BETTER DAYS

For many people in countries like the Philippines where a judge decides a court case, getting to know how a jury goes about its work and reaches its conclusion can be fascinating.

Although just like that of a judge, the verdict of a jury can save lives or destroy the future of the accused, a remarkable difference between the two lies in the suspense. The jitters one might feel right before a jury verdict is announced can be unbearable.

Here in our country, one could get an inkling of the judge’s decision after listening to probably the first half of the ruling being read by the court clerk. The suspense can dissipate gradually. But in a jury system, the verdict comes in an instant. And lives can be crushed in an instant.

The impact of a jury verdict can hit so suddenly. The outbursts, the wailing, the incessant crying of mothers whose son has been found guilty can erupt in an instant. For those declared not guilty, the surge of instant joy can be ecstatic.

The jury system is a pillar of the judicial processes in many democracies with its crucial role of allowing supposedly impartial citizens to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. In the United States, the system is based on the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial by a group of their peers as enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution.

A jury consists of 12 jurors (agreed to by the prosecution and the defense) who have to reach a unanimous decision to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The basic logic behind the system is that the collective wisdom of 12 people could bring about a more sensible judgement than that of a single individual or judge. That jurors can “bring to the trial 12 times more life experience than a judge” says a lot about collective wisdom.

Last Thursday’s guilty verdict against former US President Donald Trump rendered by a New York jury was quite a shocker for many across the world. The verdict, and the criminal trial itself, is unprecedented in America.

The former president, who is very much in the running to become president again, was charged and convicted with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, a felony in New York, that stemmed from a $130,000 “hush money” payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Americans who believed the trial was fair and the verdict is accurate subscribed to the notion that the jury of five women and seven men simply did their duty that they were sworn to do, and that the result showed that in America, no one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law.

But those not in favor of the verdict did not mince words. “It was a rigged trial,” Trump claimed shortly after he was pronounced guilty, opening up the torrent of other criticisms particularly those from the Republican Party.

“Today is a shameful day in American history,” US House Speaker Mike Johnson said. “This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one. The weaponization of our justice system has been a hallmark of the Biden administration.”

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said the verdict is “a complete travesty that makes a mockery of our system of justice.” Other top Republicans rallied around Trump with the same ferocity and uniformity of messages portraying the trial and outcome as “absolute injustice,” and a host of other claims which some experts warned could sow distrust in institutions and the rule of law.

Many Americans do believe that the trial was politically motivated amid the fact that the Manhattan District Attorney is an elected prosecutor who ran as a Democrat. But some analysts insist the underlying political motive should not matter.

“The bar for convicting any defendant in the American justice system is extremely high: It requires a unanimous decision by 12 citizens who deem a crime to have occurred beyond reasonable doubt. A prosecutor may well have political motivation, but his motivation isn’t what determines a verdict,” explained David Graham in The Atlantic.

Considering that a single juror could be relentless in resisting the collective decision of his peers, resulting in a hung jury, reaching a unanimous decision certainly shows how high the standard for conviction is.

Amid criticisms that tend to put the jury system under trial, many remain unshaken in their belief that the US system highlights the importance of judicial independence and accountability – principles that are critical in any democratic society.

In the Philippines where there are perennial reports about challenges pertaining to the independence of the judiciary, as well as concerns about corruption and political interference, the Trump verdict serves as a reminder of the need for robust mechanisms to hold public officials accountable in support of the dictum, “No one is above the law.” ([email protected])