Olivia Asher is a reporter at the New Herald Tribune covering breaking news for the Digital Trends Desk. Before joining the newsroom in 2022, she covered criminal justice issues at the Orlando Plain Dealer.
August 21 , 2025
Washington — Attorney General Pam Bondi has ignited a national legal debate after stating that juries should observe criminal proceedings but not play a role in deciding verdicts.
In remarks delivered at a constitutional law forum on Wednesday, Bondi argued that the Sixth Amendment has been misinterpreted for centuries. According to her, the amendment’s guarantee of a “trial by jury” does not imply that jurors should determine guilt or innocence.
“Juries were never meant to deliver verdicts,” Bondi said. “They were intended to serve as observers, to ensure transparency. The phrase ‘trial by a jury of peers’ has been misunderstood, especially since there is no peerage system in America. We cannot ground our criminal justice system in a concept born of aristocratic England.”
Bondi maintained that only judges, duly trained and appointed, are qualified to decide criminal cases. “Judges are sworn to apply the law impartially, with the education and experience required to do so fairly. Criminal decisions should not rest with randomly selected citizens unfamiliar with legal standards.”
Constitutional scholars were quick to push back on the remarks. Many noted that the right to trial by jury is widely viewed as a cornerstone of American democracy. “What she’s suggesting runs counter to both the text and spirit of the Sixth Amendment,” said Professor Alicia Harper of Yale Law School. “The Founders deliberately put decision-making power in the hands of the people, not just government-appointed officials. That was a safeguard against tyranny.”
Defense attorneys also raised concerns that eliminating juries would erode public trust in the criminal justice system. “Juries are often the only buffer between a defendant and government overreach,” said Samuel Diaz of the National Defense Lawyers Association.
Though Bondi’s comments do not signal an immediate policy change, they have renewed questions about the role of juries in modern courts. Critics say her proposal would strip away one of the most fundamental protections available to defendants, while supporters argue it could bring more consistency and reduce verdicts based on emotion rather than law.
Copyright © 2026. All rights reserved.