Wednesday, Vinnie Politan (InSession) interviewed the foreman of the Stephan Hayes death penalty jury. He asked the foreman what he would change about the jury system, and the man replied that juries ought to be given some “rules” to go by. Politan laughed and said something to the effect that the way it’s supposed to work is that juries are free to work in any way they wish. I suppose he meant that it’s some sort of ultra-democratic process in which every juror has complete freedom. This, of course, is ridiculous.

The judge tells the jurors what to do in a set of incomprehensible instructions. The jury instructions, though, focus on the law and do not provide any guidance on the processes of selecting a foreperson or of deliberation.

As a result, from personal experience I can tell you that jury deliberations are chaotic. Some jurors take it upon themselves to impose “rules” on others; some take it upon themselves to define “the law” or redefine the law.

I would like to see the Supreme Court of each state develop a juror handbook that lays out several alternative ways of choosing a foreperson, of reading through the instructions, of reviewing the evidence, of debating the issues, of what “speculation” is and is not, and of deciding when to take votes and how to take votes.

In addition, rather than excusing jurors who have served from future jury service for a time, courts ought to recall experienced jurors for a period of time and then excuse them—perhaps forever if they wish.

Another thing the courts could do to make jury service more palatable would be to shorten trials. To do this, prosecutors should be required to present only credible, relevant evidence. Judges should be sticklers for the prosecution presenting a good prima facie case and reduce the charges where the evidence warrants it. Witnesses should be vetted by the judge before the trial begins, so that the jury isn’t sent out of the courtroom in mid-trial while experts present their credentials.

The Jim Leyritz DUI manslaughter trial is a perfect example of a sloppy trial that is sure to frustrate the jury.

According to one InSession commentator, the issue of the victim’s blood-alcohol level has been problematic in the trial only because the prosecution chose not to charge Leyritz with vehicular homicide. Apparently he would likely have been acquitted in such a trial, because the victim was over the limit. But in manslaughter cases, the victim’s condition isn’t admissible.

Does this make any sense? A lesser crime has a built-in prejudice against the defendant? The Leyritz trial is apparently another example of the prosecutor choosing offenses that disadvantage the defendant, who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Nonetheless, through the prosecution’s incompetence, evidence of the victim’s blood-alcohol level has come into the trial—along with hints that she wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. In the instructions, no doubt the judge will warn the jury to disregard this information as irrelevant. But, let’s face it, the only issue that is really contested in the case is who ran a red light, and no sane human being can disregard the evidence that the victim was impaired and could have run a red light while Leyritz entered the intersection on a yellow light.

In the Leyritz trial, the jury has been sent out of court almost as often as they’ve entered the jury box. One lengthy episode involved the prosecutor trying to admit a police officer who administered a field sobriety test as a forensic expert in interpreting the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. This should have been done before the trial began.

In the end, the Leyritz jury will listen intently to the judge’s instructions, but when they retreat into the deliberation room, they will be utterly confused. They will reach a verdict only if all but one of them are followers. The leader will determine the verdict. If two or more have minds of their own, there won’t be a verdict at all.