same thing another way, still without evidence. That this is their main strategy should be alarming to the few moderate, bipartisan Republicans hiding here and there in the landscape. That freedom- and justice-loving Americans would consider any of these deluded people suitable to lead our country is mind-boggling.
The jury that found Donald Trump guilty unanimously on all 34 counts heard a lot of evidence and found it compelling. If they had not, I might have been disappointed, but I would have accepted their decision, because that’s how much I believe in the power of ordinary citizens to rise to extraordinary levels of fairness and reasonableness. If you attack this jury, you are attacking all juries, you are attacking me, you are attacking your friends, and, truly, you are attacking yourself.
Susan Hull is a retired clinical psychologist, a horse trainer and an Independent voter. She regrets that she always tried to get out of jury duty while she was working because it didn’t feel as important as helping people become mentally healthy, and now she thinks perhaps it is.
