The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Law Professor On A Jury?
A challenge for cause or a peremptory strike?
This week, I was called for jury service. And, like in past years, I was dismissed. I think as a general matter, it is not a good idea for a lawyer to serve on a jury. Perhaps in a place like Washington, D.C., where a substantial percentage of the population is an attorney, such service is unavoidable. But at least in Houston, I was the only lawyer on the panel of fifty.
I think it is an even worse idea for a law professor to serve on a jury. The role of the jury is to find facts, not law. Law professors are professionals at conveying the law. I would like to think that I would follow the law exactly as the judge instructed me--indeed, I told the judge I would during voir dire. But I think it would be hard to entirely set aside my views on what the law is.
The bigger problem is that other members of the jury pool would look to the law professor to explain the law. And even if I resisted offering any statement of the law, my view would be given undue deference. For example, several years ago, I was called for jury duty in a criminal case. During voir dire, the defense counsel said "Professor Blackman, what does the Fifth Amendment say?" I immediately realized how fraught that question was. The jury would immediately look to me to answer legal questions. I replied, somewhat evasively, "Which Clause?" I suppose he could have been asking about the Takings Clause? He replied, "Self incrimination" and moved on. This week on jury duty, counsel for the plaintiff revealed that he was one of my students. Again, the jurors would now look to me to judge whether my former student was correct. During a sidebar at voir dire, I told the judge, and both counsel, about my concern that the other jurors would look to me to determine the law.
For good reason, I was excused from jury service. I do not know if either lawyer used a peremptory challenge, or challenged me for cause. Is being a law professor per se grounds for a strike? I don't know.
I welcome emails from any other law professors who have been selected for a jury.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Interesting. Your concerns are well taken. In Virginia, licensed practicing attorneys are statutorily exempt from jury duty: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.01/chapter11/section8.01-341/.
On the flip side, a friend in Arizona tells me that even judges are NOT exempt and can serve on jury trials. My understanding is that that is a result of 1) abolishing preemptory strikes, and 2) not statutorily exempting them. Absent a few delineated exemptions, all strikes must be for cause. In the case of a judge, it would be awkward to say the judge couldn't rule impartially, but it would seem to me that your argument regarding prejudicial deference from other jurors would be applicable.
A few years ago in Britain, a judge was called up for jury duty for a case he was going to preside over. His initial request to be excused was rejected, saying: "Your appeal for refusal has been rejected, but you could apply to the resident judge". The problem was that he WAS the resident judge. Fortunately, a phone call resolved the kerfuffle, and the case proceeded as normal.
Voire dire is less of a thing in Britain. My old tutor said that if he were ever summoned for jury duty he would state in court that he was a law tutor and he'd expect to be dismissed but that dismissal wasn't guaranteed. (In the unlikely event of a biopic, he would have been played by Mark Rylance in one of his more dour performances.)
"In the case of a judge, it would be awkward to say the judge couldn't rule impartially..."
Here's a story about a judge that lost his seat because he tried to get out of jury duty by saying he couldn't be impartial.
This is absolutely the case in AZ. Have had criminal defense attorneys serve on juries in courts and with judges they also appear before and apparently no one thinks there's anything wrong with it.
"licensed practicing attorneys are statutorily exempt from jury duty"
Same in Ohio when I started but the state chief justice got called, had a great time in the jury room, and lobbied to get the exemption and most others abolished.
See, he could skip work and no harm to him, no deadlines for his opinions and plenty of minions at the court to take care of his needs.
New York used to have a wide variety of automatic exemptions, including lawyers, and then they abolished all of them in the late 1990s; famously, shortly thereafter, Rudy Giuliani, who was both a lawyer and the sitting mayor, was called for (and served on) a civil case.
Why would a law professor be different from any other attorney? Particularly one with some expertise in the area of law at issue in the case (e.g., a lawyer practicing criminal law in a criminal prosecution).
Because, as he said ...
The bigger problem is that other member of the jury pool would look to the law professor to explain the law. And even if I resisted offering any statement of the law, my view would be given undue deference.
Lol. Spend a little time in the comments section here and you’ll quickly see it’s not just you, a law professor, who cant accept what a judge says the law is.
Yes, but also, spend a little time in the comments section here and he will be quickly disabused of the notion that anyone would look to him in particular for an explanation of the law.
Well, some around here do. But I’m not convinced they’re human, sane, and not paid trolls.
A long time ago I was called in for Jury Duty. It was a liability case involving an aircraft. I was asked what I did for a living and said "Aircraft Mechanic". The Judge said "Don't you have to be licensed to do that?" I stood up, walked up to his bench and laid down my A&P License. He read it and said "Excused. You have a nice day." I did. It was too late to got to work and I was already getting paid for the day. I've always thought that people on Unemployment should be picked for Jury Duty. Let it count for their Job Search requirements .
Finally agree with you
Just to be clear, I don't agree with Josh's argument, I just wouldn't want him on my jury.
I've served on a Grand Jury and Petit Jury and somehow managed to survive.
Jurors are not required to entirely set aside their views on what the law is.
It was likely for cause. It would be kinda shitty to require one of the attorneys to use a limited number of strikes on someone the court can excuse on its own.
I would think from the professor's perspective; it would be exactly as he said...the other juror's looking to the professor to answer all their questions. Prolly wouldn't be very enjoyable experience.
If it was for cause it was probably because of your relationship to the student, not your status as a law professor. But YMMV by jurisdiction.
In my state and my normative belief is that simply being a lawyer shouldn’t be a for cause dismissal. Everyone has experiences and biases that they take into the courtroom, including their views or experience with the law. It’s not unique to lawyers or professors. It simply depends on whether the court believes the potential for bias is so apparent in a particular juror that that juror can’t discharge their duties according to their oath.
Also: why would you think you would know everything about the law in a particular case anyway? You teach con law and property. Why on earth would you believe you know what the law is in a criminal case better than the judge instructing you or the other jurors? Or a med mal? Or personal injury. Or some complex commercial dispute?
Your last point is a better one, about jurors deferring, since they don’t often know that lawyers don’t know everything about the law in a given situation. But the jury can be instructed on not to give the lawyer undo deference in the same way they are instructed that the foreman doesn’t have any more power.
Finally, if you actually know the law, when a juror appears to be relying on you too much for legal info, you’d give them the legally correct answer: 1) reread the instructions of law given by the judge 2) write down the question and give it to the foreman to give to the court staff.
" . . . my view would be given undue deference."
You need to get off campus a bit more.
Or maybe read these comment daily.
Never have I agreed with you more 🙂
Come on. Some members of any jury would tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, that a law professor is an expert on "on the law."
Whenever an attorney or other justice partner is called for jury duty here, it seems to be the general strategy on the part of the defense attorney to get the person to admit obliquely that "they know something about the case that none of the other potential jurors will know" -- i.e. that the defendant is represented by a public defender and so must be indigent.
But I think that the thing Josh points to is real, even though I have occasionally looked and never run across it in caselaw. A juror with special knowledge might be able to set aside that knowledge and decide the case impartially for him or herself, but might have difficulty deliberating with other jurors. Usually we only recognize the issue of difficulty deliberating in the context of potential jurors knowing each other. But logically, it could come up in related contexts.
Now, I don't think just being a law professor counts. The attorney who fears the professor will be too much of a leader needs to use a peremptory. But being a professor who taught one of the attorneys takes it to a new level.
The last time I was called for voir dire, after the first round of basic demographic questions of the panel, the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant took me aside together and told me they were dismissing me “as a courtesy.” I’ve always been curious which one of them used a peremptory strike on me, but I appreciated it either way.
Can counsel just agree to strike?
I assume they agreed he should be dismissed “for cause” and the court consented to that. I think giving up a peremptory as a courtesy to a juror could arguably be a form of malpractice and could be considered ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case.
Josh on jury duty, first remarks in the jury room: "When I chaired a committee at the Federalist Society"...
I've always thought lawyers should be excluded from jury duty. All other lawyers hate having them and want to strike them as quickly as possible. If you have a lawyer on your jury, it will be a jury of one as everyone else will be looking to them for expertise.
I have been called once for jury duty, couldn't get out of it, and was struck for each trial. I have to sit around and wait to be struck. I would have no problem doing my duty but I hate have to show up, wait around, and answer questions, just to be struck.
IIRC, Margaret Marshall, then Chief Justice of the MA Supreme Judicial Court, once served on a jury.
David Hittner, U.S. District Judge SD Tex, also served on a jury. I seem to recall that he wrote an article describing his experience, but after a quick internet search, I can't find the article.
Justice Breyer was call to jury service but was excused by a defense attorney.
Smart. Guy was flakey on criminal cases.
For good reason, I was excused from jury service
Well, yes. Perhaps not exactly for the reason you think.
I don't think it is too much of a problem to have lawyers on a jury. Jurors have to follow various rules. Not relying on a lawyer-juror to explain the law (no comment on JB in that respect), who can simply inform them to follow the judge, is but one.
And, different jurors can have different specialities that might arise in a trial, including speaking a language, expert testimony, and so forth. One of the lawyers might want to use a challenge to dispose of a lawyer-juror for various reasons.
But don't think it is necessary to keep them off the jury as a rule. Nor should it matter too much in many cases.
A simple drug possession case. How much will a lawyer being on the jury change things? Many cases turn on the facts, not the law.
And, again, the lawyer simply has to say they can't provide the law. It's the judge's job. It shouldn't be too difficult.
It would be somewhat interesting to see how the rule was traditionally applied. Were lawyers kept off jury pools in 1790? Not that that is determinative. But some people care.
I saw "lawyer" but don't think law professor changes the equation too much. If anything, a lawyer in a field might influence a juror more regarding the law than a law professor.
Slightly unresponsive, but England was know to impanel special merchant juries for commercial disputes, and “matron’s juries” when a woman alleged she was pregnant. So there was an idea that sometimes juries should be filled with people familiar with the general subject matter of the dispute.
Yes, that is somewhat different, since the whole jury would be chosen for their expertise.
Here, the concern is that the ordinary person juror would be unduly influenced by a legal professional.
“For good reason, I was excused from jury service
Well, yes. Perhaps not exactly for the reason you think.”
Judges like to reassure the jury pool that an excusal or peremptory strike should not be taken personally by the juror. That’s not strictly true. While the juror won’t find out the reason, if they did, they probably should take it very personally because the judge, lawyers, and court staff know they were excused for being some type of asshole.
Years ago as a prosecutor I learned that voir dire was mostly worthless for jury selection. Jurors tell you what they think you want to hear. You might try asking what magazines they read (today it would be blogs), or look at how they dressed for court (birkenstocks would be an obvious bump), but the number one criteria is and was occupation. I can't recall ever having a panel with a law professor, but he or she would be treated like any teacher -- bump.
Why exactly bump all teachers? Statistical likelihood that they are lefty and therefore more likely to acquit? Or presumption that they can't be taught anything, including the law and facts of the case?
JSM
Maybe a fear that out of habit they're going to do some teaching. The attorneys want to be the only people teaching the jury anything.
one of unwritten the rules we have {prosecutors} , is never allow a lawyer or an accountant to your jury. Accountants will want perfection, a lawyer will try your case to the jury members.
Japanese juries categorically exclude - by law - any person in a legal profession: MP, senior executive officials, attorneys and former attorneys, prosecutors, patent agents, any employee of the judiciary or the Ministry of Justice (though this could be to prevent conflict of interest), and law professors. And also cops and servicemembers.
Very bizarre paradox: we still claim to be a common-law country, where the people are assumed to know the law, and ignorance of it, or mistake of law, is no excuse. Which is why we are judged by a jury of our peers. Yet the worst thing that can possibly happen is to have an expert in the law on the jury. - JSM
"The role of a jury is to find facts, not law."
But then you have things like this:
"In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact." Wis. Const. Art. I, sec. 3. And myriad court decisions in other context explaining that juries determine the law as well (heavily weakened by other courts over time, of course).
A lawyer on a jury is required to follow the judge's instructions regarding the law, but what if the judge is clearly wrong and following the judge's instructions would impose and injustice on a defendant? Would it not be difficult to simply decide to let a possible appeal address the issue? What if it appeared that the judge appeared to be consistently prejudiced against one party in his rulings, even if the rulings are technically defensible?
"my view would be given undue deference"
Josh, I hate to break it to you, but except for a few posters here, your view would not be given undue deference.
I am a lawyer, living in Arlington, VA, and admitted and working only in DC. I have been called for jury duty in Arlington Circuit Court twice, and both times, I have responded that, as an active lawyer, I am not permitted to serve on a jury in state court. VA Code Sec. 8.01-341 exempts "licensed practicing attorneys from serving on a jury. (In contrast, Sec. 8.o1-341.1 permits certain exemptions "upon . . . request. In both instances, the Clerk agreed with me, but his formal position (without citing any authority) is that a lawyer may waive the exemption. "Licensed, practicing attorneys are exempt from serving but can waive the exemption and serve jury duty." https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/Courts/Circuit-Court/Jury-Duty#section-12. If the Clerk is incorrect, it seems to me that a losing party whose challenge to a licensed practicing attorney being seated on a jury was rejected would have a basis for arguing on appeal that the verdict should be vacated.