The phrase “jury of one’s peers” has a long and enriched history in the American legal system. In short, it refers to the notion that individuals accused of a crime should be judged by a jury comprised of peers from the same background, socioeconomic standing, and local environment as the accused.
The jury of one’s peers concept dates back to the Magna Carta, the foundational English document which established individual legal rights. It is enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is a hallmark of the U.S. judicial system. This phrase highlights the importance of justice for all individuals regardless of their class or social standing.
In effect, a jury of one’s peers is a way to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial, as the jury is likely to represent similar backgrounds to the defendant. This is in contrast to cases where the jury is not reflective of the accused’s social, economic, or racial background.
Modern Example of Jury of One’s Peers
In 2013, a prominent case arose in the U.S. Supreme Court that challenged the composition of juries in capital cases in Texas. African American residents make up a disproportionately small percentage of jury members in the state, despite making up more than 12.5% of the state’s population. In the Supreme Court decision, the justices ruled that this violated the Constitution and defendants must be tried by a jury of their peers from a fair cross section of the population.
The decision reflects how the jury of one’s peers is still a significant part of the judicial system in America today. It helps to ensure that no matter a defendant’s race, class, or background, they will be tried fairly and objectively by a jury of their peers.