It is a common understanding that trial by jury lies at the heart of American judicial system. Focusing on criminal petit jury, the author discusses in this paper that this notion is a “myth” in dual senses. On the one hand, it is a reality that jury trials do not play a major role in the handling of criminal cases today. On the other hand, however, the U.S. Supreme Court constructs a story that emphasizes the importance of jury trials as an essential element of American justice.

After formal indictment and arraignment, the defendant has the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty or of not-guilty. If the defendant maintains a plea of not-guilty, the case proceeds to trial stage, usually with a jury. However, if the defendant enters a guilty plea, a trial is skipped and the case goes forward to sentencing stage.

Today, the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved with guilty pleas after the practice called plea bargaining. To induce the defendant enter a plea of guilty, the prosecutor offers terms favorable to the defendant. Once the defendant is satisfied with the terms, he and the prosecutor enter into an agreement and the defendant changes his plea from not-guilty to guilty. The judge usually defers to the plea agreement.

In the 2010s, more than 95% of criminal cases, at both the federal and state levels, are disposed of with a guilty plea, usually after a plea bargain, while the rate was around 80–85% until the 1980s. It is difficult to pinpoint a specific cause, and both of legal and practical/cultural factors contribute to the trend. Faced with increased number of crimes and political pressure, prosecutors with limited resources want to resolve cases as easily as possible. They utilize the discretion afforded by the legal system, such as decisions regarding which defendant’s conduct to prosecute and under which offense, to obtain a plea of guilty. Recent developments in criminal law, including the adoption of sentencing guidelines and legislations of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, have given prosecutors even more power.

Despite these realities, recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have emphasized that juries are an essential part of the American justice system. In Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390(2020), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires States that a unanimous jury is necessary to convict a defendant. While a 1968 case held that the Sixth Amendment was applied to the States, unanimity, the traditional style of jury, was not constitutionally required of the States, and Louisiana and Oregon used non-unanimous juries. Ramos ended the exception, requiring the traditional jury uniformly throughout the Nation.

Traditionally, sentencing was considered to be entirely within the discretion of the sentencing judge. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466(2000), and its progeny, however, recognized the jury’s expanded role in sentencing. Apprendi held that a fact or a factor that should enhance a sentence must be presented to, proved, and found by a jury under Amendment VI. The following cases have applied Apprendi to diverse sentencing schemes, including the death penalty and sentencing guidelines.

In addition, other Supreme Court cases seek to remove vestiges of racism from various aspects of jury trials, such as jury selection and the confidentiality of jury deliberations.

Through these cases, the Supreme Court has woven the story of the sanctity of the jury. On the other hand, the author finds no sign of change from the marginalization of jury trials. The divergence between the ideal and reality will be persisting.