declared.

Former Attorney General Mr. Saul Froomkin believed very few cases required a jury.

Fraud cases, for example, often threw up evidence which was way beyond the grasp of most jurors, he said.

And lawyer, Mr. Mark Pettingill, called for juries to be replaced by a panel of judges.

"The population is too small to draw on a consistent jury pool where parties don't know one another or are related to the parties,'' the Smith Barnard and Diel attorney said.

He added: "People are also swayed by public sentiment and read the same paper.'' Other lawyers' proposals included: Offering defendants the choice of trial by jury or before a judge; and Letting judges rule on certain cases in which jurors' emotions are likely to run high.

Ideas have also been put forward about fine-tuning the system, such as: Giving Crown Counsel and defence lawyers the same number of chances to challenge jurors; and Letting defence lawyers have an earlier look at names selected for jury.

The Royal Gazette asked lawyers for their opinions amid ongoing concern over the jury system in Bermuda.

Attorneys agreed the Island's size created problems peculiar to Bermuda, although only one backed sweeping away juries.

Most believed the current system should stay, but with changes.

Mr. Froomkin, from Mello, Hollis, Jones and Martin, said: "There are very few cases where in my view a jury would be necessary, except where one wants to get input from the community.

"The only cases I can think of are obscenity cases where you want to see the level of morality of the community.

"I don't know why a judge who is well versed in the law and has handled complex civil cases can't sit in contemplation of a criminal trial.'' Mr. Froomkin gave the example of a case of causing death by criminal negligence.

The case would be heard by a jury, and if there was an acquittal a civil action could follow.

"In the civil case the same evidence would be heard by a judge. Does that make any sense?'' Mr. Froomkin also highlighted the problems of juries in complex fraud cases.

Jurors often did not understand the evidence, he said.

Mr. Pettingill, for his part, called for the replacement of juries, saying several other jurisdictions had panels of judges. "My feeling is that I am in favour of the principle of juries,'' he stressed.

"I think, however, it would be good to have a panel of judges in Bermuda. The Island is a small place and it is often very difficult to get a jury here.'' Mr. Pettingill spoke of "some pretty novel decisions'' by jurors.

"In a nutshell I am in favour in principle of juries, but in practice I am in favour of judges.'' Mr. Timothy Marshall, from Church Street's Marshall and Co., disagreed.

"I have difficulty with the idea of a panel of judges because their perspective would be cluded by past cases they have dealt with.'' Continued on page 3 Questions over jury system It would be hard for them to deal with the case in hand objectively, Mr.

Marshall believed.

"Speaking generally no system will ever be perfect -- no jury system or any other system.

"But juries provide the best system that has been devised and obviously any important institution, such as the jury system, deserves the constant scrutiny of the public to make sure it is working properly.'' Mr. Marshall said a good change would be to empower defendants more by giving them the option of having trial by jury or before a judge.

"I would leave the decision squarely in the hands of the defendant, for our system of justice is predicated on the need to protect the defendant.'' Mr. Marshall took issue with criticism of juries based on the number of acquittals.

"The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.

"That is not an easy standard, and it means we are going to have acquittals because juries either don't think someone is guilty or don't think the Police had enough evidence.'' Mr. Marshall, however, accepted there were difficulties in Bermuda.

"Everybody knows everybody else here. There is no question about that, and we all read the same newspaper.

"Sometimes there can be situations where it's perceived that we might not be getting an objective jury.'' "In Bermuda it's common for the jury to know the defendant or the prosecutor, the defence lawyer, or the judge. I have known this on numerous occasions.'' Mr. Marshall added there were occasions when a judge would be better than a jury, such as handling "very sensitive'' cases -- including some involving sex allegations.

Jurors tended to be emotional, and a judge's experience would help, he believed.

"It would also save time and money to have a judge in these circumstances.'' Crown Counsel Mr. Brian Calhoun commented: "The bottom line is that the jury system has been around a long time and weathered the test of time.

"There is no doubt some people are concerned about it because of Bermuda's size, but by and large the system has been tested by time.'' Mr. Calhoun believed jurors had a vested interest in ensuring they made the best possible decisions.

By convicting a villain they were helping to protect the community they represented and were a part of.

But by knowingly letting a criminal escape justice they were endangering the community, including their friends, families and possibly even themselves.

Mr. Calhoun said there was a long recognised right for people to be tried by their peers.

"He who pays the piper should call the tune. If jurors are the ones who are going to have to bear the consequences of their actions they should be calling the tune.

"In this context there is justice in the jury system.'' Referring to proposed panels of judges, he said: "You have to be very vigilant when you suggest a substantial departure from a system which has worked hundreds of years.

"It's the community that either benefits or loses by what its juries do.'' Mr. Calhoun suggested Bermuda ask itself a challenging question.

Was it possible Bermuda's drug problem could stem from the perceived liberal actions taken by juries ten years ago? "If jurors had taken such actions -- and I don't know whether they did -- then you have to ask yourself `who has paid the price?'.'' Jurors had to appreciate the responsibility on their shoulders, and as a Crown Counsel he regularly hammered this home, he said.

President of the Bar Association Mr. John Cooper said he was generally in favour of the jury system.

But he did have some concerns.

"My first concern is that by the Criminal Code the Crown are given an unlimited right to stand aside potential jurors who are selected until the 36-person pool has been exhausted, whereas the defence counsel in all but death penalty cases have but a maximum of three peremptory challenges.

"My concern is not that we have more, but the Crown have a less right to stand aside selected jurors.'' "My second concern is that it seems to me that the prosecution are provided with 36 names on the jury panel well before a defence counsel receive it, which is always on the morning of the trial.'' "It seems to me the defence counsel should be given a list of the jurors a week or so in advance so they can make any inquiries they wish to make.'' He added: "Generally, though, I am in favour of the jury system.'' Former Crown Counsel Mr. Archie Warner said: "My view is that there are enormous problems in Bermuda with the jury system, not only here but in many small jurisdictions.

"Notwithstanding that, it is still the best system for trial. Certainly I know of no other system which matches up to it.

"I would hate to appear before a panel of judges or any tribunal. My view is we trust the jury system, and most defendants trust it. There is a history and validity about it.'' Mr. Warner pointed out in the US military defendants had a choice between a jury panel or a judge.

"In the American legal system common law, however, there is still a jury system.'' Mr. Warner warned against adopting European models different from the one in England.