Jurors play an important role in criminal trials in the Supreme Court and when they fail to appear for duty the court can fine them up to $500.
“Once you’ve been summoned as a juror or you have been selected to sit on a particular jury of 12, if you fail to appear for whatever reason, the court has the authority to fine a juror up to $500,” Justice Stephen Isaacs told The Freeport News yesterday.
The court also has authority to levy distress on the juror’s property, in the event they do not have $500 in cash. The property will be seized and converted to cash.
And, the court, although Justice Isaacs says he can’t recall it ever having being used, has the prerogative to imprison a juror for up to three months if the property is not sufficient to satisfy the fine.
Justice Isaacs revealed that it is the jury which decides the innocence or guilt of an accused person, not the judge.
“Criminal trials in the Supreme Court are called trial by jury, not trial by judge and the jury is responsible for deciding what the facts are οΎ— what they accept is true, what they reject and what conclusions they can reach in order to determine the innocence or guilt of an accused person,” he said.
In the event there is not enough jurors in the pool, there is a statutory provision for the court to recruit talesmen: persons from outside the court walls within its district, usually from businessplaces, to make up the number of 48 that should be in the jury pool.
Although the Act says outside of its walls, Justice Isaacs said he doesn’t think it literally means stopping people on the streets and pulling them into court.
In fact, he says, that is not advisable.
The Supreme Court judge recalls one instance, however, where there were insufficient jury members of a pool to commence with trial.
“In that particular case we never got 12 persons. We tried for eight days to impanel a jury but the accused and/or his father were quite popular. One of his parents worked in the hotel industry, another one worked in the police constabulary and he, himself, between the two, knew a lot of people and their children,” Justice Isaacs remembered.
“So after eight days of trying, we couldn’t impanel a jury so that case was adjourned. We actually used up all the time allotted for the case trying to impanel a jury.”
He pointed out that that is the reason for having a talesman and although the court employed it in that case, they were still unable to find enough people who weren’t connected to any of the persons involved in the case.
Finding a jury pool of 48 in the Grand Bahama community with no connection to a defendant is more of a challenge than it would be in a larger community, he admitted.
But so far, he said, the court has only had to employ the statutory provision to bring in talesmen once.
It is also important for a juror to be truthful in disclosing any connection or relation to the accused person as there was a recent case where a juror was sent to prison for two weeks.
While the Court of Appeal reversed that particular decision, Justice Isaacs says the court does have that authority, in such a case, for nondisclosure.
“For instance,” he said, “if your cousin is on trial and you’re selected for jury duty or to sit on his or her jury, you must disclose that that is your cousin which, because of the way the court approaches jury trials, that will disqualify you because you are potentially biased either for or against your cousin, depending what your relationship with your cousin is.
“Persons you know you should not sit in judgment of them.”
As for excuses potential jurors make, Justice Isaacs revealed that most of them are, on the face of things, legitimate.
“My job, once they have been assigned to a pool, is to determine whether the excuse is sufficient. But I haven’t seen any really ridiculous ones,” he said.
Overall, the judge adds, most people take jury duty seriously but he is cognizant that there are some people who would rather not serve so they will come up with an excuse and it is up to the judge to decide whether it is sufficient.
He disclosed that most excuses tend to come from employers of persons who may sit on a jury, for one reason or another, given the person was in a position that nobody else can fill, or they are short staffed, or they have a small staff.
But the issue of self employed persons is dealt with before a pool is assigned.
“Usually I won’t have self employed persons in the pool because they would have been vetted out before we got that far,” he said.
While the jurors receive a small stipend for their services, Justice Isaacs says the way he sees it, it’s about enough for a juror to have a decent lunch.
“But it doesn’t replace one’s salary. That’s not what it’s for, he said.
“Of course you may appreciate persons who refuse to sit on a jury what will happen is trials won’t be conducted and those who have a mind to prey on society will just do it more frequently.”
Literally, to determine which 12 jurors will actually sit, their numbers are drawn out of a box of 48 numbered balls.
Justice Isaacs says it is a lottery and those who are picked for each jury are the lucky ones.
By LEDEDRA MARCHE, Senior FN Reporter
