The last thing we need is professional jurors, this idea is just plain bad. There are many reasons for disparities but it’s a 10 point process , not up to any one party.
The accused already have to deal with cops, prosecutors, evaluators, judges and other organizations on every decision as well as potentially corrections officers, other political figures etc. The jurors get their impartiality because they are not part of the state but of the community. Who would decide who the jurors are?

If I was being wrongly accused by the State I would much prefer a Professional Jury than the current ones selected by lawyers based on them trying their best to get around the rules to select bias.


I don't know exactly what a professional jury would entail but i think some process like the one that allows one to become a Notary Public would suffice. Make the jury process a professional and paid one and where the pool of 'eligible jurors' have all passed a certain proficiency of common law basic knowledge and societal knowledge.
Still play heavily on the public service aspect but pay enough so it is not off putting to become a professional juror and get the call.

I think this works fine as long as you find a way to balance it to get a big pool of jurors. If you don't and only end up with a small one it would not be preferable.

This particular Jury did a good job and prosecution was smart, hopefully the judge gives them the life without parole option as is his discretion. Very happy with this verdict and to see justice served for Ahmaud and his family.

Cmon spaceman, you KNOW the Republican Party will get to name all the jurors in that kinda setup. If not immediately, certainly within first 10 years.

['course we're all going to fry by 2060 when global warming becomes an issue that can't be ignored any more.... so just open up the doors ala King of Hearts]

Yeah, it would be just like the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh ok good point, I change my mind.

Jury selection is one the nonsenses of the usa justrice system. Abolish it

It's not evil like plea bargaining but still needs to go.

Can money spent by the defense side on laywers generate so much work for the prosecution that their incentive to settle rises?

Well we know how it works with the IRS where they purposely reduce resources so that they cannot take on the more complex and time consuming cases auditing the very rich. That is done very deliberately to put the uber rich more above the law and to focus enforcement on the average tax payer.

We also know many Prosecutors prize their perfect, or near perfect prosecution record. From that I think it is fair to assume they would not press the more complex or expensive cases as much unless it was a showcase trial they hoped to make their name on.

So I, for one, would bet on the 'over' that the more resources the defendant has the more likely Prosecutors would just look to settle.

I was opposed to professional jurors until I read the bolded. Now I have to reconsider.

The main requirement for becoming a notary public is to have a pulse.

I hope rococo will chime in but I susoect this is the sort of area where being poor is a disaster.

There's also intimidation. I've been threatened by the UK Inland revenue in the past - it was quite disgraceful and although not worried I was quite shocked. They backed down damn fast when they realised they were up against a serious firm of accountants (I was in the right btw) and I was quite happy to take them head on. But it's quite clear that more vulnerable people are in big trouble.

I'm aware of so many other cases where people have only got justice because they have access to good professionals. It's just too difficult and scary otherwise. Of course it then goes the other way with the rich abusing the system to avoid justice.

I know A LOT about this question but don’t think I should share
You can read between the lines in some of my old justice threads for the answer. *shrugs*

In the U.S., you need to distinguish between criminal prosecutions and regulatory actions by agencies like the SEC or the IRS. Prosecutors can't "settle" criminal cases. They can decline to prosecute at all. They can bring certain charges but not others. They can reach an agreement with the defendant to recommend a sentence to the court based on whatever charges they decide to pursue. The latter obviously is a form of resolution, but the result has to be blessed by the court (which it almost always is).

The SEC and the IRS have complete discretion to settle agency investigations on whatever terms they see fit.

Do the resources of the defendant on occasion cause prosecutors to decline prosecution or to recommend plea deals? I'm no expert, but I assume that the answer is yes. I also suspect that the answer would vary significantly by jurisdiction and by type of crime. Very wealthy defendants obviously are more likely to have engaged in extremely complex white collar crimes than indigent defendants. Complex crimes are more difficult to prove. And likelihood of conviction is definitely something that prosecutors take into account. I would note that, in certain cases, the wealth or the profile of the defendant can cut the other way. If Jeff Bezos killed his girlfriend, he would be prosecuted to the hilt. Public scrutiny would make any resolution short of a complete capitulation non-viable from the prosecutor's perspective.

I don't think being on a Jury should be a high bar at all. I don't think it should only be for the elite or the well educated or those able to pass hard tests.

I think one should establish a minimal baseline of willingness to be informed on a number of very basic democracy and 'rights' based topics.

I think by simply forcing people to do that minimum you would get a bunch of the more opportunistic activist types to exclude themselves. Of course on the flipside you might get the hardcore activist types ensure they get in.

So I am not married to it but for some time I have thought something like that MIGHT help.

It could be something done and renewed every X years with Income Tax filing) with some form of enticement, or write offered for those who go to a website, take the knowledge test and register themselves for jury duty.

Trump is the elephant in the room staring everyone in the face on this discussion Chez.

If not for his power and wealth he would be indicted a dozen times over already for his actions. No citizen or low level politician gets away with calls to powerful officials who can impact an election and is on record trying to influence them and arguably threatening them and they are not charged almost immediately.

As you move up in power and wealth the Prosecutors fear more and more a potential loss on their record, knowing that person will have top level lawyers fighting on their behalf good at establishing doubt.

That dynamic is at play at some level in most, if not all prosecution imo. The prospect of a high level and expensive loss and how many people will be paying attention, I believe is a key consideration of Prosecutors.

My reaction to this is that it wouldn't hurt, but it probably wouldn't help much either. You also would need to increase the compensation for jury duty if you are going to rely on an "opt in" process for jury eligibility.

The Sixth Amendment is also in the background of any discussion of professional juries. I haven't researched the issue, but I suspect that what you are proposing would be OK under the Sixth Amendment. But I can imagine more stringent requirements that would raise questions under the Sixth Amendment.

I don't think it is as simple with Trump as you suggest. There are a lot of prosecutors in New York who would love to tack Trump's hide on their wall. I am quite certain that the U.S. attorney's office in the SDNY isn't cowed by Trump's wealth.

I do think that prosecutors would be reluctant to bring a case against Trump unless they were highly confident of a conviction. That's because a failed prosecution of Trump is far worse for the country than no prosecution at all.

I can't imagine that you're not right about that but.....no one can get him on anything ? Ever ?

It's good to be Trump. Damn.

I agree Trump would be a great Trophy get but I only think that substantiates my point.

They know he will bring an A level defense team and despite Trumps blatant lawlessness, that would see others easily charged, they hold back. They are cowed into inaction if they cannot see a slam dunk win and that is bad. That is exactly what emboldens Trump and sees him get worse knowing that they are afraid to Prosecute lest they lose.

I think it is mistake to think a person is more emboldened by escaping a guilty verdict than they are by not being charged at all. There is a ton of stress and fear in court, even if you win after that most do not want to face. If you send a signal 'you are likely to not be charged' then you get far more lawlessness then if they know they will almost certainly be charged and need to win or they go to jail.

IRS tax lawbreakers are emboldened by knowing few rich people face prosecution and not by 'ya we get prosecuted most times, face real jeopardy, but can beat it'.

And I understand the view that Trump does better with wins as he trumpets it as proof of witch hunts but again disagree. Sure it may help help him with his base but I doubt, most watching these cases would move to supporting Trump if they saw all his malfeasance play out in court and the only reason he escapes is they cannot establish 'intent'.

Because as RF says above we KNOW Trump has done a lot wrong (call to Ukraine, call to Georgia Elections officials, etc) and his only defense is 'intent' and not "I did not do those bad and illegal things'.

The far bigger risk is that Trump normalizes his actions as the new bar for future POTUS and top officials. If Trump is not charged on those things how can you charge any other official who follows the same blueprint? You can't unless you admit Trump was just too powerful and popular and you are less so. It would be all over the news 'these are the same things Trump did and they were considered by Prosecutors as not chargeable at the time'.

NO, they have to charge, even if they lose so that future Politicians see there is jeopardy attached going down this road. You WILL be prosecuted so you better hope you get a jury friendly enough to win as you will be in real jeopardy if you tread on that road that Trump did.

trump fallls into the unusual bracket now where the balance between his power and infamy is in the balance

Most rich people fly sufficiently under the radar to have the power without a big fat target on their back.

Please take the rest of this to The Trump Thread.

That works for me as long as the test includes the ability to identify the two main fallacies (x implies y doesn't mean y implies x, or that not x implies not y), the ability to recognize misleading statistics (casino A's poker machines are "three time looser" with perfect play than casino B's because they are 99.9 % versus 99.7%) or bad analogies ("Don't bring a gun to a fist fight").

Professional Jurors should be certified only after reading a book like The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaladi, et. al.