11
General Assembly. Thirty other states have statutes specifically exempting
doctors; twenty do not. Other state courts have also generally held that the
question of eligibility for jury service is within the discretion of the legislature.
The Supreme Court, however, has held that the sixth amendment guarantee of an
"impartial jury of the state and district" requires that the jury be drawn from a fair
cross-section of the community. Any blanket occupational exemptions must be
justified by a compelling state interest, although individual decisions to excuse
someone from jury service are within the trial judge's discretion. Against this
background are several studies by social psychologists showing that juries without
educated elite jurors such as physicians produce different verdicts than juries on
which educated jurors participate.
In advocacy writing, the summary of relevant information should be slanted to favor your side.
Note that I said slanted, not tipped over onto its head. You can't misstate facts or omit major
Supreme Court precedent. However, you can be selective in which facts you report and which of the
hundreds of relevant cases you include. Two examples (very abbreviated):
For the state: Court records indicate that the issue has come up in Bloomington rarely in
the last five years and that not all physicians are excused. Indiana cases hold generally that
deciding whether to create a statutory exemption is within the discretion of the General
Assembly. A majority of other states follow the Indiana practice of exempting doctors, and
the practice has been approved by a majority of state courts. The Supreme Court has held
that a jury in a criminal case should be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community
and that any exemption that removes a substantial number of potential jurors from the pool
must be justified by a compelling state interest. The Court has not previously ruled on the
issue of physician exemptions, but has said that the trial judge's decision in an individual
case is within the judge's discretion. The issue has not been specifically addressed by the
social psychologists who study jury behavior.
For the defense: Court records indicate that in every Bloomington case in the last five
years a physician who invoked the exemption was excused from jury duty. There are no
cases in Indiana on this issue, and other states are divided on the wisdom of creating a
blanket physician exemption. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that because the sixth
amendment guarantee of an "impartial jury of the state and district" requires that the jury
be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community, any blanket occupational exemption
must be justified by a compelling state interest. Several studies by social psychologists
demonstrate that juries without physicians produce different verdicts than juries on which
physicians and other educated elite participate.
STEP THREE -- EXAMINE THE RELEVANT INFORMATION
CRITICALLY
The important part of an argument is the critical examination of the information that could be
used to support one or the other alternative. A critical examination is one that uses principled
reasoning to assess the relative strengths and weakness of each piece of supporting information --
bolstering the pieces of your own argument and weakening your opponent's. Bear in mind that