Jurors must adhere to the rule of law

Sunday, August 20, 2006 The 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, "Justice is truth in action." Some would suggest that truth and justice do not always intersect in the criminal justice system. Parade Magazine columnist and riddle sleuth Marilyn von Savant's recent answer to a reader's question provides some food for thought. Dear Marilyn: If you were on a jury and shown convincing evidence against the defendant, then later told to disregard that evidence because it had been obtained illegally (for example without a search warrant) would you still allow the evidence to influence your decision? Would you advise your fellow jurors to do the same? Answer: I would let the evidence — either against or in favor of he defendant — influence my thinking because I believe my duty is to find the truth, not to hold law enforcement officers to legal standards. However, I wouldn't advise fellow jurors one way or the other, because I don't believe that would be part of my duty. Is Marilyn on to something? This summer the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hudson V. Michigan. At stake was the rule requiring that police knock and announce their presence before forcibly entering a home with a search warrant. The court did not do away with the rule, but held if the police did violate the rule then the evidence would not necessarily be excluded from the jury. This is where Marilyn and the justices seem to come together. However, any similarity in logic also ends at that point. The exclusionary rule was created for the federal courts in 1914 and was extended to the states in 1961 in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. The rule excludes any evidence that is obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. For instance, a defendant is interrogated by police and confesses. However, the police failed to inform the defendant that he has the right not to talk to the police and the right to have a lawyer present. Even though the defendant admitted to the crime his confession is excluded from trial and jurors are never told about his admission. In fact, recently a federal judge in New York tossed out the racketeering and murder for hire convictions against two former NYPD police officers. The convictions were dismissed because the charges were not filed in a timely manner. Although, this is not the result of the application of the exclusionary rule, it is an example of penalizing the authorities for failure to protect an accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Supreme Court distinguished Hudson on the theory that the mere failure to announce cannot in and of itself uncover evidence. The evidence would have been uncovered by a properly announced search. Thus the exclusion or suppression of the evidence uncovered is too harsh. The exclusionary rule is as Marilyn pointed out about policing the police. If the police violate the law the only method of punishment is to gut their case. Regardless of whether the accused was caught red-handed, confessed or is otherwise unequivocally guilty, he walks as punishment for police error or misconduct. Thus Marilyn's conundrum, what is a juror's responsibility? During the jury selection process jurors are asked if they can follow the instructions of the judge. If the judge instructs the jury to disregard a certain piece of evidence, each juror has taken an oath to follow that instruction and every other instruction. Irresponsible suggestion Marilyn suggests that a juror's responsibility is to seek justice not enforce police standards. On the surface that seems logical and reasonable. The fact is that Marilyn's suggestion is irresponsible and a violation of the duties and responsibilities of a sworn juror. Would Marilyn advocate a juror doing independent investigation beyond the evidence presented during trial? The simple solution to a riddle is not so simple when it deals with an issue of justice and liberty. When interpreting the law, the end does not justify the means. Just as a police officer should be penalized for violating the rights of the accused, so should a juror who disregards the rule of law in the name of seeking justice. Matthew T. Mangino is the former Lawrence County district attorney and a featured columnist for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly. He can be reached at matthewmangino@aol.com.