Federal Judges Speak about Jury Trials

Judge Pat Wald, former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit says: "The jurisprudence of the federal court is the jurisprudence of summary judgment...Litigation management is our primary job, and even with fewer trials, there is a lot of litigation to be managed."

Judge William Young (D.C. Massachusetts): Once divorced from daily interaction with jurors, our written opinons subtly mock the very idea that democratic institutions might be made to serve the interests of justice. This leads us to prefer knowledge over hope, and the jury system is, if nothing else, our country's finest expression of hope." It is interesting that Judge Young makes the comment that our legal system prefers "knowledge over hope". Others have described the phenomenom that the high courts prefer cases that present small and discrete fact scenarios that decide small and discrete legal principles. A case that presents an interesting law review puzzle is preferred over the case that presents an opportunity to do justice. Dr. Gregory House would be proud.

For my own point of view, I am skeptical of the jury system as our finest expression of hope, but I do think that jury trials have been so marginalized that they are no longer considered an important expression of justice, or democracy. They are, now, aberrant events; a novelty to be reported, but not necessarily respected. Whether a jury trial is an expression of hope or not, the people's decisions - so vital that all 50 states supposedly guarantee the right to trial by jury -- are virtually ignored. That is a shameful way to run a government.