[fruser1]

Slightly off topic, I always wondered about the concept of “jury by peers”. No where else in the constitution is “peers” used and words do seem to be important in that document as to be understood by laymen.

Note that it does not say a jury of “citizens”. A peer is someone of equal standing as I understand it.

So, for example, if you’re trying a financial crime, shouldn’t the members comprising a jury have some understanding of finance?

Using actual “peers” might be something that effectively achieves tort reform. People understanding insurance and medicine, for example, might not be so inclined to grant big awards for trivial circumstances or be able to differentiate honest mistakes from bona fide negligence or fraud.

[jjotto]

In the American system, peers does mean equals, as opposed to elected officials, judges, or other government employees. That’s why juries are more or less randomly selected.

The root of ‘peers’ is in the Magna Carta.

[bert]

Meanwhile, just last week we learned of an acquitted black murderer.

A black juror told the panel early on she would not vote to convict “because there were too many young black men in jail”

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that, generally, "peers" means people from your same local community. This would infer that the jury is made up of people who are guided by the same local issues, taxes, representation, weather, etc. This would have been important 250 years ago to prevent people from being hauled away for a trial in a distant land where the locals couldn't bear witness to the defendant's character, testimony, and community standing.

The opposition to "peers" would be when a court grants a motion for a change of venue. This would cause a jury to be made up of people from another town who would have different living conditions from the person being tried, and would not likely know the reputation of the defendant.

-PJ