Jury trials – no official figures

“I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully try the
several issues joined between Our Sovereign Lady the Queen and the defendant,
and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”

Those words or a similar affirmation are solemnly spoken by
every man and woman called to serve as a juror in a Grand Court criminal case.

The Criminal Procedure Code declares that every person
committed for trial before the Grand Court shall have  his or her trial by and before a judge and a
jury summoned, drawn and empanelled according to procedures set out in the
Judicature Law.

Since 1986, however, individuals coming before the Grand
Court have the option of being tried by a judge sitting without a jury.

The same Criminal Procedure Code states: If an accused
person is of the opinion that, due to the nature of the case or of the
surrounding circumstances, a fair trial with a jury may not be possible, he may
elect to be tried by a judge alone.

The law sets a time limit for that choice to be made, but
waives it in certain circumstances.

The law that made judge alone trials possible was introduced
by then-Attorney General the late Michael Bradley. Mr. Bradley set out the pros
and cons of trial by jury in small jurisdictions, quoting a report commissioned
the previous year by the Commonwealth Secretariat and written by Sir John Spry.

The report pointed out that the jury system developed
“largely as a protection for the individual against the repressive acts of the
executive, in the days when judges were very much the King’s Judges.”

The merits of the jury system, Sir John said, included:

The jury is able to bring its collective wisdom into play
when deciding on questions of fact, particularly regarding the credibility of
witnesses.

A jury can on occasion soften the operation of the law by a
common sense or humanitarian approach, while a judge, who has to give reasons
for his decisions, is bound to apply the law as he finds it.

A jury by acquitting a defendant against the weight of the
evidence can act as “the voice of the public expressing disapproval” of a
particular law or the bringing of a particular prosecution.

Each jury comes fresh to a case, while to a judge it may be
“just the latest in a succession of similar cases.”

“The system allows the ordinary citizen a major role in the
administration of justice and helps towards a mutual understanding between the
judges and the public.”

Likewise, Sir John set out criticisms of the jury system:

That jury trials last longer than trials held by a judge and
are consequently more expensive.

That juries are not equipped to study complicated accounts
or other documentary evidence.

That when there are several defendants, particularly on a
charge of conspiracy, juries find it difficult to appreciate which parts of the
evidence are admissible against some defendants and not others.

That juries may be swayed “by sympathy or prejudice, and in
extreme cases, by public hysteria.”

Mr. Bradley adopted Sir John’s views on prejudice against an
accused person, noting it could be against the defendant personally or because
of his nationality, race or religion. News of the incident leading to a charge
in a small jurisdiction “will have spread rapidly by word of mouth, and will
have lost nothing in the telling,” he pointed out.

But local knowledge does not by itself mean that a jury will
be incapable of considering the evidence dispassionately and returning a fair
verdict. On the other hand, the danger of bias cannot be ignored, Sir John’s
report emphasised.

The amendment Mr. Bradley introduced was, he said, one which
was “not only justice being done, but being seen to be done.”   After a 1987 trial by judge alone, Justice
David Hull commented on the value of trial by jury. The defendant, a Jamaican
female, had been charged with the murder of her employer – an elderly man who,
the judge said, drank heavily and had gone through a succession of
housekeepers, one of his motives being 
“to obtain a sexual companion”.

Justice Hull said it was his “very strong view”  that certain issues in the case, such as
provocation and self-defence, were eminently suitable for trial by jury.  A panel of 12 jurors “with the breadth of its
collective experience, common sense, appreciation of human nature and judgment
is better equipped,” he said, to decide matters of this nature.

He did not wish that comment to be taken as reflecting on
his own powers or readiness to reach a verdict in the case. In fact, he found
the woman not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. He sentenced her to
eight years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and freed the
woman. One basis of the appeal was that the judge erred when he said the woman
had not acted in self-defence even though he believed the defendant’s account
that her employer had started the fight and it was reasonably possible he did
gesture with a machete.

One consideration had to be what was in the woman’s mind at
the time – Was she in fear? And did she do what she perceived necessary to
defend herself against attack?  The Court
of Appeal answered those questions in the woman’s favour.

More recently, Cayman’s highest court has heard at least two
appeals against conviction on the basis of jury bias. Both were rejected.

In one matter, a defendant’s attorney observed that a juror
would have to have a heart of stone not to be sympathetic to a particular
witness.  One of the judges replied, “Not
heart of stone, but discipline of mind.” 
 

No comprehensive figures on jury trials were readily
available from any official source.

A check of the Compass website archive for “Grand Court” or
specific names showed 157 criminal matters reported between January 2005 and
December 2010.

Of that total, 70 defendants pleaded guilty, while 87 went
to trial. Of that number, 24 chose to be tried by judge alone. There were 17
guilty verdicts (71 per cent) and seven not guilty (29 per cent).

For those who stood trial before a judge and jury, 35 were
found guilty (55.5 per cent), while 28 were found not guilty (44.4 per cent).
In two of those cases, the not guilty verdict was directed by the presiding
judge.  There were also two hung juries –
unable to reach a majority verdict – which resulted in new trials.  Total guilty by plea or verdict: 78 per cent.

Total not guilty: 22 per cent.

In 2009, the Caymanian Compass submitted a question to the
Legal Department under the Freedom of Information Law. Information provided did
not include any breakdown by choice of choice of judge alone versus judge and
jury, referred to as mode of trial. However, provisional figures for 2007 indicated
that, of 52 cases, there were 17 individuals who pleaded guilty (33 per cent),
20 who were found guilty (38 per cent), and 15 who were found not guilty
(29 per cent).

Total guilty by plea or verdict: 71 per cent.

Total not guilty: 29 per cent.

In March 2010, a request for similar information was made on
an informal basis, but none was provided by deadline.