New TV Series Spoofs Jury Duty
The AP News Service’s entertainment writer Mark Kennedy informs us of a new “docu-style” comedy series by Amazon Freevee titled Jury Duty. Kennedy describes it as “an elaborate ruse of a show that builds an entire judicial system around one unsuspecting regular Joe. The judge is fake, the defense team and prosecutors are fake and his fellow 11 jurors are fake—all superb improv comedians.” It hails from the producers of The Office, Bad Trip, and The White Lotus. One interviewee claims the series has positive things to say about jury duty, “You have to come together. You have to listen. You have to think. You have to have compassion. You have to drop your biases, and you have to come to a decision. When you put people together in a closed environment, I think you discover that we have more in common than you realize.” The Jur-E Bulletin invites viewers to send in their own assessments of the show.
Is There a Better Way to Assess Adequate Jury Representativeness?
Many readers are familiar with Supreme Court jurisprudence requiring that juries must be selected from a fair cross-section of the community where the trial occurs. Under the long-standing doctrine enunciated in Duren v. Missouri, courts test the sufficiency of the representation of genders, races, and ethnicities in venires by comparing the ratios of their presence in venires to the ratios of such persons in the community. Calculations using absolute disparity and comparative disparity methods have for decades been the dominant methods used by courts to measure the sufficiency of jury pool representativeness. Carnegie Mellon University Professor Joseph Kadane just published “Odds Ratios as a Measure of Disproportionate Treatment: Application to Jury Venires” in Oxford Academic. There, he asserts the shortcomings of the traditional methods of discerning representativeness and the superiority of the odds ratios method for such discernment.
Are Virtual Courtrooms a Threat to the Justice System?
Edward R. Blumberg, chairman of the National Judicial College’s Board of Directors, published an op-ed piece captioned “Why Virtual Court Is a Threat to Our Justice System.” He asserts, “The convenience of virtual hearings has rendered in-person hearings lasting less than 30 minutes passé in some jurisdictions. As these represent the majority of hearings, newly minted lawyers are deprived of learning their way around the courtroom, including thinking on their feet, the adept utilization of exhibits, case law, statutes, as well as interaction with court clerks, bailiffs, judicial assistants, opposing counsel and the judge. Moreover, there will soon be young lawyers taking the bench who will not have benefited from an in-person courtroom experience.” Might his logic easily extend to effective communications with juries?
Texas Governor Scrutinizes Jury Verdict Suggesting a Possible Pardon for Convicted Soldier
According to the New York Times, Governor Greg Abbott is urging the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to investigate possible juror misconduct a few days after a jury murder verdict was announced last week against Daniel S. Perry. He is an active-duty Army sergeant, who drove from Killeen, Texas, to Austin to be present at a public protest against police violence and ended up shooting a protester claiming a “stand your ground” defense. The case presents an unusual context whereby the trial judge has neither ruled on a defense motion for a new trial nor set a sentencing date.