THE BILL OF JURY RIGHTS The following six points were approved for inclusion in the Bill of Jury Rights by voting delegates at the St. Louis "BJR" Conference. Time ran out before several other items proposed for the Bill could be debated and voted upon. Conference participants were subsequently asked to send us their signatures if they wanted us to attach them to the six points that were approved, for publication in this issue of the FIJActivist. The "signed" Bill, then, is to date as follows: 1. The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts in all cases shall not be infringed. 2. In all criminal trials, a jury of at least twelve persons must be seated unless declined by the defendant. 3. The jury must be told that unanimity is not required, but if not achieved, a retrial is possible. 4. A guilty or innocent verdict must be established unanimously by the jury. 5. Jurors must be randomly selected from the widest possible base. 6. Jurors may not be disqualified from service except by reason of conflict of interest. Signatures of those who've signed to date will be reproduced in the next FIJActivist. So far, we've received signatures from: David S. Curland, NH; Toni L. Black, SC; Frank Nugent, MO; Red Beckman, MT; Honey Lanham Dodge, TX; Ken Bush, MO; Godfrey D. Lehman, CA; Sasha D. Kennison, SC; Marjorie C. Davies, OH; Richard B. Boddie, CA; Dick Sunderman, WY; Norma D. Segal, NY; Dave Dawson, WY; Paul Carroll, AZ; Eon Marshall, CA; Barbara Anderson, NH; Bro. Jim Lorenz, CA; Dennis Kurk, MN; Beatrice Kurk, MN; Walter A. Murray, Jr. WY; Richard Tompkins, AZ; Darlene Span, AZ; Jerry Span, AZ; Larry Dodge, MT; Don Doig, MT. BJR Conferees and Speakers note: If you haven't done so already, you can still "sign" the Bill of Jury Rights, as presented above. Just send us your signature. We'll cut it out and paste it up with the others. We'll send you a master copy of the signed document, and print it in the next FIJActivist! "DRAFTERMATH" Since the St. Louis conference, Texans for FIJA met to draft a "Texas version", which proposes item 1 of the Bill of Jury Rights as an amendment to the section of that state's constitution dealing with trial by jury, and includes BJR items 2-5 as part of a list of proposed statutes by which to implement and supplement that section, as amended. The Texas version also divided the statutes into those which would apply to all trials, and those which would apply only to criminal trials. After discussing the Texas version with FIJA activists in Colorado and Wyoming, collecting from them still more suggestions, Larry Dodge brought the accumulated commentary to FIJA HQ in Montana, where he and Don Doig added still a third battery of statutes, applicable only to civil cases, and rewrote the entire document, using as many suggestions as possible. After some debate over whether some of the items in the list should be separated out as "rights of the defendant", as opposed to "jury rights" (resolved by deciding that all rights of the jury are derivative of the right of defendants to trial by jury, so that it makes no sense to separate them), a more-or-less comprehensive Bill of Jury Rights was developed: Proposed Constitutional Amendment, (either by legislative referendum or citizen initiative) to the state constitutional section on Trial by Jury: "The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts in all cases shall not be infringed." Proposed statutes to implement the above amendment, and to supplement state constitutional sections dealing with Trial by Jury or with Rights of the Accused: 1. In all trials: a. a jury of at least twelve persons must be seated unless declined by the defendant. b. jurors must be selected randomly, from the widest possible base. c. jurors may not be disqualified from service except by reason of conflict of interest. d. no evidence which either side wishes to present to the jury may be withheld, provided it was lawfully obtained. e. jurors may take notes in the courtroom, have questions posed to witnesses, and take reference materials into the jury room. f. during selection, jurors may refuse to answer questions which they believe violate their right of privacy, without prejudice. 2. In all criminal trials: a. the court must inform the jury of its right to judge both law and fact in reaching a verdict, and failure to so inform the jury is grounds for mistrial. The jurors must acknowledge by oath that they understand this right, no party to the trial may be prevented from encouraging them to exercise it, and no potential juror may be disqualified from serving on a jury because he expresses a willingness to judge the law or its application, or to vote according to conscience. b. the jury must be told that it is not required to reach a unanimous verdict, but that failure to do so will produce a hung jury, and a retrial will be possible. c. A unanimous vote of the jury is required in order for it to render a verdict of guilty or innocent. d. the jury must be informed of the range of punishments which can be administered if the defendant is found guilty, and what, if any, exceptions to that range may be available to the convict. e. the court may grant no motions which limit the individual rights of the defendant, most particularly his right to have the jury hear whatever justifications for his actions the defense may wish to present. 3. In all civil trials: a. civil trial jurors also retain the traditional power to judge the law, and must be so told by the court whenever the government or any agent of the government is a party to the trial, and where the amount in dispute exceeds $20. b. agreement by three-quarters of the jury constitutes a verdict. c. no judge may overturn the verdict of the jury. Appeals may be made only to another jury, and if these juries disagree, the case shall be decided by a third jury. "PLUS THREE" The St. Louis conference produced three independent proposals for wording which we would like to reproduce here as additional food for thought. FORMER JUSTICE JOHN I. PURTLE'S PROPOSAL Trial juries shall be composed of 12 or more citizens chosen at random from a pool consisting of all persons in the judicial district over the age of 18 years. In criminal cases the verdict must be unanimous and in civil cases, 75% must agree on the verdict. Jurors shall be allowed to take notes during the trial and may take the notes and all evidence into the deliberation room. Grand juries shall consist of 16 or more members selected from the same pool and an indictment must be signed by 75% of the panel. The grand jury shall have the right to select independent counsel. The inherent rights of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law and the facts in all cases shall not be infringed. GODFREY DAVIDSBURG LEHMAN'S PROPOSAL The inherent right of jurors to be informed of their duty to judge the law and facts by general or special verdicts at their discretion in all cases shall not be infringed. Trial juries shall be composed of 12 or more citizens selected at random from the widest possible community base in the judicial district without peremptory challenge; challenges for cause shall be limited only to cases of direct partisan interest. Verdicts in all criminal trials shall be unanimous and in civil trial shall be by 75%. Jurors shall be informed of their options to select the third verdict of "Not Proven" when they are dissatisfied with the limitations by either an outright acquittal or conviction. The court shall not withhold from the jury any evidence which any of the litigants wish to bring before the jury, except for evidence illegally obtained. In the case of evidence obtained under questionable circumstances, the court shall explain to the jury how the evidence was obtained without revealing the evidence itself and the judge may express his opinion as to proper admissibility. But the evidence shall be allowed only if one-third (?) or more of the jury so desire provided that a ruling of illegality by the jury shall constitute an automatic indictment of the persons who obtained such evidence, and who shall be tried immediately under the criminal statutes of this state concurrent with the originating trial. Should defendants be acquitted in said trial, the suppressed evidence shall be made immediately available to the jury in the originating trial; but if said trial be already completed, the freed evidence shall constitute grounds for a new trial upon the request of either party. The Seventh Amendment's proscription that "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than by the rules of the common law," shall be understood that no appellate court in any case may evaluate the jury verdict neither to overrule nor uphold, being limited only to determine if the trial was conducted fairly per Constitutional mandate. If a question appears to the court or in the case of new evidence, the court shall send the case back to the trial court for a new trial before a second jury, equal in sovereign rank to the first jury, which can deliver a new verdict or uphold the first verdict. If the second jury overrules the first, a third trial may be held, the final determination being the two agreeing juries. FRANK NUGENT'S PROPOSAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE 1. It being the natural right and ability of each and every citizen of this state to judge for himself or herself as to the relevance of evidence, and it being the natural right and ability of each and every citizen to resist pre-judging any issue, no evidence shall be declared inadmissible or otherwise kept from the jury on the grounds of relevance or irrelevancy, nor on the ground that such evidence would be prejudicial. 2. Should any judge rule that any evidence being submitted was obtained illegally, the question of admissibility of such evidence shall be turned over to arbitration consisting of the following persons: prosecuting attorney, defense attorney or the pro se defendant, and three jurors from the general jury pool. If the arbiters decide by an 80% vote that such evidence was obtained legally, then such evidence shall be placed before the jury. A less than 80% vote shall constitute a finding that the evidence was obtained illegally, and then it shall not be admitted nor revealed to the jury; provided however, that such a ruling of illegality shall constitute an automatic indictment of the persons who obtained such evidence, and who shall be tried immediately under the criminal statutes of this state concurrent with the originating trial. Should defendants be acquitted in said trial, the suppressed evidence shall be made immediately available to the jury in the originating trial; but if said trial be already completed, the freed evidence shall constitute grounds for a new trial upon the prayer of either party.