Currently in N.Y., and perhaps in more states, practicing lawyers are not automatically exempt from jury duty. They can still be challenged or excluded from a particular case, like any other juror, for example, if they have an affiliation with any party involved, but they are forced to participate in jury duty just like anyone else.
To make matters worse, lawyers are instructed by the judges not to use their legal knowledge; in other words they are forced to separate their general knowledge from the information they learned by being lawyers and then withhold the latter from their contributions to the deliberations.
Lawyers were not always forced to participate in jury duty. Only a handful of years ago, lawyers were completely exempt, along with a list of other exempt occupations, ranging from doctor to home care provider. However, there were so many exemptions that there were too few potential jurors. This led to longer terms and more frequent calls for the remaining candidates for jury duty, which got people disgruntled. So the state practically eliminated automatic exemptions. Even judges and elected officials lost their automatic exemptions.
Just because people were up in arms about unfair jury duty policies does not mean that the exemptions should have been abolished. People think that it is better to share the misery of jury duty, but it is not. There are many reasons why this policy should be reversed.
First, there is the very legitimate concern that a lawyer will control the jury. Even if the lawyer does not want to assert himself and lead the deliberation, the other jurors will look to him because of his special legal knowledge. Lawyers will be able to speak on the matters of the trial with the most authority and the other jurors, themselves seeking to find an authoritative response, will naturally align with the lawyer, whether they realize it or not.
The increasing complexity of lawsuits means that lawyers will dominate juries even more than before. In white-collar crimes, for example, where there are many legal intricacies, more jurors would be overwhelmed by the mass of evidence, if not clueless, and turn to lawyers for guidance.
In order to prevent this undue influence, courts rather dubiously instruct lawyers not to use their legal knowledge, but only their general knowledge. While that may seem reasonable enough in, for example, a simple car accident case, this request is often incredibly difficult for lawyers to comply with because they view it as a conflict of conscience. Many lawyers feel that they cannot split their minds because it is impossible to have general knowledge when being a lawyer affects the way they think about anything.
This leads into the ethical dilemma of this policy. On the one hand, lawyers, like all jurors, have an ethical duty to deliberate with a full mind to the best of their ability. A refusal to communicate in deliberations is usually jury misconduct. On the other hand, they have the legal duty to exclude any knowledge they have from being lawyers. These two duties directly conflict with each other and neither should ever be compromised. But by compromising and neglecting one of these duties, lawyers are compromising the legitimacy of the trial.
A non-lawyer juror could say, for example, “based on the testimony and evidence, this sure looks like larceny to me.” A lawyer, who would most likely know exactly what larceny is, would either have to withhold his knowledge from his fellow jurors (and risk wrongfully convicting or acquitting the defendant) or break his oath to the judge that says he will not use his legal knowledge. It is sacrosanct that only the judge can instruct the jury as to the law, but many lawyers would feel incredibly conflicted if another juror were to say: “I didn’t understand the judge’s instructions at all. Did you? Can you explain what the judge meant?” Technically the answer is no, the attorney-juror cannot.
Another reason why lawyers should have blanket exemptions is that they will never be selected for a jury in the first place and it is a waste of taxpayer money to call them in. Lawyers almost always come in, at the taxpayer’s expense and to the detriment of their professional life, and sit around waiting for a jury selection hearing. Then, they will, for the vast amount of cases, not be selected.
Both the prosecution and the defense attorneys have peremptory challenges. This means that they can veto certain people in the jury pool for no reason (as long as it is not a race or gender based challenge). Typically, prosecutors do not want loners, but rather people who are going to conform to the rest of the jury. Defense attorneys want people who will not conform and are willing to stand their ground even under intense pressure from the other jurors.
Lawyers often are the subjects of these peremptory challenges. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys know that the lawyer is the only person they have to convince because the rest of the jury will likely side with the lawyer. Both sides do not want one person to have undue influence over the jury because it is such a huge risk.
It is important to note that there valid arguments for why lawyers should not be exempt. It is only fair that everyone participates in jury duty. After all, juries should be a large cross-section of society and once exceptions are made, the jury is not truly an accurate representation of the community. Furthermore, professional and educational based exemptions such as this one will lead to homogenous, not well-educated juries, which is not ideal for most types of cases.
Some lawyers are comfortable with the concept of thinking like a layperson and not using their legal knowledge. They are able to add diversity and a fresh perspective to the jury with their general knowledge. However, by separating their knowledge, these lawyers are doing a great disservice to the justice system. Jurors are required to deliberate to the best of their ability, which they cannot do if they withhold knowledge.
If lawyers were allowed to use all of their experiences as a lawyer to help them deliberate, they would not have any ethical qualms. However, they would, in a large percentage of trials, dominate the jury and unfairly control the legal process. That is something that cripples the justice system and cannot be allowed.
For this reason, lawyers should not be allowed to serve on juries. Yes, the jury pool would be less diverse and less representative of the citizenry, but not by a hugely significant amount. The pros definitely outweigh the cons and this contradictory policy should be overturned.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.