[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 65 (Thursday, April 10, 2025)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VALUING TRUTH `FULLNESS': LESSONS FROM JURY TRIALS
______
HON. JAMIE RASKIN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, April 10, 2025
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.
____________________