the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 7002 i am pleased to appoint the following individual to the united states-china economic and security review commission. mr. alex n.wong of new jersey. signed, sincerely, kevin mccarthy, republican leader. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. madam, pursuant to 22 u.s.c. 7002, i am pleased to appoint the following individual to the united states-china economic and security review commission. mr. robert borokov of houston, texas. it signed, sincerely, kevin mccarthy, republican leader. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on monday, january 3, 2022.

host: we are back with you for our final hour and we want to talk about the jury trial system in this country, asking you, do you think the jury trial system is working? phone lines split a bit differently this morning. if you served on a jury, the number (202) 748-8000 to call in . all others, it is (202) 748-8001 . start calling in and having this conversation in the wake of another high-profile jury trial, we saw yesterday the british socialite ghislaine maxwell convicted of luring teenaged girls to be sexually abused by jeffrey epstein. "the verdict capped a month-long travel -- trial featuring this

exploit -- the sexual exploitation of girls as teens at epstein's homes in florida, new york, and new mexico." the jury deliberating five full days before finding maxwell guilty five of the six counts. that is just the latest high-profile jury trial of the year 2021. it was back in april that former officer derek chauvin was found guilty in george floyd's murder. it was in november, three men found guilty in the murder of a med arbery. kyle rittenhouse found not guilty on our -- all charges relating to those deaths in wisconsin. just a few weeks ago, kim potter , the police officer who said she confused her handgun for a taser, was found guilty of manslaughter in the daunte wright killing.

just yesterday, ghislaine maxwell found guilty of sex trafficking of minors. in light of those cases, in light of those verdicts by juries, we want to know if you think the jury trial system is working in this country. just because they are a bit differently, the phone lines, if you served on a jury, (202) 748-8000 is the number. all others can call in at (202) 748-8001. throughout the year, plenty of opinion pieces on this topic. i want to take you through a few of them throughout this segment. this one from "the star tribune" -- "a reasonable doubt about jury trials." there's a reason the u.s. is one of the last countries to use jury trials. if you dig into that story a little bit, noting some of his arguments saying, why would you

want a trial by a jury unless you are oj simpson? who wants 12 legal amateurs who need bias training and a crash course where you could be judged by three or four judges who have studied the law and know about the idea of without passion or anger? this seems more reassuring to me than 12 juries -- 12 jurists whose -- jurors whose views are biased. plenty opinion -- plenty of opinion pieces on this topic. we want to get to your calls, particularly if you served on a jury. and if you think it worked. jd served on a jury in oklahoma city, good morning. (202) 748-8000 i served -- caller: i served on a jury in oklahoma city and we went in a room and we decided on the verdict of people and i found

that a lot of the people were kind of foggy on what the law was. host: did it give you confidence if one day you end up before a jury, that the american jury system, justice system, with a jury of your peers will treat you fairly? caller: it didn't seem like a lot of the people were very knowledgeable about the law. they got jury instructions but we didn't really -- you know, we had to make our own decisions. we really had to fight it out among us to get consensus. host: looking back, do you think the right decision was reached? do you have regrets? caller: one of the deals was with me, animal cruelty about

horses and being that i was a farmer and had horses, i knew a lot about horses. and it was a felony for cruelty on the person that owned the horses, but they didn't really tell the story about the vet finding that horses were sick until i brought out -- because i had horses with the same kind of sickness. host: if you didn't happen to be on that jury, you don't think that information would have come out? caller: yes, that information, nobody would've had any clue about the sickness horses have. it was called strangled and it is like an infection in their throat and they cannot eat so they lose weight, and they figured because the worse is were losing weight they were being starved.

-- horses were losing weight they were being starved but it was the infection that caused them to lose weight. if i hadn't had my horses had the same thing and i took them to the vet, i wouldn't have known and none of the people would have known. they would have convicted the person. just because they didn't have any knowledge of it. host: do you think it was a matter of luck that justice prevailed? caller: yeah, it was just a matter of luck because i was with quite a few women. there was like three guys and nine women and they were just like housewives and they had never been around animals or anything like that. so they were just -- they didn't have the knowledge. host: that line for those who have served on a jury, (202) 748-8000. interested in hearing your

thoughts on this question, does the jury trial system work? nicholas, north carolina, what do you think? caller: hello, can you hear me? yeah -- host: yeah. caller: i've never served on a jury but i had a friend who did serve who was related to a police officer being shot and he was in the car when that happened. he ended up being found not guilty and with that case, the jury did the right thing with the evidence provided. i think the jury is a good thing as long as the filtering process is accurate and i just wanted to know if the jury -- what's their position -- host: dubuque, iowa, has served on a jury. caller: yeah, i've served on both grand and regular juries.

i find that the grand jury is very deliberate. we end up having a very intense -- intense in learning about what is actually in the law. as far as sitting on the regular jury, i find that common sense plays the most part in it. enqueue. -- thank you. host: john, goldsboro, north carolina. caller: how are you? host: doing well. caller: and happy new year. host: same to you. caller: i have not served on a jury but i was dismissed from being a juror on a case because i had a brain. that's the problem. they get these people up here

who are not in situations that they can relate to. which is the problem. you know, grandma dottie cannot relate to a rich guy sitting in the corporate office more than she can relate to little jimmy who stole a $.25 cupcake because he was hungry. and it's just ridiculous. host: so john, another system is that the defendant goes before a panel of three or more judges and those judges have studied the law and those judges have experience in other cases. do you think these judges can relate more or less? caller: here's the thing, and i have to say it this way --

forgive me for what i'm about to say. i'm not going to curse or anything. the judges know the law as it is written. but the interpretation of the law as it is written depends upon how someone else sees it. if you believe that the sky is blue and you've got 30 people out there telling you about the reflective light of this and the reflection of and the re-fraction of this and the other things, you are not going to understand what anybody says because there's a bunch of gobbledygook. if you talk to a judge straight, a judge will listen. some of them are ridiculous, like in the rittenhouse case. if you have seen what that judge did, it was absolutely ridiculous. he should have been disbarred immediately. host: in defense of the jury

system, this is charles cook from the pages of the national review, a piece from earlier this month. "american juries have done sterling work of late, indeed recent high-profile trials they are an impressive 33. kyle rittenhouse not guilty, those who killed -- jussie smollett, don't make me laugh. this should give some some hope." are universities full of lunatics? our corporations may have been captured by race essentialist's but the good old-fashioned american jury system seems to be holding back. from that same piece later on, charles cook going on to say this in the wake of the rittenhouse trial -- "colin cap reinecke -- calling cap her neck -- at the time i wondered what

part of the current system he hoped to explode, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, double jeopardy, the right to cross-examine one's accuser, the rights of law itself? he says those who agree with him wish to switch to a collective model of justice in which historical considerations are weighed against the facts of a case. 1619 project, the courts. charles cook from the pages of the national review. lewis in ohio, good morning. caller: yeah, i sat on a jury before and before i had done this, i kinda respected them. but i was on a jury without getting into what it was about, they basically wanted to throw the book at this guy and two of the jurors were worried about, hurry up, let's get this over

with, i want to go home. so after experiencing that, i would rather have a judge panel than a jury any day of the week because all it takes is one guy on there who just wants to go home for supper and he's going to ruin your life possibly for the rest of your life. host: do you think justice was served in your case? caller: yes, because i held out. and after it was all done and said, i got people to agree with me and when the judge came in to talk to us at the end, he said that we had made the right decision. so yeah, i think i did make the right call and i was going to hold out. i don't care if they are late for supper or what. i wasn't sending someone to jail for a long period of time just because someone was hungry. thank you. host: riverdale, maryland is

next, dale has served on a jury. can you talk about that experience? caller: yes, sir, it was most interesting. it was a product liability case against ford motor company. the interesting part was it went on for four weeks. and the prosecution cap saying over how much -- kept saying over how much they were suing for, like $10 million. after like a week one of the jurors says, i wonder how much they are suing for? and i was like, where have you been the past week? there were people on the jury who just weren't listening. it was rather disturbing. it did turn out well for the defendant. there was a seatbelt issue and he collected some money. he was badly injured because of a design problem that ford had just let go.

one other thing before i go off the air -- host: on your story, was it one or two people or was it the majority of jury members who weren't listening? and how did you approach that with them in the jury room? caller: well, in the first place, we weren't supposed to be talking in the jury room so i didn't really come back at her and say anything. i just looked at her. i can't really speak except to this one particular moment but during the course of an eight hour day, they would say $10 million like 20 times. that was just amazing after a week she hadn't heard that number. but the thing i learned about court is something that nobody talks about, and i don't know if you guys are even allowed to talk about it, it's called jury nullification. are you familiar with that term?

host: explain it for folks who haven't heard that term. caller: basically, when you go to be a juror, you can reserve the right to decide whether you agree with the law. that's being prosecuted. and if you tell them that upfront, they usually won't let used on a jury. host: dale, your concern is people getting out of jury duty, using that to get out of jury duty? caller: absolutely. people do it all the time. host: do you want people who would do that to serve on a jury? would you prefer that they serve, if they are willing to do that? should they be on a jury in the end? caller: see, that's the big question. this is something that goes back to early american history when actually during slavery times when there were so many state laws that were so unfair, the

judiciary actually said, as a juror, you should first before you convict somebody of a law, decide whether that is a just law. that was something that was in play in ancient history. host: thanks for talking about your experience out of riverdale, maryland. john has served on a jury in washington, d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. first time in a long time. host: what kind of a jury trial did you serve on and what was it like? caller: i served on a pretty intense trial. i was the foreman on a trial here in d.c. it was a kidnapping and rape trial that was actually pretty intense and it lasted over a month. took up a month of the jury's life. host: and in the end, do you

feel like the right verdict was reached? caller: i don't. it was -- yeah, it was a matter of i don't think the prosecution was effective enough but in the end, it turned out, it felt like sort of a war of attrition. people got tired of being in the jury room and deliberating so it wound up that the jury pretty much convinced the one holdout, you have got to go with us. and that's how the verdict was reached. host: and if you don't mind me asking -- caller: which doesn't instill a great amount of confidence. host: what was the holdout's

position? caller: the holdout was of the opinion that the defendants were guilty. host: are you the holdout? caller: i was not. host: were you arguing -- were you making that argument, you've got to go with us or we will be here forever? caller: i was not. i was -- concerned about what the impact of such an approach would be. putting myself in the shoes of either party, the victim or the defendant, just knowing that if i was in their shoes and the deliberation was going on in those terms did not instill a great deal of confidence. host: did the jury go to the judge before the final verdict and say, listen, we can't come to a conclusion?

what were the instructions of the judge himself? caller: the instructions were, up with a conclusion, is typically how it is. they will encourage you, if you say we still haven't decided, you will announce that and they will say, you can continue to deliberate. the intention as i understand it is to avoid having to do a retrial, having to spend more of the court's time getting the case prepared. host: do you think a panel of judges would have done a better job with that case? caller: i do. simply because of -- as previous callers have mentioned, and we were in the d.c. court so relative, there were some intelligent people there.

the fact of the matter is, we are deliberating over pretty antiquated language that's literally legalese and you are asking laymen to understand that. it's a tall order. it's almost like a company blanket, the jury system. it's to allow us to feel as if the judgments have been made by our peers, but what exactly is the judgment and what is it founded in? host: thanks for the call. we are talking about the jury trial system in this country in the wake of the ghislaine maxwell verdict and several high-profile cases over the course of 2021. asking you if you believe the jury trial system still works in this country. (202) 748-8000 if you've served on a jury. (202) 748-8001 for all others. i should note as we are talking

about jury trials, that they are rare in this country. a report out from earlier this year, a study exploring the factors behind the disappearing jury trial, the numbers of report notes are striking. between 1962 and 2013, the percentage of civil trials resulting in a jury trial dropped 2.8%. the use in criminal cases dropped to 3.6%. that's according to research coming out earlier this year from a pair of scientists looking into the criminal justice system, focusing specifically on the disappearing federal jury trial in the federal criminal justice system. fewer than 2% of cases went to trial in the period ending in march 2020, the most recent data according to this report.

50% of judges and 85% of defense attorneys surveyed by the scientists said the mandatory minimum laws which dictate the minimum sentences that judges must give when a defendant is found guilty had a medium or large role in the declining number of jury trials for criminal cases. mandatory minimums can incentive five plea deals in which a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. defendants were their right to a jury trial when they make those pleas. between 2019 and 2020, guilty pleas accounted for nearly 90% of criminal convictions. in 2012, the average sentence received by a federal drug offender was three times higher after a trial than a guilty plea, pointing to the existence of the so-called trial penalty for those who don't agree to take a deal and therefore avoid the trial.

back to your phone call, this is al. has served on a jury in washington, toledo, washington. caller: good morning. seattle, actually, many years ago. also served on a general court-martial in new york city. i think the system works. but it can be corrupted. before we had the declaration of independence, the key -- the king had established justice. it was about maintaining domestic tranquility which requires those two obey the law and set aside our own prejudices if we do serve. blackstone, this is sir william blackstone back in 1765 when he wrote commentaries from the laws

which became our basic civil law, he wrote that it is better that 10 guilty people go free then that a single individual loses. so we've got to be very careful. set aside our passions and use reason. i think we would all be better off. the court-martial had to do with the girl who had walked over two and a half miles to meet a young marine on base to join him in his patrol and things happened. she damaged the window on the truck and she was going to be in trouble, so she screamed "rape." the jury found him not guilty but they found him guilty of misappropriation of a government vehicle. the one in seattle had to do with a misdemeanor that turned ugly.

it was all because the prosecutor was basically putting his thumb on the scale as if he was the king. we've got to avoid it on both sides. the thing is, whether it is a judge for a jury, no passion. only data. host: which system do you have more confidence in, the military justice system or the civil and criminal justice system? caller: i actually have more reason to think that the one in the military does a better job. in 1950, they put on the manual for court-martial. harry truman implemented the court of military justice. annually, all military people are supposed to be refreshed on what is contained in it. the authority has very

proficient lawyers for every case. they have an investigative service, naval criminal investigative service in the case of my service. they find all these things that are available to the jury. the one thing that is insistent on in the cases in which i participated was that you use your reason. common sense. set aside zero passions and prejudices. remember the -- set aside your passions and prejudices. you've got to be taught to hate and fear and you've got to set that aside. host: this is drawn out of north town, pennsylvania, good morning -- john out of north town, pennsylvania, good morning. caller: i've not served on a jury but i have some comments to make. one, if a person has had training in logic and is able to recognize fallacies of

argumentation, if they know something about procedure and rules of evidence, and they are able to -- and another thing is, if you do know these things, if you are proficient in recognizing this, you won't make it to a jury box because there's a procedure called voir dire where either the prosecutor or the defender could reject an individual based on some of the things that i mentioned, and they also have something called the preemptory rejection of a potential juror without any reason at all. finally -- and this is what really should be bothersome to a lot of people -- a wealthy defendant can hire a huge army of statisticians and people that

go out and take polls and engage in something called scientific jury selection. they develop a pool of prospective jurors that they are able to advise the defense attorney as to whether or not they should select this person as a prospective juror. the idea is to get a jury that will be more favorable to the defendant. host: the problem with the jury system is not the pool itself but the lawyers trying to find the jury members that they believe they can most influence? guest: yeah. and unfortunately, like i said, they don't want people who are educated in law enforcement, criminal justice, any of those things because you are able to reason things out. and the problem is, you get too many people who watch programs like "perry mason" or "law and

order" and think they are lawyers. host: have you ever been cut? caller: i escaped jury duty by writing things, this is my background, logic, etc., social psychology. they didn't want me, automatically dismissed me. it's montgomery county, pennsylvania. host: would you like to serve on a jury? caller: no, i would not. host: why not? caller: for the very reason that -- you know, do i really want to deal with people that watch "law and order" and think they are lawyers and i have to argue with them saying, you don't understand the rules of evidence or procedure. where are we going with this? host: you trust judges more? caller: i think in most cases, it is better to yield to the

mercy of the judicial system, the judges in particular, because they are apt to be -- first of all, they are trained in the law, hopefully. i've heard that some magistrates at the local level have no training at all in the law. believe it or not. in fact, i know this because lawyers that i worked with told me that. host: john out of pennsylvania, we will head to the steel city. good morning. you with us? caller: yes. this happened in san diego. i was called for jury duty and i was dismissed. this was a family affair over property of $26,000. i decided --

host: what did you decide? guest: i decided though, i wanted to be dismissed. host: why? guest: because i felt it was frivolous over 26,000 dollars between two partners, two sisters. and the cost of lawyers for $26,000. and i told the judge, i made up my mind. i'm for the defendant. of this savviest lawsuit -- do you mean to tell me the prosecutors and defense can't handle this meeting themselves? and what happened, another week later, i found out i was right.

the defendants won the case. because of the $26,000. host: this is joe, west palm beach, florida. you are up next. you've served on a jury. what kind? caller: on a criminal journey many years ago. i'm a retired court officer for 30 years and have been involved in hundreds of trials coming to verdict. host: i'm glad you called in. sounds like you have some thoughts. caller: the whole procedure is handled by professionals, attorneys. and then a decision is made by nonprofessionals. it's quite unique. i've really come down on -- they really come down -- i've really come down on leaving the decision to judges. if you've been listening, it

reinforces my decision that judges -- professionals should be making decisions, not nonprofessionals. host: what is the biggest miscarriage of justice you think you've seen by the nonprofessionals you say, the average jurist? caller: some of the callers pointed to being on juries and the fact that some of the jurors didn't have the interest of the case as a priority, that it was more about their own. it is hard to be on a jury, to be in a room with 11 strangers and have to come to conclusions on interpretations of what you heard. and, to a unanimous decision. it's interesting, everything is geared towards the prosecution in a criminal case until you get to a jury trial. there is truth to the fact that

attorneys know usually after they pick the jury whether they have a chance to win a case or not -- both sides, by the way. so there is a lot of involvement in picking a jury that's going to be looking for your client's best interest, whether it is a prosecution of a jury. i think that clouds up the procedure. this is why some of the gaming that's been discussed by some of the other jurors who have called in here is absolutely true. take the gaming out. take they decisions out of the -- take the decisions out of the hands who are -- of people who are not professionals in the criminal justice system and give it to those who are and the judges who are attorneys. host: we went through a list of high-profile cases of the past year.

in april, derek chauvin found guilty of george floyd's murder. in april, three men found guilty in ahmaud arbery's murder. kyle rittenhouse found not guilty. tim potter found guilty of manslaughter in daunte wright's death. elaine maxwell found guilty of sex trafficking minors. all those jury trials, do you think the juries made the right decisions in those, or is there any that you think the jury made the wrong decision? caller: in the rittenhouse case, the first victim -- and again, it's a good question because juries can be led by judges. i think his name was schrader in wisconsin, and i thought he was completely biased towards the defense. in the rittenhouse case, the first victim had a -- the second

and the third with a skateboard and a gun, but the jury was led to this decision by the way the judge conducted the trial. my concern also being, a retired court officer, is the fact that deadly force is overlooked as the priority in making the decision and the questionable use of deadly force should be the priority when you go into that jury room, whether it is equitable or not. the other cases -- yes they got it right. i think it should go into the hands of the professionals. it's almost like there's something wrong with my restroom and your friends come over and discuss what's wrong and then you give the job to your friends but they are not professionals in plumbing. the other analogy -- do you understand the analogy? host: i do, so if judges can and

do lead juries, does that instill confidence that we should have a system where you go before a panel of judges and leave your fate to them? caller: absolutely. it should not be the decision of at least one single judge. you need at least two out of three to make sure you have a chance that equitable. i've seen questionable judges across the years. in the same vein, they are professionals and i just think it's faulty to hand over a decision to people who are not professionals after they have listened to the professionals the whole time. host: thanks for the call. deborah, huntsville, alabama, has served on a jury. caller: good morning. i have also a comment after this, but i have served on a

jury and i live in a community per capita, we have very educated people. and of course when you are having a jury trial, you take a sector of your community. and the reason i'm calling in, because it struck a chord with me, when i was on this jury trial and they did the voir dire or whatever and picked us, you have to explain your walk of life. there are people, they asked questions, has anybody had a child imprisoned for drugs? is there any member whose children have been in trouble with the law or have you been in trouble with the law? it was very embarrassing for some people because they had to stand up and say, yes, my brother has been in jail, yes, i child has been in trouble with drugs. i say all that to say this. after they have picked that jury

and they bypass people with law degrees or emts, they passed those people up, we now have a jury and i'm in that jury. i'm not the head of the jury but i am in this jury. the case was over drugs and it was -- and please don't take it as a racist type of thing -- i am white, the person on trial was black. they wanted us -- they told us what had happened and the young man kept saying, "it wasn't me." so they showed the picture of the camcorder or the video of the arrest. i was left to make a decision on a person's notes. the only clear image we had wasn't really of his face but was of his nose. and i held out because i wasn't thoroughly convinced.

another lady held out because she wasn't convinced, but of course this is a lady who's had a brother in trouble and i think even served time in jail or prison. we went for about a day and a half, but then we now come on friday, and this is the last day of the week and we didn't settle the decision the day before. so now we've come back the next day and they are really wanting us to make a decision and in my heart, i prayed and thought about it and i just wasn't sure. but something that the head of our jury said pushed me over and the two people who were holding out was this other lady, who was black, and myself. the thing that pushed me over was the head of the jury said, you have to trust that the officer who testified and that the officer whose videocam we are seeing is stating that this is the man and that if this

officer, which we know he had taken an oath to do his job, then we have to trust that this man is doing his job and that he is correct. and so that swayed the jury. the other lady and i both voted guilty. so i say this, it was the pressure of the fact it was friday. i thought what the head proctor had to say made a lot of sense, but fast-forward to today -- that was about 10 years ago, eight years ago i was on a jury -- fast-forward today. i'm seeing so many things where officers who've taken an oath have not fulfilled that oath or have tainted that oath. i'm thinking to myself, i'm basing the decision on this guy who was found guilty and it causes me to pause.

today i think about it and it causes me to pause. host: if you were in that same situation today, do you think he would have made the same decision? caller: no. -- you would have made the same decision? caller: no. i've seen incidences on television and in my own community that things are borderline, that there are things that i felt -- we have a situation right now where an officer was shot. i don't think, i'm not saying they don't get a fair trial, i'm just saying when you get a sector of a community and you are in a community where per capita you've got some really smart individuals, they don't necessarily want us on that jury. they want the sector that are the ancillary people, who service those people. and it makes for unusual talk in the jury room. host: one thing before you go, under a system in which a panel of judges were to make that

decision, the same decision you were in, do you think a panel of judges would be as skeptical of law enforcement as you have become today or do you think that panel of judges would trust as the person said, trust that the officer was telling the truth? caller: no, i do think a panel of judges would make the right choice and i say that because i've actually heard a judge who said officers lie. not a judge, excuse me, in attorney -- an attorney say officers lie. i've seen in my own community where attorneys have lied. so to me, if there is anyone who has taken an oath, i view it as a judge. i know there are records kept on that judge and i think he would have a very hard time trying to explain the law to another judge. so i do believe a panel of judges would make a much better decision than just a sector of

the people of the community. host: thanks for the call. back up to washington in tacoma, this is jerry. caller: good morning. i've been called for jury duty twice and i've been refused both times. the first time i was called -- let me give you background. i come from an inner-city and am an african-american male. i came from a bad neighborhood but i graduated from high school with a 4.0 and have a masters degree, no criminal record. i also look relatively young for my age. even though i'm 45, i get told i look around 30 so both times i was called into jury duty, the first time i went in and they go from room to room. the first time i went in, i went to in a week's time, probably 25 rooms. i was preemptively striked in

every room. after you fill out a form and tell about yourself, i was preemptively striked. there was only three other african-americans with me the first time. i understood i would be preemptively struck because i was an african-american educated man and looked young. for the criminal justice system, about 35% are african-americans. i knew that was going to happen. i knew i was going to get struck . the next time was similar, same process, same thing. the problem is this -- whenever we have these juries, they are looking for the people with the most conservative ideals, -- and no disrespect to anyone who's older -- but the less intelligent, older people, the ones that have lived in a bubble who don't understand what's

going on in this world. that directly affects the minority community a lot. if you notice, they are always striking black people because they know that we can identify and understand more some of the cultural issues that go on. host: take me back to before the verdict of the ahmaud arbery trial. we knew going into that that it was a jury in that trial of 11 white individuals and one black individual in that 12 person jury. did that surprise you and did you have an expectation before they delivered their verdict of what that verdict was going to say? caller: i feel with the videotape and the technology we have and without being a high-profile tape -- case, they were going to be found guilty but it wasn't 100% sure. if they hadn't had that

videotape, there is no way in hell they would have been prosecuted. it's not necessarily a racial thing. it's a winning and losing thing. they understand that when you have an african-american male for female, you don't want anyone who can understand them or is listening or will pay attention to them. you want to get the whitest and oldest eyes you can get. host: when you get struck from a jury, do you get any explanation why? caller: i was preemptively struck. they will just call your number and say -- you have a number and they will say, you are dismissed. so they strike you automatically. there's ways to get around that. if you have a good attorney -- and most people don't -- a good attorney can bring up different

things. correct me if i'm wrong, but they can say we feel like they are being removed because of their race. they do it all the time. the simple thing is, and i was ask my white coworkers this, i asked them, if you were on trial would you want 12 black people to judge you? all of them say no, of course not. so can you imagine the other way around for black people all the time in the system getting judged by 12 white people all the time? i'm not saying the white people are bad but a lot of them are culturally ignorant. i've sat in on some of the cases because they allow you to sit in and i heard the dumbest arguments. i heard a prosecutor defining r&b music as "rap music." the jurors did not know the

difference so they associated rap music with violence but the song they were talking about, i knew they were talking about love ballads. i was shaking my head. they connected all the racial trope's to the case. they said, look at his car, listen to the music, look at his tattoos. they painted a visual picture and it is easy to do that to minorities when you don't have anybody who is culturally aware. host: you are right on the term, a batson challenge. thanks for the call. some background. in 1986, the supreme court issued an opinion that formally acknowledge the importance of a jury that represents the accused peers as well as a community decided by a 7-2 vote, that was batson v kentucky. this article came out about the time of the ahmaud arbery trial. the batson case that the community is entitled to juries

that represent the diversity of itself. when juries don't, it is devastating to the community and undermines the fairness of the community of justice, is what justice lewis powell wrote. it is wrong to strike or remove a potential juror because that juror is black. if the opposing side raises a batson challenge, then the attorney must articulate a race neutral reason for the strike. it also works the same way, striking white jurors because they are white. time for just a couple more calls in this segment have we been asking the question, does the jury trial system work? rachel, franklin, massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. and for taking my call. i'm calling not as someone who has served on a jury but i was tried by a jury and found guilty.

i was accused of drunk driving and i was like i said, found guilty of that. however, what had happened was i had a seizure behind the wheel. i suffer from epilepsy and the seizure caused me to crash my car. what happened is the jury found me guilty and they were excused and after they were excused, the judge did something which is called judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which means he overturned what the jury had said and apparently that can happen. i didn't know that was possible. after they had left, the judge overturned it. i still had to do some things to settle the case, but because of that, i felt like the jury did serve me well -- the court system, rather served me well, even though the jury did not return the correct verdict. i found that i was somewhat helped, to echo the previous caller, i am a relatively well

spoken white woman and if i had shown up with the different demographic, i highly doubt that i would have been able to make the argument as clearly and sink duly as i needed to --succinctly to be found even after the jury found me guilty. i'd -- i don't think a lot of people know that's an option. host: facing the legal system is not jury trials, correct? guest: correct. host: judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a judgment by a trial judge after a jury has issued a verdict setting aside the verdict and issuing a judgment in favor of the losing party without a trial. it is very similar to a directed verdict except the timing. a judge will issue a judgment notwithstanding a verdict if he or she determines no reasonable jury could have reached the

verdict based on the evidence at trial or the jury incorrectly applied the law. john out of norwalk, connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. i know time is short. i have served on civil and criminal juries. i am old and i get called and i go. i think trial by jury of your peers works. i say that because a trial with judges alone can lead to a bias by the judges that is unforeseen when they are either appointed or elected, which is worse. i think 12 honest people, when they get in a room, can figure out what is right and wrong and what actually happened and in the case of the criminal trial, which was years ago, one smart person in the jury room led to a

not guilty conviction for this person because the prosecutor overplayed their hand and no one realized it except for one person, who was an engineer. understand that while all of the evidence pointed towards acts, the one piece that would've missing that guaranteed a guilty verdict was absolutely necessary for a guilty verdict and that is why they found this person guilty. and it turned out the engineer was right, because they caught somebody two weeks later who admitted to committing the armed robbery. so, i fully believe in jury trials. host: thank you for the call, our last call in "washington journal" but we will be back here on friday morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m.

pacific. in the meantime, i hope you have a great thursday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> next week on c-span the senate rules committee holds a hearing on the u.s. capitol police since the january 6 attack. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. thursday at 7:00 p.m., coverage throughout the day marking the one-year anniversary of the attack. friday the supreme court hears the oral argument in two cases dealing with the biden administration's vaccine mandate for health care workers and the vaccine or test mandate or larger, private companies. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m..

both the house and senate return in january for the start of the second session of the 117th congress. the senate takes up the president's private and social spending plan despite joe manchin's opposition. senate democratic leadership also hopes to take a voting rights legislation which may require changing alabaster rules and there is also a february 18 deadline for both chambers to pass additional federal spending legislation to prevent a government shutdown. watch these developments once congress returns where you can watch for coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app were also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video live or on-demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's

online store. rouse through our latest books, apparel, and accessories. there is something for every fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or any time at c-spanshop.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including cox. >> cox is permitted for providing eligible families access to affordable internet. bridging the digital divide one injected -- one engaged citizen at a time. >> cox support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, having you a front row seat to democracy. a