Overturn System of Unanimous Jury : A 12-0 verdict is a costly, needless requirement. State amendment would ease taxpayers’ burden, ensure justice is served.

As Orange County desperately searches for cost-cutting measures, there is an avenue to pursue that would greatly contribute to this effort. The California Constitution could be amended to permit less-than-unanimous 10-2 verdicts for conviction or acquittal in all “non-death” penalty cases.

The law enforcement community firmly stands behind this effort, spearheaded by the California District Attorney’s Assn. This constitutional amendment, if passed by the Legislature, still would require approval of California’s electorate.

This appropriate strategy would save Orange County taxpayers millions. This is not a novel idea. England, which serves as our historical point of reference for the jury system, successfully implemented the less-than-unanimous jury vote nearly 30 years ago. On a national level, Louisiana, Oregon, Idaho, Oklahoma and Texas have all greatly benefited from this approach.

The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly approved less-than-unanimous jury verdicts. The law enforcement community strongly believes that the enactment of this reform would enhance our ability to protect the public and reduce the numbers and costs of criminal jury trials without undermining protection of the innocent.

The purpose of a jury trial is threefold: to search for the truth; to ensure the innocent are protected, and see that the guilty are punished. California law provides that should just one juror disagree with the other eleven, no verdict may be entered. The result is a “hung jury” and mistrial. While the cost of retrying such cases is astronomical, no dollar amount can be placed on the pain and suffering that the victims and their loved ones must once again endure.

As the wife of a police chief and the mother of a police officer, not only do I see the misery inflicted upon victims, but I have firsthand knowledge of the frustrations of law enforcement. Again and again we see ruthless criminals--robbers, rapists, murderers, the dregs of society--walk away or receive reduced charges due to hung juries. This archaic system that protects the guilty and punishes the innocent must be changed.

The public perception is that jurors are selected for their impartiality and objectivity. From the perspective of the defense, nothing could be farther from the truth. Alan M. Dershowitz, nationally recognized criminal defense attorney, blatantly stated in his recent book, “The Abuse Excuse,” that “in most criminal cases a hung jury is a clear victory for the defendant.” The defense rarely tries to select 12 impartial, reasonable people. Rather, they search for one or two unreasonable or biased individuals to obstruct a unanimous verdict. The horrendous fiscal and human cost of a hung jury can be seen in Orange County’s Scott Rembert case. In 1992, Rembert and two others were charged with kidnaping student Joseph Kondrath. He was robbed of $1 and shot in the head as he pleaded for his life. The two others charged with Rembert were convicted. Rembert, due to two hung juries, is being tried a third time. The total cost to date is $1.4 million.

It now costs nearly $10,000 a day to run a Superior Court jury trial in Orange County. Norman M. Garland, a law professor at Southwestern University in Los Angeles, states: “If you analyze the way cases are selected for prosecution, we can find . . . cases that are intentionally not pursued because of budgetary problems. If every defendant decided to push the system to the limit, such as the O.J. Simpson trial . . . the system couldn’t continue to function.”

Will the less-than-unanimous jury amendment take away a precious constitutional right? Absolutely not! There is no right to a unanimous jury in the U.S. Constitution.

There is nothing mysterious about unanimity. Almost all decisions of governmental bodies are made without unanimous agreement. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court can affirm a death sentence by a vote of 5 to 4 and the California Supreme Court can do so by a vote of 4 to 3.

I hope those of the liberal persuasion will see the merit of this amendment. Precious tax dollars could be redirected to programs supporting education and prevention. Hopefully, these individuals will join forces with those who dedicate, and many times sacrifice, their lives in an effort to safeguard the civil rights of all.

Society has many demands upon its resources. A constitutional amendment permitting “non-unanimous” verdicts would be a giant step toward providing a more fair, efficient and fiscally manageable criminal justice system in Orange County. Such an amendment would also provide a positive approach to stretching our hard-earned tax dollars, while allowing our justice system to function as it was originally intended.