Juries, Power and the Need to Reconsider Warren Court Precedents

The Framers of the Constitution thought so highly of the right to trial by jury that they put it in the body of that document. Likewise, James Madison and the First Congress mentioned it twice in the Bill of Rights for much the same reason. Trial by jury to them meant a delicate and important balance among the State, the Jury and the Court. It meant a division of labor and power to achieve an end result that would be fair and just. If these Founders looked at the jury of today they would be shocked and hardly recognize it. This paper argues that principally because of the Warren Court and its efforts to protect the rights of Defendants, the power and status of the American jury has been undermined and the delicate balance that was in place has been destroyed. In particular, the cases of Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda v. Arizona have individually and combined to empower the Court and the State to the disadvantage of the jury.This paper provides a three-part examination of the contemporary American jury system and demonstrates that it has been seriously damaged by the determinations of the Warren Court. Part I presents in detail the history of trial by jury and its power both before and after the Founding. Part II examines past and present theories that address the issues of juries and power in the courtroom and the criminal process. It also examines the history and purposes of the exclusionary rule, the right to counsel, and the warnings associated