Valuing Truth `fullness': Lessons From Jury Trials

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reflect on the profound responsibility that accompanies public service.

As public officials across the country are sworn into office, each affirms a commitment to faithfully execute the duties of public office and defend the Constitution of the United States. But more and more Americans are losing faith that the actions of our public officials are principally guided by our Constitution and our laws. And some of my colleagues even doubt whether truth exists and whether government can operate on the basis of mutually agreed facts, such as who won an election.

Gregory Mize--a Georgetown University law professor and retired trial judge--offers a compelling perspective: we can use jury trials as models for attaining higher levels of truthfulness and reliable outcomes in government. After all, our whole justice system is based on the idea that we must all tell the truth and the fact-finder can decide ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' or ``by preponderance of the evidence'' what actually happened.

Thomas Jefferson said, ``I consider trial by jury as the only anchor, yet ever imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.'' Indeed, the way a courtroom pursues truth provides a blueprint for encouraging trustworthiness in our public servants.

At the beginning of jury selection, potential jurors take a solemn oath to truthfully answer questions posed by the judge and lawyers. The selected jurors take a second oath to ``faithfully discharge the duties of a juror and a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence.'' When testimony begins, jurors observe each witness take an oath under penalty of perjury to ``tell the truth and nothing but the truth.'' Judges, also sworn to follow the law, enforce rules of evidence--including by striking irrelevant or unreliable testimony from consideration by the jury. In some cases, judges must also pre-qualify proposed experts before they can state an opinion on a key issue. A lawyer's questioning then further tests the reliability of those opinions. Thanks to these established procedures, jurors learn the court's high valuation of honesty and come to expect it from their government

Rather than relying on a single robed jurist to render a final verdict, our Founders wanted a panel of common citizens to administer justice in honest dialogue with one another. They believed jury deliberations to be a gold standard for reaching truth and achieving just ends.

After hearing evidence and receiving legal instructions from the judge, jurors enter a deliberation room. They test one another's recollections and assumptions and assess witness credibility. Studies show that, during deliberations, a jury polices itself. Individual jurors remind others of the obligations of their oaths and the requirements of the law as stated by the judge.

As a new year--with a new Congress and President--is underway, it is high time to bring courtroom reverence for truth-telling into the government generally and the public square. As citizens, we must demand a commitment to the pursuit of truth from all of our public officials. While enforcing oaths of office is a big challenge, citizens must demand truth from public officials in all that we do. And as public officials, we must earn that trust by honoring our oaths.

The work of Judge Gregory Mize is exemplary in calling America back to the bedrock quest for truth. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source