Defense Argument for the Jury System

In a letter to The Times entitled “Jury Duty’s Waste” (March 30), James Harris of Tustin airs his dissatisfaction with the jury process. In his cynical comment, Harris suggests that attorneys use their peremptory challenges as a way of extending trial time by “days, weeks or months” in order to further their “money-making schemes.”

While the author of that letter may have been called for jury duty, it is evident that he has never been summoned as a defendant in a lawsuit tried by a jury.

The jury system was devised hundreds of years ago under the English Common Law to avoid the capricious or arbitrary decision of a legal conflict. The jury process is deeply embeded in the United States Constitution for the same reasons.

Through a procedure known as voir dire, attorneys, as well as the presiding judge, question jurors to determine their qualifications to hear a case.

It is imperative to the preservation of a fair trial that any potential bias or prejudice of a prospective juror be discovered prior to trial.

I am certain that Harris would not wish to deprive any person of a fair trial, however, he proposes that jurors be selected by drawing 12 names out of “a raffle-type cage and be seated without any preemptive challenges.” This proposal is ludicrous and derogative of the Constitution and the American system of jurisprudence.

Under such a system of selection, a bigoted juror or one with a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the trial would decide the case without detection. Of course, there is no actual danger of such a jury selection process being implemented in any court of the land.

But my purpose in writing this letter is due (and perhaps the motivation behind Harris’ letter as well) to the failing confidence of the general public in our legal system.

DOUGLAS W. SCHROEDER

Irvine