Impanel professional juries

It’s high time the American criminal justice system started impaneling professional juries. 

Often, lay jurors get reams of evidence and over one hundred pages of jury instructions, akin to a foreign language. Yet, we expect them to process all that and then render verdicts that could strip defendants of their liberty or even their lives.

Frankly, this jury system is as reckless as handing a medical journal to a layperson and expecting them to perform brain surgery. It’s no wonder many juries return verdicts that can only be described as gross miscarriages of justice.

From O.J. Simpson to Robert “Beretta” Blake and Michael Jackson, this infamous list of acquitted murderers, pedophiles, and fraudsters now includes Richard Scrushy.

Legal training is essential

Only professional juries, with their legal training, can halt this trend. They understand that “beyond a reasonable doubt” isn’t an absence of doubt and can logically infer and deduce from the evidence. 

Furthermore, these trained jurors would be less likely to view celebrity trials as potential financial windfalls.

Pool of law schools and bar association

Law schools and state bar associations teem with these trained professionals. Jury duty should be mandatory for law school enrollees and bar association members.

Naturally, greedy lawyers will object, clinging to the adage that “only the too stupid to dodge, serve on juries.”

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) affirms that private citizens can make limitless sacrifices for the public good — including losing their homes. So, losing a few billable hours seems trivial.

The case of Richard Scrushy

O.J. Simpson played the born-again Christian card to win over jurors. Richard Scrushy one-upped him by playing a Bible-thumping preacher. 

His act paid off. Despite overwhelming evidence, a jury acquitted Scrushy on Tuesday for manipulating financial statements at HealthSouth, a major rehabilitation hospital chain.

Scrushy duly thanked God for sending him a jury of “good Christians who knew that my faith in God would not let me do the things I was charged with doing.” Hallelujah!

David Skeel is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of a seminal book on corporate scandals. So it’s notable that Scrushy’s acquittal provoked him to famously lament that: 

This, in everybody’s book, was the strongest case for conviction. … And the government ended up with nothing.

Scrushy walked, clutching his $280 million in ill-gotten gains.

Meanwhile, his underlings struck plea deals, which have them facing serious jail time and forfeiting much of their personal assets. The evidence against them (all) amounted to being caught with their hands in the cookie jar. So, they reasoned that no jury would acquit them. Fools!

The point is that no professional juror — upon hearing the evidence presented against Scrushy — would have acquitted him. Because they would lose all professional credibility, perhaps even their day jobs. 

Therein lies the beauty of this proposal for professional juries: real consequences for jurors rendering patently stupid and irresponsible verdicts!

Now, if only we could have such a professional jury impaneled for the trial of Ken Lay of the Enron corporate scandal.