The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees all U.S. citizens the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state or district wherein the crime shall have been committed,” (Amendments 2003, 1). A jury trial in most cases is also guaranteed by State constitutions. The concept of a jury trial has been in existence more than three hundred years. Rationale for a jury trial includes preventing abuse, allowing the community a direct application of public policy, and enabling the common man to nullify poorly considered law. Juries typically are comprised of 12 members with two alternates, and the unanimity requirement helps reduce the likelihood of runaway juries. After receiving a summons, jurors are typically questioned by counsel and/or a judge in a process known as “voir dire.” The process of selecting jurors who will be impartial, Brash (2002) argues the purpose of “voir dire should be to determine whether a basis for challenge exists against any court member,” (27). While there are pros and cons of using a jury of common men and women, the dangers of replacing such a jury with a board of judges far outweigh the cons.
Many individuals argue for replacing the current jury system with a jury made up of a board or panel of judges. These individuals argue that conventional juries are a waste of time and money, are incapable of handling sophisticated and complex issues, and are driven more by emotion than fact. Indeed, the jury selection process can takes months as counsel questions potential jurors. Even once a jury has been selected, a trial judge and courtroom must become available. As Wollan (1997) explains, “This necessitates a complicated call-in system for both counsel and jurors to find out when and where to report for trial. At least one participant frequently drops out for some reason, so that the entire process has to start all over again,” (118). Such inefficient...