A Stitch in Haste

I previously noted that the U.K. was abolishing double jeopardy for certain heinous crimes and also scrapping some elements of the hearsay rule.

Now come words that Britain may also eliminate the right to a jury trial in certain "complex" trials:

The measure comes after a judge in March halted proceedings against six men accused of corruption after prosecutors agreed a fair trial was impossible. The trial, which lasted almost two years, may have cost the U.K. as much as 60 million pounds ($109 million), the Financial Times reported at the time.

The government will allow non-jury trials when the prosecution asks for it, the judge on the case agrees and the Lord Chief Justice, the U.K.'s most senior judge, approves, [Britain's attorney general] said. He estimated that the change will affect about 15 to 20 cases a year.

The government rejected a proposal to conduct fraud trials with a panel of experts directed by a judge, after opposition from lawyers...

How depressing that the country that invented the justice system as we understand it today is willing to begin dismantling it for no other reason than because "it's too expensive."

This latest story, coupled with all the recent high-profile acquittals (Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Richard Scrushy), generated quite a few Google hits to my post on moving to professional jurors, which I wrote after some headlines bemoaning the so-called "CSI Effect" in which jurors expect definitive scientific evidence, and especially DNA evidence, in cases where no "crime lab" work is even warranted.

As I wrote back then:

"Juror" would simply be another job, like "lawyer," "judge" or "court reporter." There would be a basic educational requirement (e.g., a college degree) and a legal credential earned by formal study and examination. Something less than a J.D. but more than a night class at John Jay.

I still consider the whole idea of profesional jurors to be little more than a thought experiment, but if the choice is between professional jurors and no jurors, then I would tend to prefer professional jurors.

Hat tip to CrimLaw.

FUN FACT: The Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial in civil cases is one of the few provisions of the Bill of Rights that has not been "incorporated" by the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, states may deny the right to a jury in a civil lawsuit.

UPDATE: Now it appears New Zealand is following suit. (Hat tip to CrimProf.)