By: Judge Mark Ward

Each week three-to-five-hundred citizens are called to jury service in Shelby County. Some prospective jurors look forward to their community service and approach the task with enthusiasm. Others see it as forced labor and begrudgingly show up hoping to say the ‘magic words’ to get excused. Most people fall somewhere between these two extremes and, although they would rather not have to serve, do so out of civic duty or because they believe they have no other option.

As one of the judges who preside over jury trials in Shelby County, I am constantly talking with jurors during their orientation. My goal is to explain the importance of the jury in the American system, to encourage jurors to enthusiastically participate in the process with an open mind, and to thank them for their service. What follows is a summary of the thoughts I share with prospective jurors.

If you go back far enough in the annals of history, you will find that people devised different methods of settling disputes and determining guilt or innocence. One method was to place a stone in the bottom of a giant cauldron containing boiling oil and require the accused to dip his arm into the oil to retrieve the stone. The notion was that the innocent would not be burned while a guilty man would. Not surprisingly everyone was found guilty. This ‘caldron’ method was ultimately replaced by the much more sophisticated practice of binding an accused’s arms and legs before dropping him in the largest body of water in the district. If the accused drowned, he was guilty. If he somehow managed to float, he was innocent. Again, most people seemed to be guilty. Time passed and with progress came even more sophisticated methods of administering justice. The most widely known was “trial by combat.” If there was a dispute between citizens or a dispute between the king and a citizen, a representative of each party would simply fight to the death. It was believed that God would intervene in the combat and that the person who survived was innocent, while the person who died was guilty.

By the time of the American Revolution, such methods of administering justice had long fallen out of use and the right of Englishmen to a trial by a jury of citizens was well recognized. Despite this fact, trial by jury was often denied by the crown for those living in the colonies. Denial of a jury of peers allowed the King’s magistrate complete power over the colonists. As a consequence, the founding fathers guaranteed that the right to trial by jury would remain inviolate by including the right in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. In addition, when each state of this union came into existence, they too set forth in their constitutions the right of citizens to trial by jury.

The right to a jury of one’s peers is a bedrock principle of our democratic form of government. It is one of the many checks built into the system to assure that the power of the government is used for right, not to oppress the people. As I write these words, I am confident that there are many people around the world who wished that they lived under a democratic form of government that practiced trial by jury.There will be no jury trials today in China.
We live in a nation that allows its citizens the greatest opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I know of three things that most citizens can do to support their country and this democratic form of government. First, they can vote. They can let their voice be heard in the political arena. Second, they can willingly come forward when called and serve as jurors. Third, they can enlist in the military. To vote, all you have to do is spend some time at your leisure educating yourself on the candidates and/or issues and make an appearance on one day to vote. For jury service, most people in Shelby County are asked to give up no more than five work days in service. This is a great sacrifice of each prospective juror’s time, money and energy. Admittedly, for many it is a great hardship. While recognizing the burden of jury service, one must always keep in mind that on each day a person serves on jury duty, at least one soldier is giving up his or her life to protect and defend the American way of life, its democratic form of government, and, ultimately, the sacred right to trial by jury.

When we consider the burden of jury duty, let us not forget those who have and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect all of our freedoms, including the right to trial by jury. In addition, jury service has great rewards for those that approach it with an earnest heart. Our system of justice can not function without the input of citizens willing to participate in the process. Citizen participation is what makes us have the greatest system of justice in the world. In most cases, after completing jury service, most jurors walk away with a profound respect for their country and its commitment to the fair and equal treatment of all citizens in the administration of justice. To put it simply, after completing jury service, most jurors have a sense of pride in themselves for doing their duty and in their government for its commitment to seeking justice.

Rightly so. Be proud of your service. As judges who preside over these trials, we salute you.

By: Jonathan Lindberg

Like him or not, he may just have a point. Last month, in his farewell address on the House Floor, former Congressman Tom DeLay dispensed with the flowery rhetoric and weepy nostalgia that generally accompanies such a speech. Instead, he came-out-swinging – praising, yes praising, partisanship.

“For all its faults, it is partisanship based on core principles that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders.”

In other words, Washington is pregnant with partisanship, and that folks, is a very good thing.

Of course over the past twenty-two years, DeLay has done his fair share to encourage this atmosphere of partisanship, most notably the constant and almost comical redistricting of Congressional districts, tipping the scale to Republican candidates. This of course, lends to the nickname, The Exterminator.

But is partisanship really a good thing? I mean, does Washington need more discord and less unity, more black-eyes and less hand-shakes? It would seem at least one unlikely voice would agree with DeLay.

Kevin Phillips, author of the religious-right-bashing American Theocracy would hardly consider himself an ally of DeLay. In 2004, Phillips authored the book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. Hardly bedtime reading for Karl Rove. Still American Dynasty offers at least one thread worth considering. Over the past twenty years (1988-2008), American politics has been dominated by two ruling families. And in 2008, the stage is set for Hillary Clinton (with Jeb Bush lurking the in background). All said, the possibility of twenty-eight years from two ruling families remains. What then, Phillips concludes, separates American politics from the European monarchy?

The answer is clear: partisanship. Yes, disunity. Balancing powers, rigorous debate, opposition and dispute that constantly forces our parties back-to-the-drawing-table, back-to-the-basics, readjusting and reevaluating till somehow they meet in the middle. Compromise. This is what makes America great, not our unity, but our division. Two parties constantly giving-and-taking-and-then-giving-some-more, till the best from both sides is brought together and made into one. This is partisanship. And this is good.

So let us all agree to disagree. Whether you are Tom DeLay or Kevin Phillips, that dear reader, is something we should all be able to agree upon.