Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Need Jury Verdicts Be Unanimous?

High-profile hung-jury cases such as that of Eric and Lyle Menendez as well as speculation over a hung jury in the O. J. Simpson double-murder trial, have made an issue of unanimous jury verdicts. Last month, California Gov. Pete Wilson endorsed a proposal that would permit verdicts with only a 10-2 majority in criminal cases where the death penalty is not sought.

Should we abandon unanimous jury verdicts in non-death-penalty criminal cases?

Ann Fagan Ginger, author, lawyer and executive director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute:

“What we have slowly learned is that the dynamics in the jury room are totally different when you have to have a unanimous verdict. . . . The reality is if you have a 12-person jury [requiring a unanimous verdict], the likelihood is pretty great that the innocent will not be convicted. . . . As to whether the guilty will go free, I don’t think that is very likely either.”

Assemblyman Richard K. Rainey (R-Walnut Creek), sponsor of a bill in the state Legislature that would allow 10-2 verdicts:

“We find that when there are one or two people resisting the majority, they typically are doing it for their own reasons and own prejudices. One man who testified, a jury foreman, told of one juror who refused to vote for conviction in a domestic violence case because he felt the woman had not been hurt bad enough, which has nothing to do with the law.”

John Portillo, L.A. County deputy district attorney who prosecuted Jeffrey Dale Peitz of Palmdale on a murder charge in three hung-jury trials:

“You’re always going to have a couple of people on the jury who might have their own motives and their own agenda. Our concern [regarding the requirement for unanimous verdicts] is they will look at justice in that particular case differently than what the mainstream of society believes. So many people come in who have experienced something and if they have had some type of bad experience in their own life, they identify with the defendant. Whether or not the defendant did it is not what’s important to them.”

Michael Judge, Los Angeles County public defender:

“It damages the deliberative process because it no longer requires the jurors to thoroughly and carefully consider each other’s views. As soon as the necessary plurality is reached, they can vote and leave. It is also not needed because there are a very small number of cases that result in hung juries. To change a system based on one or two cases, I think is a mistake. I think it is also a mistake to change the system based on what might occur in one particular case. . . . Some politicians who want to get your vote want to convince the public there is an issue and they have the solution to it. To me, that’s unconscionable. That’s playing politics with people’s liberty.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor at USC Law Center:

“Now, the juries are required to listen to everyone. Sometimes the one or two can persuade the others and sometimes the others persuade the one or two. If it’s not a requirement, the jury can ignore the other two. . . . The elimination of the unanimous requirement would result in more innocent people being convicted, but not increase the convictions of the guilty. If it’s one irrational juror holding out against conviction, then on retrial there will be a conviction.”