We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy [Paperback]

Jeffrey B. Abramson (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 1995

Does the jury system work? Going beyond the trials splashed across the headlines, this magisterial book uses fascinating cases from throughout American history to address fundamental questions about the jury system--and to show that jurors are often smarter than lawyers or the public frequently assume.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In his account of the history and function of juries in democratic society, former prosecutor Abramson argues that juries are often smarter and more independent than lawyers and the public assume.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

A former assistant district attorney, Abramson (politics, Brandeis) believes in the American jury system and in democracy. Here he discusses historical and contemporary court cases that exemplify or nullify a democratic model of consensus through deliberation. He also examines the new mandatory cross-section representation for juries, scientific jury selection, legitimization of state power through juries, and a common justice above social divisions. As does Stephen Adler in The Jury (LJ 8/94), Abramson presents various reform proposals, including the elimination of the peremptory challenge and the honest use of jury nullification. He also advocates mandatory unanimous verdicts, abolishing jury service exemptions for professionals, and revising the impartial, or "empty mind," criteria for juror selection. This title continues the author's concern for democracy expressed in his Electronic Commonwealth (LJ 9/15/88) and provides depth and range to the debate over jury trials. For academic and larger popular legal collections.
Janice Dunham, John Jay Coll. Lib., New York
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 336 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (November 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465091164
• ISBN-13: 978-0465091164
• Product Dimensions: 7.9 x 5.2 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,516,789 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Dated but brilliant, July 23, 2005

By 

greg taylor (Portland, Oregon United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (Paperback)

There is a canard that to not know history it to be doomed to repeat it. Usually I have found that most people who read history do so in a manner that distorts it to fit their own views on contemporary issues (Newt Gingrich is a good example of this). This is not necessarily a bad thing but the reader should be self-aware.
There is some truth to the canard. It is impossible to read in early American history without realizing that many of the same issues that the founding generations dealt with are still being played out in the political arena.
I came to this book because I was looking for detailed background on the historical evolution of the jury, especially in regards to jury nullification. Over and over again in the ratification debates, various founders discuss the need for the jury to be able to decide on the law itself not just the facts of the case.
Abramson gives an excellent succinct discussion of the history, as well as the history of other aspects of the jury's role; e.g., the unanimous verdict, preemptory challenges and the application of the death penalty.
What makes these discussions particularly incisive (ironic?) is that Abramson contrasts our historical realities with an ideal of jury deliberation.
In his ideal type, the jury is a model of deliberative democracy. People bring to their jury duty the sum total of their knowledge and experience and work together to fashion a unanimous verdict based on a worked out sense of community justice. Abramson, I believe, regards this model as the ideal that juries have striven for over the centuries. One aspect of this ideal that he emphasizes is that it is only on a jury that most of us get to actually participate in the act of governance.
As a juror, I decide when and how to apply the law to my fellow citizens. At that moment, I am the government.
Abramson adds a new touch to this by insisting that jurors as members of the various groups that make up their identities (gender, class, religion, ethnicity, etc.) bring to the deliberation the different points of views that represents those groups. As long as we don't act as blind voting blocks for those groups but still listen, debate and decide together, we are still living up to the democratic ideal of the jury.
Abramson's discussion is incredibly rich. I will detail one further aspect of it in order (I hope) to whet your appetite.
In regards to jury nullification, Abramson makes an useful distinction. We may no longer have a legal right to nullify the law when on a jury (Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 1895) but we always have the power to do so. Jury nullification continues to occur (I would argue that the only way to understand the OJ Simpson verdict is as an instance of nullification). Abramson wants us to face up to this reality. We should instruct juries as to their power to nullify. His main argument for this is that nullification works only to an acquittal, not to convict (p. 92). In this I think he is a bit naive or relying on a bit of definitional legerdemain. Juries can and will decide to ignore a judge's instruction about the admissability of evidence and will on occassion convict someone on the basis of evidence they are not supposed to consider. This can only not be considered nullification by definition. But, like Abramsom, I am willing to take the leap on nullfication because I simply believe in the American people as a whole to try to get things right.
My main complaint against the book is of a different order entirely. This is a book that is badly in need of a second edition. Not one that has the new preface that the other reviewer mentions but a complete updating of the evidence, examples and discussion.
The first edition came out as the OJ trial was dominating our scandelmongering press and there is much that has changed in our legal system since then. I would love to reread this book in a up-to-date edition.
Until such time of grace, I cannot recommend this present edition highly enough. Abramson has taught me an enormous amount about our legal system. Whether arguing for unanimous verdicts or against preemptory challenges he is learned, thoughtful and fair to all sides. And, as always, I am made hopeful but the writing of someone who really believes in what we can be as a democratic people.
In fact, perhaps the praise I should be paying to the author is that he lives up to his own ideal of deliberative democracy. So should we all.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally back in print, October 27, 2000

By 

Texas Lawyer (Houston, TX United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (Paperback)

It's a relief to see Prof. Abramson's fine volume on juries back in print. One of the most important books on juries written in recent years, Abramson looks at the political role of juries and makes several original observations that are in themselves worth the price of admission. This is the sort of book that is appropriate for lawyers, law and graduate students and laypersons alike.

When this book originally came out in 1994, Prof. Abramson appeared at a great number of academic symposia and other events having to do with the jury system. To some extent, this book became the focal point of the current wave of interest in the jury system, much like Kalven and Zeisel's "The American Jury" did in the 1960's. The updated preface appears to be the result of the interactions and dialogues Prof. Abramson developed with other serious jury researchers as a result of these experiences. That said, let's hope that the book remains in print for some time.

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Finally back in print, October 27, 2000

By 

Texas Lawyer (Houston, TX United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (Paperback)

It's a relief to see Prof. Abramson's fine volume on juries back in print. One of the most important books on juries written in recent years, Abramson looks at the political role of juries and makes several original observations that are in themselves worth the price of admission. This is the sort of book that is appropriate for lawyers, law and graduate students and laypersons alike.

When this book originally came out in 1994, Prof. Abramson appeared at a great number of academic symposia and other events having to do with the jury system. To some extent, this book became the focal point of the current wave of interest in the jury system, much like Kalven and Zeisel's "The American Jury" did in the 1960's. The updated preface appears to be the result of the interactions and dialogues Prof. Abramson developed with other serious jury researchers as a result of these experiences. That said, let's hope that the book remains in print for some time.