Two hundred and fifty years ago, a significant event took place in Philadelphia. A group of men proclaimed America’s independence from Great Britain. While taxes, such as those on tea, often dominate popular tales, the true causes ran deeper. The fight was over self-government and the right to a trial by jury.
In 1767, the Townshend Acts introduced more taxes on colonial trade. This sparked stricter law enforcement. British officials started prosecuting alleged smugglers, yet colonial juries composed of locals often refused to convict. This tactic, known as nullification, was their protest against perceived injustices.
Parliament grew frustrated. In 1768, they set up tribunals without juries. These courts placed a single judge, appointed and paid by the Crown, in charge of verdicts. The role of the public in justice disappeared. The situation worsened with the transfer of some criminal trials to England. Colonists had to face distant courts, complicating their defense.
These issues were fresh for the Founders when they wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776. They listed among grievances that judges were beholden to the king and that colonists were deprived of jury trials. Transporting individuals overseas for trial was another concern. These were central complaints, highlighting the Crown’s oppressive rule.
The Constitution addressed these issues by guaranteeing jury trials in criminal cases. The Bill of Rights reinforced this by extending jury trials to civil cases and ensuring local criminal trials. The Founders wanted to avoid the dangers of judge-only tribunals.
In contrast, modern American prosecutors often bypass jury trials. About 95 percent of criminal cases in the U.S. end in guilty pleas, not trials. Plea bargaining has become prevalent. Prosecutors may propose harsh penalties for those opting for trials or offer leniency to avoid accountability. This has nearly erased jury and judge trials alike.
The Supreme Court’s stance allowed this shift. In May 1968, it deemed the encouragement of guilty pleas unconstitutional. But, by 1970, the Court reversed, supporting plea bargaining practices even with harsher trial penalties. The Court described plea bargaining as necessary for justice administration.
However, the Founders saw jury trials as crucial. They ensure public examination of evidence and shield the accused from false accusations. Modern plea deals undermine these benefits, affecting justice for the community and the accused.
Recently, the Supreme Court has shown signs of reevaluating its past decisions. In 2020, it invalidated state laws allowing non-unanimous jury verdicts due to their discriminatory history. More recently, the Court agreed to revisit laws permitting smaller juries than the traditional twelve members.
Notably, some justices, like Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, have expressed concerns over the current plea-bargaining system. Justice Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion, criticized the overwhelming reliance on plea deals, acknowledging the Court’s role in allowing this practice.
The Founders believed jury trials were key to liberty. If the system has veered away from this belief, it raises the question of realignment. As we reflect on America’s foundational values on its 250th anniversary, this issue stands out as especially significant.
Matt Martens, a trial lawyer at WilmerHale in Washington, D.C., has been involved in major civil and criminal cases. He is also the author of “Reforming Criminal Justice.”
Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Leave a Reply