Issue date: 5/4/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion

Although I do believe in the United States criminal justice system, there are some things about it that drive me crazy and just don't make any sense.

According to an April 30 Associated Press article, an Ashland County Circuit Court judge failed to remove his own mother from the jury during a one-day trial of a man who worked with friends to steal a vehicle.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the judge erred when he allowed his mother to be a juror and should have removed her. The court ordered a new trial for the man and said the mother was a biased juror. Due to this, the man's Constitutional right to a fair trial had been violated.

During jury selection for the case, both the judge and the mother said their relationship would not interfere with the trial. The defense attorney asked the judge to remove his mother, arguing the relationship was prejudicial. The judge failed to do so and went on with the trial. According to the article, the judge said he did not believe he had the legal authority to remove her.

Six justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said the judge had the power to remove the mother, he should have done so, and they added that now the man deserves a new trial. Three judges concurred but noted the case was about the judge's mistake, not the potential for bias. All nine justices, therefore, agreed the judge had made a discretionary mistake.

I agree 100 percent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision. It makes absolutely no sense for a judge to have his mother, or any family member for that matter, as a juror in the same court room. The potential for a biased decision is much too great, even if the mother "raised an individual who … tries to find the truth and would do the same on the jury," as the prosecutor stated in the article.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, which is even more shocking. During research, the defense attorney found that there was one other Wisconsin case where a judge's mother was a juror in a 1990s murder, and he found about 10 similar situations nationwide. Granted that is only a few of millions and millions of cases nationwide, but a situation like this should never occur.

The man on trial had been sentenced to three years probation, so it's not like we are talking about a serious criminal offense. Although this is a very minor and common case, technically he was not given his full Constitutional rights as ruled by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I don't condone the stealing of cars, and obviously neither does the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but a retrial in this case is just going to cost everyone more time and resources.

With an already overloaded and slow-moving court system, solving this case is going to take twice the amount of time which should have been necessary. It could have simply been avoided if the judge had removed his mother and found one of the many other possible jurors.

I am no expert in the detailed processes of the court system, so I read a little about jury selection from an old textbook I had from an introductory criminal justice class. Typically, jurors are selected from names in a jury pool. In most states, the pool is compiled from registered voters and driver's licenses, among others.

Once names are randomly selected, jurors have to meet with the defense attorney, prosecutor and judge of the specific case, in a process called vior dire. This is a courtroom process of questioning prospective jurors in order to screen out people the judge or attorneys think might be biased or otherwise incapable of delivering a fair verdict. The judge and attorneys from each side are allowed to question potential jurors about their background, knowledge of the case and acquaintance with any participants in the case. If a juror's responses indicate that he or she will not be able to make a fair decision, an attorney may request a challenge for cause, which is what seems to have happened in the Ashland case. The mother openly admitted her son was the judge in this case.

A request for challenge is the removal of a prospective juror by showing that he or she has some bias or other legal disability. The judge must rule on these challenges, and if the judge agrees with the request, the juror is excused from the specific case. Therefore, according to this definition, the judge did have the legal authority to remove his mother, but he chose not to do so.

Considering the process jurors go through, the mother should have been removed. The judge had the power to remove his mother and avoid all of the unnecessary legal proceedings following, including a ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and a new trial.

No family member should be on a jury if he or she is related to the judge.

Had this case been more serious, such as the murder case in the 1990s, the repercussions could have been worse. The man who was on probation may again be found guilty, but the point is it never should have happened.

The potential for bias is just too strong, even if the parties involved say it won't happen. In the end, it makes more sense to find another juror from the pool to avoid what happened in this case.

Anderson is a senior print journalism major and news editor for The Spectator.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools