01 July 2009

A Judge’s Role

A judge needs to make jurors understand that they are like deputized judges sworn to fairness. Ricardo M. Urbina is a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington. This article appears in the July 2009 issue of eJournal USA, Anatomy of a Jury Trial.

By Ricardo M. Urbina

When a judge convenes a case for trial before a jury, his or her mission is to organize, facilitate, and oversee a process that will render an outcome based on a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence in the case. An attorney representing each party plays an integral role in picking jurors who will function without bias or prejudice in the performance of their duty. It is the judge, however, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the proceedings by making sure that the attorneys perform properly within the boundaries of their function.

The judge rules on matters before and during the trial that allow or disallow the jury to consider evidence proposed by the attorneys. In that regard, the judge gives the members of the jury instructions at the beginning, during, and at the end of the trial intended to guide them in the process of fairly considering the testimony, documents, and other evidence in the case. The judge, by his or her example, motivates the jury to consider matters neutrally while they await the completion of the trial.

I tell jurors at the very beginning of a trial that the freedom we usually have to jump to conclusions in everyday life is, for the purpose of this trial, now suspended. Instead, jurors must consider themselves “deputized judges” sworn to fairness, as am I. This elevated self-image helps jurors understand the solemn importance of their task.

During my more than 28 years as a judge, I have developed great confidence in the wisdom of juries. Juries nearly always render verdicts with which I agree. I have learned that jurors, no matter how reluctant to engage in the process when they are first selected, become deeply invested and dedicated to the task of fairly assessing the evidence.

In criminal cases, for example, the jurors adhere to the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, as required by the law, the U.S. Constitution, and the judge’s instructions, the burden of proving guilt is exclusively on the government. They understand that the defendant never has to prove his or her innocence. Former jurors have agreed to speak to lawyers who are taking an academic course I teach on the American jury. Often these jurors explain to the class that they thought the accused person committed the crime, but that they nevertheless voted for acquittal because the government’s evidence failed to prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remaining Neutral

The task of remaining neutral until the evidentiary presentation is complete is often a difficult one for the judge as well. In a case before me several years ago, the government charged a man with several counts of taking indecent liberties with numerous boys all under the age of 14. The allegations were particularly egregious because the offender was infected with the HIV virus but used no condom during his sexual encounters with these boys.

At pretrial hearings, I ruled that some of the incriminating evidence could not be used by the prosecution because the police had violated the defendant’s constitutional rights during procedures leading up to the defendant’s arrest. Ruling in this manner weakened the government’s case, but the evidence remaining in the case still proved strong enough to result in convictions on most counts in the indictment.

Impanelling a jury required posing questions with the aim of identifying prospective jurors who would not be able to assess the evidence in a neutral and detached fashion. Several jurors stated during the voir dire (pretrial questioning of prospective jurors) that the subject matter of the charges alone was enough to taint their thinking about the case and the defendant’s innocence. They plainly indicated that they could not presume that the defendant was innocent. Other prospective jurors declined to serve because they, family members, or friends had experienced some kind of sexual child abuse. And yet others felt that the testimony anticipated at the trial would so offend their sensibilities that they would not be able to remain objective in assessing the defendant’s case.

The process of jury selection lasted several days, and the trial took two months for the presentation of evidence and another two weeks of jury deliberations before the jury reached guilty verdicts on most counts. The jury did not convict on all counts, however. When I personally reviewed the evidence on those acquitted counts, it became apparent that the jury had done its job well, for indeed those counts lacked the quality of evidence required for conviction.

The relationship that often develops between a jury and its presiding judge is one of trust. The jury trusts the judge to give it what it needs by way of the law and guidance on how to evaluate the case fairly. The judge entrusts the jury with the ultimate responsibility of administering justice. Looking back on my years on the bench, I find that in more than 95 percent of jury trial cases tried before me, the jury has returned verdicts supported by the evidence.