Proposes a constitutional amendment that modifies a provision relating to the right of trial by jury
Impact
If enacted, HJR117 could significantly alter the landscape of trial procedures in Missouri, impacting both criminal and civil justice systems. By allowing smaller juries and different verdict thresholds, the resolution attempts to streamline the trial process which could potentially ease court congestion. However, proponents argue that this could also undermine the traditional jury system that relies on the collective decisions of a larger group, raising questions about the representation and fairness in the judicial process. The amendment aims to adapt to contemporary needs and might reflect an intention to modernize legal practices in the state.
Summary
HJR117 proposes a constitutional amendment to modify the existing provision regarding the right to trial by jury in Missouri. The resolution seeks to repeal Section 22(a) of Article I of the Missouri Constitution and replace it with a new section that allows for a jury in criminal and civil cases to consist of fewer than twelve citizens, as prescribed by law. Furthermore, the proposed amendment states that a two-thirds majority of the jurors may render a verdict in civil cases, while a three-fourths majority is necessary in cases heard in courts of record. Defendants would also have the option to waive their right to a jury trial, allowing their cases to be decided by a judge alone.
Contention
There are notable concerns surrounding HJR117, particularly regarding its implications for the right to a fair trial. Critics might argue that reducing the number of jurors and the required majority for verdicts could compromise the integrity of jury decisions. Legal experts and civil rights advocates may voice that smaller juries could be less representative of the community and result in verdicts that do not reflect a consensus. Additionally, the ability for defendants to waive their right to a jury trial raises concerns about informed consent and the pressures that might influence such decisions, putting vulnerable defendants at a potential disadvantage.