Modern Criminal Trials and Problems with the Modern-day Jury Systems

Modern Criminal Trials and Problems with the Modern-day Jury Systems

The juries in different nations across the world make decisions each day on the fate of defendants, which significantly result in them getting prison sentences that fit the crime for the offenders found guilty and release the innocent. However, various studies have revealed that the modern jury system in criminal cases, in numerous instances, get the decisions wrong. For example, a study by Northwestern University revealed that out of the 271 cases within the four areas of research, the juries gave the wrong verdict in at least one of every eight cases. Most individuals get sentenced, yet they are innocent due to the incorrect decisions made by the jury (Gargarella, 2017). Most of the errors in the modern jury systems are false acquittals where the defendant goes free while some are incorrect convictions, and this has negatively influenced the justice systems. In worst-case scenarios, some modern-day jury systems rely on the racial and gender stereotypes to make a sentence decision, and this deprives the right to participate as democratic equals.

The jury has been

subject to controversies in various cases, especially in American History. A good example is with the O.J Simpson case that involved the death of both his wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend Ron Goldman. The two were found murdered outside of Brown’s Los Angeles Condo. All the evidence seemed to point to Simpson’s direction. When the trial began in 1995, when O.J pled not guilty to the two murders, his defense team that was led by Johnnie Cochran turned the focus of the trial proceedings to the alleged racism of the first detective case (CONGER, 2019). However, since most of the individuals who made the jury team were black, most individuals felt that Cochran manipulated the race issue as a ploy to gain sympathies based on race. After about four months of proceedings in the court, Simpson got acquitted by the jury of both counts of murder (CONGER, 2019). The decision by the jury was significantly questioned and was thought to get based on racial prejudice, a great controversy on the judicial systems.

Despite the various security measures that have been put to protect the individuals from blackmail I the United States and other nations all over the world, the criminal cases of fraud are still on the rise. Numerous claims have been witnessed in the past 12 months involving crime and settled in court. One of the first causes us the Six Las Vegas-area Defendants who were charged in an Elder Fraud Scheme United States vs. Castro et al. The defendants were indicted on November 12, 2019, in association with a fraudulent mass-mailing scheme that allegedly-tricked numerous consumers into paying over $10 million in fees for purported cash prizes (Current and Recent Cases, 2019). Based on the indictments, the mailings by the defendants made the defendants, most of whom were elderly vulnerable to trust that they could claim through the scheme significant cash prizes in exchange for the fees. The allegations by the indictment maintain that Mario Castro. Salvador Castro, Miguel Castro, Jose Salud Castro, and Jose Luis Mandez ll worked at the printing and mailing business that had taken part in sending fraudulent mailings and shared the profits that resulted from the criminal activity (Current and Recent Cases, 2019). The indictment further alleged that the remaining defendant Andrea Burrow had opened a return mail, sorted the cash, and the other payments. The defendant further entered data from the responses of the victims into the database that the scheme had used to target its past victims with numerous fraudulent mailings.

On deciding on the case, the jury viewed the evidence that was presented by the indictment and found the defendants guilty of the fraudulent activity that resulted in the financial losses. The defendants had used the victim’s information without their consent to give responses through which the cash and other payments were made, and this resulted in a financial loss as the elderly were made to believe they would gain from the practice. The jury found the defendants guilty and was charged for fraud scheme on November 12, 2019, Docket Number 2:19-cr-295 (D.Nev.).

The second criminal act involved the three men extradited from Peru for overseeing call centers that threatened and defrauded the Consumers from Spain in the United States (the United States vs. Hidalgo et al.). In the case, John Hidalgo, Rodolfo Hermoza, and Francesco Guerra were all extradited from Peru to face charges of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and the extortion in the Southern District of Florida. The defendant was taken to court in front of the Miami grand Jury and was charged with the supervision of the call centers in Peru that placed calls to the Spanish-speaking consumers in the United States. In the case, the defendants who had faked the calls and claimed that they were the attorneys while some, government representatives and lied to the victims that they had failed to pay for the delivery of the products. They asked for many from the victims and threatened them falsely with the court proceedings if they would not comply, to apply negative marks on their credit reports, imprisonment, or would apply immigration consequences if they failed to pay for the purported deliveries plus the settlement fees immediately. Most of these victims fell them prayed and made the payments from the baseless threats because they had fears of facing the immigration consequences, especially with the calls they believed came from the government representatives.

In the court hearing, the evidence presented was enough for the Miami grand jury to decide on the sentencing of the offenders. The three defendants were found guilty for overseeing call centers and threatening and defrauding the Spanish-speaking consumers in the U.S. the Miami court resolved the sentencing of these individuals on December 19, 2019. The charges against them as established by the jury was a conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and the extortion in the Southern District Florida (Current and Recent Cases, 2019). In the case, the jury used the evidence that was presented that including the transactions that were made by the victims and prove of the calls that helped the judges on settling on the verdicts.

In conclusion, the above two cases represent how the real justice system work without preference or discrimination of the individuals based on their ethnic backgrounds or race. The charges against the three men who conspired and committed the wire fraud showed that the nation had abolished judging based on the ethnic background since the Spanish-Speaking consumers got justice from the judicial system. The two cases have also shown the jury system that has not been compromised. Most of the decisions made in the modem jury system are full of flaws. They have resulted in innocent people getting convicted for the crimes they never got involved in while the real criminals are left to walk free on the streets, getting involved in more criminal activities. The jury in the cases has done well, relying on the evidence to decide on the claims.

References

Current and Recent Cases. (2019). Retrieved December 27, 2019, from https://www.justice.gov/civil/current-and-recent-cases

CONGER, C. (2019). 10 Controversial Court Cases. Retrieved from https://people.howstuffworks.com/ten-controversial-court-cases1.htm

Gargarella, R. (2017). Constitutional Changes and Judicial Power in Latin America. Latin America Since the Left Turn, 189.