Rogerian Project (2017)

1. Blind Juries
By Destiny Tate
March 27, 2017
ENG 3080
Rogerian Project

2. What is a blind jury?
• A jury that is prevented in some way from seeing the defendant in either a
civil or criminal case (or both) throughout the length of a case—also called a
“blindfolded jury.”

3. Why are blind juries important?
• This issue is important due to the rapid increase of mass incarceration of
minorities in the United States, especially in the wake of privatized prisons,
which profit of off the number of prisoners incarcerated, leading some to
create the term “The New Jim Crow” to describe this new racially biased
caste-system.

4. Incarceration Data
• The number of state inmates grew 708% between 1972 and 2008.
• This disproportion is said to result from the “War on Drugs,” with many being arrested
for nonviolent drug offences. Before this was implemented, there were 300,000 people
in the American prison system, while today it is 2.3 million.
• An African American male is sentenced to an average of a 20 to 50 times longer
average prison sentence than a white male convicted of the same drug crime.
• 70% of all men imprisoned are black or Hispanic.
• The U.S. currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

5. Incarceration Data
• This graph breaks down the
offences of those arrested by
category and number, and then
color codes by facility.

6. Incarceration Data
• This graph represents the ratio
of incarceration by race and
ethnicity.

7. Key Questions
• How do juries and racial bias affect the U.S. incarceration rate?
• Could this be prevented by using a “blindfolded” technique?
• How could this technique be implemented in a plausible way?
• How could this technique be harmful?
• How could this technique be beneficial?

8. Key Definitions
• Blind Jury – A jury is prevented in some way from seeing the defendant in either a
civil or criminal case (or both) throughout the length of a case—also called a
“blindfolded jury.”
• Blind judge – The presiding judge over a case is prevented in some way from seeing
the defendant throughout the length of a case.
• The War on Drugs – the 1971 campaign of the U.S. government to prohibit drugs
(as well as military aid and prevention) in order to reduce the illegal drug trade.
• The New Jim Crow – a reference to an emerging undercaste system of people of
color (specifically African Americans) due to mass incarceration in the wake of the
War on Drugs.

9. Position One:
• We should not have blind juries because you should be able to “read” people to see
if they show remorse, sadness, etc.
• Many believe that being able to view the defendant will allow them to assess whether or not
the defendant feels remorse for their actions. This is a common human need, especially in
terms of assessing the truth, and FBI Special Agent Joe Navarro states that knowing what
signs to look for (fidgeting, closed posture, etc.) is the first step to lie detection.
• A rather important aspect of this position is that many people many believe that they can
survey the aspects of someone’s appearance or demeanor and form an opinion on whether
or not they are genuinely truthful or lying. This contradicts a study done on lie detection
with 24,000 participants with only the average accuracy across all of the studies reaching
54%.

10. Position Two:
• We should have blind juries because it will decrease implicit bias and possibly
prevent mass incarceration of minorities.
• There is a huge discrepancy when examining incarceration statistics based on race, as
detailed in the previous slides. Racism is still a huge problem today, and has been present in
certain jury verdicts, causing several scandals, and after the case of Miguel Peña-Rodriguez v.
Colorado, it even led the supreme court to rule that if evidence of racial bias emerges after a
jury verdict, the trial judge must review the usually-secret jury deliberations in order to
determine whether the defendant was denied a fair trial.
• More often than not, racism in trials is presented as systematic, such as jury selection and
occasionally racial remarks made by the prosecution in summation, rather than overt racism.
This makes it more difficult to combat racism in court rooms, but not impossible; with blind
juries, they would not be able to see the defendant, preventing them from forming an
unconscious bias based upon race, and therefore allowing the defendant a fair trial.

11. Position Three:
• We should not have blind juries because it is much easier to convict a stranger if you
are removed from them personally, thereby preventing the jury from forming an
empathetic decision.
• Based on the Milgram Experiment which measured the willingness to obey an authority
figure, several students in a room were ordered to “shock” the person in the next room with
increasing vigor, it seems to be much easier psychologically for a person to punish another
when they are removed from the decision. Many argue that it would be much easier for a
jury to convict a defendant for the death penalty if they had never seen them, nor looked
them in the eyes.
• By removing the identity of the defendant, you are removing their life and presence in the
jury’s eyes. This could lead to a severe lack of empathy in deliberations or prevent the jury
from understanding the consequences of controlling the future of another person’s life.

12. Position Four:
• We should have blind juries and blind judges in order to remove implicit bias from
courtrooms altogether.
• Lady Justice herself is depicted with a blindfold on, and this concept should transfer to our
court systems as well. Many people argue that both judge and jury have a huge say in the
final verdict, and in cases that don’t require a jury, the judge is the rule of law.
• Many judges have been outed for racist remarks in the past few years, such as Jeff Sessions,
who was deemed “too racist” to be a federal judge after reports leaked of his use of a racial
slur after a court hearing. This is an all too common problem, with some judges even
keeping their jobs after such allegations. If juries are required to be blind, many people agree
that judges should be held to the same standard when delivering a verdict; they should only
be following facts and seeking justice.

13. Best Case Scenario
• In a best case scenario, the weight of racial bias will not be present in the
jury’s deliberation or verdict, only the facts of the case will be discussed, and
the defendant will get a fair trial regardless of their race.

14. Worst Case Scenario
• In a worse case scenario, the jury fails to connect with the defendant and
convicts them more harshly to overcompensate. Another scenario would be
that many offenders that suffer sociopathic tendencies or show no remorse
or empathy could possibly be released, without the jury even realizing it.

15. Complexities
• This problem has several different aspects affecting the decision: can a jury
convict a person to life in prison or death having never seen them or looked
them in the eyes? Can a jury tell if a defendant is lying or showing remorse—
or is this just for their own peace of mind rather than accuracy? Would a
blind jury fix racial bias in courtrooms or is it complicating it? Is there a
simpler technique? Would legal departments be opposed to this technique?

16. Common Ground
• People do agree for the most part that there is an existing bias in
incarceration statistics. The courtroom is the first step in fixing these larger
issues. If a “blind jury” technique is used, there must still be some way for
the jury to emotionally connect with the defendant in order to feel both
morally and ethically sound in their final decision.

17. Proposed Solutions
• There are currently several problems with the U.S. justice system, such as the
extremely high incarceration rate, the continual arrests for minor offences that lead
to higher conviction rates, and the monetization of prison labor/rise of privatized
prisons. These problems can all be solved by fixing the problems where they begin:
in the courtroom.
• A potential solution could be that before the trial even begins, the defendant has the
option of being awarded a “blind jury”. If the defendant wishes to have a blind jury,
then the jury is prevented from seeing the defendant through the duration of the
case, but the defendant is allowed to submit handwritten or verbal testimony
(possibly with voice distortion if the defendant wishes) in order to convey their
remorse or connect with the jury.

18. Proposed Solutions (Continued)
• Another proposed solution is that perhaps rather than the jury being “blindfolded”,
the judge should be “blind” instead. In this solution, the jury would have the power
to deliberate the verdict while also being able to assess the defendant for remorse,
but the judge is not allowed to see the defendant. The judge can still dispute the
jury’s verdict personally, but only on the grounds of the actual facts of the case.
• Another solution or pivot of this technique is that blind juries can only be utilized
for nonviolent offenders. This will hopefully reduce the number of minority men
convicted of minor drug charges compared to white men with the same charges. In
these cases, the jury is only allowed to view the facts of the case; many of these will
not require the jury to look for remorse. In violent offenses, the jury would have full
rights and be able to assess the defendant normally.

19. Sources (Data & Position One)
• Mariotti, Steve. “The New Jim Crow: A Must-Read for Every American.” Huffington
Post, 30 July, 2013. Web. Accessed March 17, 2017.
• Navarro, Joe. “The Truth About Lie Detection.” Psychology Today, 15 March, 2017.
Web. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201203/the-truth-about-
lie-detection. Accessed 20 March, 2017.
• DePaulo, Bella. “Why Are We so Bad at Detecting Lies?” Psychology Today, 27 March,
2017. Web. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201305/why-are-
we-so-bad-detecting-lies. Accessed 20 March, 2017.

20. Sources (Position Two)
• Totenburg, Nina. “Supreme Court Allows Prying Into Jury Deliberations If
Racism Is Perceived.” National Public Radio, 6 March, 2017. Web.
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/06/518877248/supreme-court-allows-prying-
into-jury-deliberations-if-racism-is-perceived. Accessed 21 March, 2017.
• Gershman, Bennett L. “How Racism Infects Jury Verdicts.” The Huffington
Post, 30 Nov. 2016. Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-
gershman/how-racism-infects-jury-v_b_12354142.html. Accessed 25 March,
2017.

21. Sources (Position Three)
• “Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority.” University of California,
15 Nov. 2014. https://nature.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-
labor/7article/article35.htm. Web. Accessed 26 March, 2017.
• Grynberg, Delphine. “Pain and Empathy: The Effect of Self-Oriented
Feelings on the Detection of Painful Facial Expressions.” PLOS.org, 1 July,
2014. Web.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100434.
Accessed 26 March, 2017.

22. Sources (Position Four)
• Reilly, Ryan J. “Jeff Sessions Was Deemed Too Racist To Be A Federal Judge.
He’ll Now Be Trump’s Attorney General.” The Huffington Post, 20 Nov. 2016.
Web. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-
sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2. Accessed 20 March,
2017.
• Herbert, Peter. “As a Judge, I Can See the Racism Embedded in the System.”
The Guardian, 22 Nov. 2016. Web.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/judge-racism-
judicial-system-black-communities. Accessed March 20, 2017.