Reader comments
Readers' forum: Give juries final say

"Who can remember when 12 everyday Americans were last seated on a jury panel?"

Uh, yesterday? The letter writer's cynicism is misplaced. Voir dire and challenge are perfectly legitimate and fair means of selecting a jury of peers. Challenges are limited and voir dire allows defendants and prosecutors to find individuals who will treat the case fairly and objectively. In fact, it is only in the recent past that fairness in jury selection has been enforced. A few years ago, a black defendant could count on facing an all-white jury. In the South, that jury would be loaded with racists and bigots.

No, Mr. Sharp, juries are now better than they have ever been!

In a letter to Major John Cartwright, in June 1824, Thomas Jefferson recommended small governmental units called wards or hundreds. Each would be about six square miles and be "a small republic within itself". Among other things each would have its own justice of the peace, its own police, and "elect within themselves one or more jurors to attend the courts of justice".

Jurisdictions are today typically much bigger than that. Salt Lake City is 110 square miles, West Valley City is 35 square miles, Logan is even 17 square miles, Provo 40 square miles, and Saint George 64 square miles.

The small powers of the individual today, I believe, are directly related to the large size of our governmental units. This depletion of individual rights and powers relates also to large judicial units, and the reduced powers of juries.

When we talk about smaller government, we might consider Jefferson's views, as one who greatly favored and actively promoted individual rights.

Where have you been, Paul? Go to the Matheson courthouse and actually watch a jury selection and a jury trial before you embarrass yourself with such witless and uninformed comments!

I was called to jury selection a number of years ago and I can assure you it was phony. Paul is closer to the truth than you know.

Essentially this is how it works. It was a DUI case. While under oath, we were all asked if we had formed an opinion or were prejudiced or biased in any way. After all of us affirmed that we were not, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney started asking us questions which were prying and invasive into our personal lives. One question was, "have you or a close friend or relative ever been convicted of DUI?" If so they wanted all of the details broadcast to everyone in the courtroom. Needless to say if a family member of yours had been convicted, you certainly don't want to broadcast it to the world.

The original question proved to be totally irrelevant because if they had believed us there would be no reason to ask additional questions. The point of their questioning became apparent in that they were attempting to find those who were biased or prejudiced in their favor. It was the most hypocritical and dishonest process I have ever been through.