My jury journey

Among the intriguing issues involved – are ethnic and gender prejudice, pretrial publicity, bribery and illiteracy. Supporters still see the jury as “democratizing the system with common sense” - justice beyond rigid law. A fascinating subject to study. And so, from 1980, I began an international journey meeting prominent jury researchers and jurists, even sitting through jury trials. The Maurice Bishop trial in Grenada under then Justice Dennis Byron is unforgettable. Karl Hudson-Phillips was prosecutor.

I quickly learnt controversy over jury trial is as old as the hills; largely provoked by the clash between the formal rules of a trial and having jurors as ordinary people to decide.

But this lack of legal training has not necessarily been seen as a shortcoming, especially since the traditional role of a jury is to see the facts, leaving the law to the judge. But even facts can be skilfully twisted.

A major objector to jury trial has been noted British lawyer, Louis Blom-Cooper. He objected to juries not having to explain reasons for their verdict. He stated in a1966 paper: “The inscrutability of the jury is the antithesis of a concept of justice which demands not only a just result but a reasoned one.” He preferred rational, objective justice.

Such justice itself can be an illusion.

In 1982, British jurist Lord Denning gave me four reasons for the widespread support for trial by jury - protection from tyranny, from incompetent judges, from the establishment and from the rigidity of the law.

But theory and practice may differ. In my journey to Dominica, there was this 1981 trial where former Dominican prime minister Patrick John was charged with conspiring to overthrow the Eugenia Charles government. High Court judge, Horace Mitchell, upholding a no-case submission, directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict. The jury foreman, quickly consulting fellow jurors, jumped up shouting, “Guilty.” It took several repeated instructions from the judge to get the foreman to say not guilty. There is, of course, the most ticklish question of all. Who are the peers of an accused person? Are they of his or her race, religion, social class, sex, or is it enough that the jury is drawn from the general population? Guyana’s controversy emerged in 1979 from having the accused choose trial by a magistrate alone or by judge and jury. In Jamaica, like in Bermuda, jury trials came under intense controversy in 1979 too over juror shortages and juror bias. Senior Puisne Judge Uriah Parnell publicly complained: “The day may not be too far off when legislation may have to be enacted to empower a judge to try cases alone.” In the Jamaican case where former prime minister Michael Manley sued the Gleaner and columnist John Hearne for libel, Justice UD Gordon dismissed the foreman for “probable pro-Manley prejudice” since the foreman was a member of Manley’s National Workers’ Union. The trial was in its third week.

Notwithstanding what I found in England, Germany, Hawaii, Louisiana, California, Grenada, etc, one of the most intriguing jury trials took place right here in Trinidad.

It was about juror illiteracy. In the 1977 Lalchan murder trial, Lalchan Nanan was sentenced to death after the jury foreman announced guilty.

Defense counsel, Vernon de Lima, appealed, claiming that the verdict was not unanimous as required by law but a majority verdict. His affidavits revealed that four jurors – including the foreman – did not know the meaning of the word, unanimous, confusing it with majority.

In the historical Appeal Court ruling, Chief Justice Isaac Hyatali concluded that once a jury verdict is given openly in court and without immediate objection, the verdict stands. I subsequently supervised Professor Derek Chadee’s PhD thesis which is now a readable jury trial book. The current debate over jury trial enlivens my continued journey.

( P r o f Deosaran is author of the book, Trial by Jury in the Car ibbe an: Social and Psychological Dynamics).