Jury bias in the American court system continues to undermine fair trials, leading to wrongful convictions rooted in racism, hearsay, and systemic injustice.
I’d like to discuss jury tampering and jury bias. If the Commonwealth can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the defendant is guilty, he is guilty of all charges. If the Commonwealth cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty, he is found innocent of all the charges. If there is any doubt in a juror’s mind, he or she cannot vote guilty, until they are sure they committed the criminal act in question. Otherwise, the defendant is found not guilty. That’s the way the court system is supposed to work.
It seems simple enough, but it’s not. Where there is racism and the defendant is black, or a minority race, he’s going down for the crime. He has an alibi, he’s lying, he was five states away at the time of the crime, he has a lookalike, three people saw him wearing a red polo shirt and black jogging pants. The police arrest him and he has a picture taken five years ago wearing a red polo shirt and black joggers, playing basketball with a bunch of friends who may or may not smoke pot. He also was spotted driving a white Hyundai from the crime scene. He owns a blue Nissan and never had a white Hyundai car. His mother’s brother-in-law, third cousin, has a white Hyundai, repainted blue.
When Jury Bias Overrides Evidence and Alibis
You get the picture. The murder happened six months ago, doesn’t matter. Because here in the good ole U.S. of A., you are guilty and you have to buy off the players in the system—or go to prison. This is our court system hard at work, keeping the public safe.
How many jurors actually know that you can’t convict unless there is physical evidence a crime has been committed? Hearsay can’t be solely used to convict a defendant (Commonwealth v. McClelland II 2020). I would bet about 30% of attorneys and wrongfully convicted inmates went to prison for “he said, she said” cases. They are inadmissible hearsay, otherwise everyone would be in jail, sucking up taxpayers’ money into bankruptcy. The day you plan to fight your case in the court of law, kiss your freedom away, you’re going to prison.
You live in a redneck area, he slept with your third cousin and knocked her up, he doesn’t pay child support on the last four kids, and got a speeding ticket because he was late for court for the third time. He’s going down.
Jurists are immune to any wrongdoing, even if they ruin your life with a wrongful conviction. Because of jury bias, racism, PTSD trauma, the juror hates your brother or mother, doesn’t particularly care, but doesn’t want to miss the bowling tournament at 7 pm that night, and only gets paid a few bucks a day to be on jury duty. The newspaper article already crucified the defendant, so they did it. Next case.
Reforming Jury Bias: Training, Pay, and Accountability
If there was a permanent, well-paid staff, a 14-panel group of jurors that had to take a two-week crash course on jury duty requirements, with a certificate, if they were paid $15 an hour, 40 hours a week, and a bonus for overtime, it might work. I bet people would take the job more seriously and appeals courts would have less of a headache dealing with thousands of appeals each year because of corruption in the court system, and maybe real justice could happen in a court of law. Wouldn’t that be something?
My question remains: Do jurists have too much power over your life?
Interested in reading more? Try Do Juries Have Too Much Power Over Your Life?
