{"id":7122,"date":"2023-12-15T14:34:09","date_gmt":"2023-12-15T19:34:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?p=7122"},"modified":"2023-12-15T15:17:19","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T20:17:19","slug":"are-juries-worth-the-effort-a-view-from-the-international-bench","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/are-juries-worth-the-effort-a-view-from-the-international-bench\/","title":{"rendered":"Are Juries Worth the Effort? A View from the International Bench"},"content":{"rendered":"

At this year\u2019s Edward Ross Lecture in Litigation, the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, addressed the important and controversial topic: are jury trials worth the effort? Judge Pallmeyer\u2019s answer was an unequivocal \u201cyes.\u201d She argued that juries are not merely useful tools for adjudicating cases, they are integral to the legitimacy of the American legal system. According to the Chief Judge, jury trials are one of the reasons that Americans respect the law. In her view, juries are often perceived as more impartial than judges, bringing diversity of experiences and perspectives to the resolution of cases. She emphasized that participation in the jury system promotes confidence in the system\u2019s fairness.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Judge Pallmeyer\u2019s views comport with conventional wisdom about the importance of juries. As every American knows, jury service is an essential duty of citizenship. <\/span>According to a Pew Research Center Survey, <\/span>two-thirds of U.S. adults consider jury service integral to good citizenship<\/span><\/a>. <\/span>District Court Judge Zach Zouhary begins trials by telling jurors that their service helps to <\/span>safeguard American democracy<\/span><\/a>. He reminds them that our country\u2019s founders enshrined the right to trial by jury in the constitution in reaction to the injustices of the British system where the judicial outcomes were subject to the whims of the King.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As a judge on an international court that operates without juries, the Ross Lecture discussion made me wonder: If juries are so important to the legitimacy of a legal system, why are they absent from international courts? Some practical considerations come immediately to mind. First, international cases are highly complex, often involving large organizational structures and contextual factors, such as the intent to destroy a group for genocide. Second, because of this complexity, international cases often take years to adjudicate. For instance, the trial of former Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladi\u0107 at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia lasted from June 2011 to November 2017. While the first obstacle might be surmountable through careful lawyering and use of experts, it would surely be difficult to find jurors willing and able to serve for six straight years.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>Perhaps more importantly, in the context of an international criminal trial, it is unclear how to constitute a jury \u201cof one\u2019s peers.\u201d To draw jurors from the defendant\u2019s community could undermine the court\u2019s legitimacy in situations where communal divisions have become so intense as to lead to international crimes. In some situations, involving local community members could vitiate the very reason the case is being adjudicated at the international level. At the same time, jurors from other parts of the world might not be \u201cpeers\u201d in the sense of sharing communal norms and values. They might not understand the context of the case sufficiently to add value to the criminal legal process.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite these practical difficulties, some commentators have called for the incorporation of jurors in international criminal adjudication, including at the International Criminal Court (ICC). (<\/span>see<\/span><\/i> Gastil et al., Deliberation and Global Criminal Justice). They argue that involving jurors in international deliberations would do exactly what <\/span>Judge Pallmeyer<\/span> believes it does in the United States: fight perceptions of bias and bring greater diversity into decision-making, thereby enhancing the Court\u2019s legitimacy. They even suggest that such greater legitimacy might encourage the United States and other reluctant states to join the ICC.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Although it is hard to imagine how the logistical difficulties associated with international jury service could be overcome, it may be worth exploring this possibility. In a progressively polarizing world, global institutions like the ICC are both increasingly attacked and urgently needed. If global jury service would help to legitimize international legal decision-making and consolidate a sense of global citizenship it may well be \u201cworth the effort.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Images from the 2023 Edward Ross Lecture in Litigation, featuring Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and moderated by Joe Tucker (LAW ’89) Managing Partner of Tucker Law Group.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n