Improving Criminal Jury Verdicts: Learning From the Court-Martial

• NCJ Number: 217481
• Journal: Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Volume: 97 Issue: 1 Dated: Fall 2006 Pages: 101-146
• Author(s): Robert F. Holland
• Date Published: 2006
• Length: 46 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article considers the advantages of using a military verdict approach for State criminal trials that rely on the use of non-unanimous verdicts.

Abstract

The main argument is that State law should permit a super-majority of 12 jurors to render a verdict of guilty. When the required super-majority verdict of guilt cannot be reached, then a not guilty verdict should automatically result. This type of super-majority verdict process should involve the use of a secret ballot vote on guilt or innocence to protect the integrity of the verdict as a collective expression of the individual jurors’ consciences. The author argues that the current system which requires all jurors to agree on one verdict results in the majority “browbeating” the outnumbered dissenters into submission. The proposed super-majority system also has the benefits of promoting thorough discussion of all points of view and eliminating hung jury situations. In outlining the proposed super-majority system, the author illustrates how many specific military trial features can be used within State criminal trial procedures, particularly the use of court-martials which allow non-unanimous verdicts through the use of secret balloting. The author notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has illustrated the constitutional right of States to adopt the military verdict approach that uses a super-majority process rather than the unanimous verdict system. The trial procedures used by the court-martial are described followed by a consideration of how State criminal verdicts can be improved by adopting military jury procedures. The procedures used in State criminal courts are contrasted to the procedures used in court-martials before the author turns to a consideration of the concerns arising from the use of non-unanimous verdicts, which include concerns about the legitimacy of the verdict, how to ensure thorough deliberations, and the protection of unpopular minorities. The advantages of using the court-martial’s unique secret ballot to reach a verdict are reviewed and include the increased likelihood that all jury members will vote their conscience. Footnotes