Read the article "Jurors and Juries" to answer Questions 1-5.

Jurors & Juries
by Collomia Charles

The Areopagus was a court whose members were former archons or state officials. The court met next to the Acropolis, on a hill that was also called Areopagus, which means “the hill of Mars.” Similar in many ways to a Council of Elders, the Areopagus upheld the rules and traditions of the aristocracy of Athens for centuries. Then, in 462 B.C., the Athenian statesman Ephialtes greatly weakened its power. He did so by transferring most of the powers once assigned to the Areopagus to the Heliaia, the high court of Athens.

With Ephialtes’ changes, most cases were no longer judged by a small segment of the population that was experienced, wealthy, and powerful, but by juries whose members were everyday Athenians. We know much about what happened in these courts, because speeches survive from trials covering everything from murder to embezzlement of public funds to political misconduct.

Jury Selection

In 507 B.C., Cleisthenes divided Athens into 10 demes, or districts. To form a jury pool of 6,000, each of the 10 demes chose, by lot, 600 citizens over the age of 30. After swearing an oath, each juror was given a ticket inscribed with his name, his father’s name, his deme, and a letter of the alphabet to show in which section of the jury pool he belonged. For most trials, a jury consisted of 501 citizens, but some were as small as 201 or as large as 1,501. Enormous juries made it almost impossible for either side to use bribery, intimidation, or trickery to win a verdict.

Athenian courts had no judges or lawyers, only an organizing official known as the hegemon. The prosecutor and the defendant each spoke for himself. Within a specific amount of time that was marked by a water clock (the hole at the bottom allowed the water to escape slowly or to be stopped from flowing if there was a pause in the proceedings), each had to make a persuasive argument, read aloud the laws that were important in his case, and call the witnesses who supported his argument.

Public Speaking Becomes All-Important

In this type of court system, the ability to speak well in public became extremely important. So, there soon arose a group of professional educators, known as sophists, who claimed that they could teach students to argue either side of any case. They also said that they could train students to think and act in a way that would give them an advantage if they ever had to appear in court. Soon, an entirely new profession was launched—that of logographos, or speech writer. If anyone did not feel confident enough to create his own persuasive speech, he could now hire someone to write it for him.

How They Voted

After both speakers finished presenting their cases in court, the jury voted. As early as the 450s B.C., voting was done by secret ballot. According to the fourth-century B.C. Greek philosopher Aristotle, jurors were given two ballots. Each was a copper disk with a rod through the middle. One rod was hollow; the other was solid. A juror would choose the hollow ballot if he agreed with the prosecutor and the solid ballot if he agreed with the defense. Each juror would drop the ballot he had chosen into a bronze jar; the other ballot—the one he did not use—he would drop into a wooden jar.

After the votes were counted and guilt or innocence had been established, the court would decide on a penalty. Juries could impose fines, strip citizens of their rights, and impose sentences of exile or death. Imprisonment was possible, but rare and only for non-citizens. In 399 B.C., in what has become history’s most famous trial, the Greek philosopher Socrates was found guilty of impiety and corrupting the young men of Athens. He lost his case by only 30 votes. However, when jurors voted for his punishments, 110 jurors voted for the death penalty. Why the change? It is said that Socrates’ suggestion that he be given a dinner at public expense and then that he pay an extremely small fine angered those jurors who had earlier voted him “not guilty.” 

To answer Questions 6-11, read  the excerpt from the drama Judgment at Nuremberg.

Excerpt from Judgment at Nuremberg
by Abby Mann

The following is an excerpt from Judgment at Nuremberg. The play is set at the end of World War II as the international community becomes aware of the crimes committed by the Nazis during the war. In 1948, a series of trials are held in Nuremberg, Germany, with the intent of bringing to justice those guilty of crimes against humanity.

JUDGE HAYWOOD: The trial conducted before this Tribunal began over eight months ago. Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen[1] of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nation-wide government-organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of legal and moral principle common to all civilized nations. [Pause.]

The Tribunal has carefully reviewed the record and found therein abundant competent evidence to support, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges brought against these defendants. Herr Rolfe, in his skillful defense has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. [Pause.]

This Tribunal does not believe that the United States or any other country has been blameless of the conditions which made the German people vulnerable to the blandishments[2] and temptations of the rise of Nazism. But this Tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their acts. The principle of criminal law of every civilized society has this in common. Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of this crime, any person who is an accessory to this crime is guilty. [Pause.]

Herr Rolfe further asserts that the Defendant Janning was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought to be the best interests of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts—if all of the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs—then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or other natural catastrophes. But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, ordinary men—even able and extraordinary—men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs . . . The murder of children . . . How easily that can happen. There are those in our own country today, too, who speak of the protection of country. Of survival. The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn't a rock. And it's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world—let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth . . . and the value of a single human being.

[1] significant part of a grievance

[2] something that tends to coax or cajole

Read  “The Juror’s Job” to answer Questions 12-14.

The Juror’s Job
By Danielle Olander

A jury is made up of people who take time out from their regular routines to perform one of the highest duties of U.S. citizenship. “I consider trial by jury,” Thomas Jefferson said, “as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” How are jurors selected? What is jury duty like? I recently discovered the answers to these questions.


Like other U.S. citizens who are registered voters with driver’s licenses or state identification cards, I was eligible to serve on a jury. So when I received a summons in the mail to report for jury duty (or else be held in contempt of court), I made a note of the date and cleared my calendar. While I do not work outside my home, employers are required to allow their workers to report for jury duty.

On the date specified in my summons, I went to the county courthouse in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as instructed. After passing through the security checkpoint, I waited in the jury assembly room for orientation, along with 250 other people from my community who had also received notices. The jury clerk informed us that three cases were on the docket. Each case required 12 jurors and two alternates (for backup, in case something happens to one of the 12 jurors). All of them would be chosen from a pool of 40 people. Pools are generated randomly by computer. I was in the first pool to be led into a courtroom.

We sat in the back while the judge asked us general questions to see whether we could act impartially.

The first case for which the court was selecting a jury involved a home invasion and domestic violence. The defendant was charged with forcing open a window and entering the house after he had been ordered by a judge to stay away. The defendant also was accused of slightly injuring his former girlfriend after she told him to leave. From a small wooden box, the judge’s clerk drew 14 numbers, each of which corresponded to a name. When I heard my name, I took a seat in the jury box. Once the first 14 people were seated, voir dire[1] began. After about two hours of questioning, both the prosecuting and defending attorneys agreed on 14 jurors. The judge reminded us not to speak about the details of the case with anyone. My first day as a juror was over.

The next morning, my fellow jurors and I were sworn in. We promised to “justly decide the questions submitted to [us] . . . and render [our] verdict [judgment] only on the evidence . . ." The judge spent almost an hour instructing us on the nature of evidence and the presumption of innocence. He told us to assume that the defendant was innocent until the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

For the rest of that day and the next, we listened to opening arguments from both sides. We listened to witnesses answer questions, and we heard stories that did not agree. We observed the body language of the people on the witness stand to see whether we could determine who was telling the truth. We watched, but never heard from, the defendant. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty, so he or she is not required to say anything in his or her defense. We listened when the judge interrupted a witness to clarify a point. He was like an umpire, making sure everyone stayed within the rules without actually becoming part of the game. We looked at evidence: a 9-1-1 tape, a cell phone, a set of keys, and photographs of muddy footprints by a window.

Finally, on the fourth day of the trial, we heard closing arguments from each side. The judge gave us additional instructions on deliberation, the alternate jurors were dismissed, and we left the courtroom for the jury room to discuss the case.

[1] examination of a witness

Read Excerpt from From the River’s Edge to answer Questions 15-20.

Excerpt from From the River’s Edge

by Elizabeth Cook-Lynn

In this excerpt, the District Attorney presents his final argument against the young, white man accused of stealing John Tatekeya’s cattle. John Tatekeya is a respected member of the Dakotah Sioux community and has decided, despite some internal conflict, to seek justice through the courts.



November 1967

The courtroom was full, and he could see the tension fade from his lawyer’s face as he spied John across the crowded room. What a puzzling phenomenon, thought John, trying not to be drawn into the attorney’s enthusiasm for what could be the final day of the trial. Who cares about this strange ordeal?

Perhaps, as people of the city will flock to the most talked about movie or theater presentation, he reasoned, so do residents of a small, rural community gather for even the slightest acting-out of a resolution of conflict.

Let’s get on with it, he thought, for it had all now become anticlimactic for him, and he cared little about its outcome.

John took his seat at the broad, shiny table with the District Attorney directly in front of the judge and to the center of the view of the jury …

The accused cattle thief sat with his counsel, Joseph Nelson III, just across the aisle, expectant, puerile. His gray-haired mother sat directly behind him.

The District Attorney began a long review of his findings and then faced the jury.

“You know,” he said, “when you get right down to it, this is a case of do you believe Mr. Tatekeya was missing the cattle that he claimed was missing at the time he claimed they were missing. Now, stop and think of that,” he said carefully, summing up the case which John Tatekeya and the federal government had brought against the young white man.

“Was he missing these cattle?” he persisted.

He walked over and put his hands on the railing.

“Now, the defense of this young man here”—gesturing toward the table where the accused sat with his eyes glued to the jury box—“they claim that Mr. Tatekeya sold them himself, or he probably let them run off; that he didn’t keep them fenced in and they might have just run off into the backwaters of the dam, the river, and drowned. Or they just, somehow, disappeared. Now. Stop to think of that.”

…

“I wonder,” mused the lawyer as if to himself as he kept the eyes on the jury. He had to believe that they were fair-minded, that they could rise above their own prejudices.

“Who is on trial here? The question. Who is on trial? Who is missing these cattle? And do you think he is telling the truth? Do you believe him?”

Gesturing toward John: “There’s a fellow that”—another pause—“well, he just didn’t like the white man’s court. It was pretty difficult for him to get up there and testify. The question is, was he telling the truth, members of the jury. Is it possible that he is telling the truth and this young man here did steal his cattle”

The District Attorney didn’t look at the short, blond young man who sat at the defense table.

“Here’s a fellow, gentlemen, here’s my client, Mr. Tatekeya, that was a pigeon, gentlemen of the jury. He was a sitting pigeon for this fellow here.” The lawyer’s arm swept toward the defendant but he still did not look at him. He kept his eyes fastened on the jury.

“This defendant knew him! Knew his operation! Knew that his place was flooded out by the dam and that he had to move his operation and that he didn’t have adequate fences! Knew that he was gone sometimes! Maybe even knew when he was gone.”

He paused for a long time.

“Knew,” he said softly, “that this was a place where he could pick up cattle from an Indian who might not—“

At this point, Joseph Nelson III jumped to his feet dramatically.

“Just a moment, your honor!” he said indignantly. “I hate to object during argument, but I don’t believe there’s been any evidence to this effect whatsoever! It is an insult to my client.”

The accused blinked toward his mother, whose stricken face turned ashen.

The judge, calm and deliberate, ruled: “Well, I think it’s an inference that he may be able to use by way of argument, simply for the fact that there is testimony as to the map as to how close they live to each other. They know each other and the testimony suggests that this may be inferred. The object is overruled. It’s argument.”

Read India: High-Tech and Thirsty to answer Questions 21-25.

India: High-Tech and Thirsty
by Alice Andre-Clarke


When an American computer scientist wanted to develop the best handwriting recognition software in the world, he packed his bags for Bangalore, known as the Silicon Valley of India. India’s large pool of highly skilled scientists will earn the country about $100 billion in technology revenue this year.

Yet all of India’s science and management talent has been unable to bring its citizens one of the basic comforts of modern life: a steady supply of running water. Fewer than half of Indian households have tap water. Tens of millions don’t have clean drinking water.

No major city in India delivers water 24 hours a day to all its customers. While the fortunate ones buy pumps and storage tanks to capture as much water as possible, those less fortunate rely on tanker trucks to deliver the precious resource.

Those dependent on the trucks must leave school or work to meet them. Because parents place importance on boys’ education, that someone is often a preteen girl. Armed with paint cans and cooking pots, residents toss a hose—not always clean —into the tanker. Kids transport 50- to 100-pound containers on bicycles, or walk with cans balanced on their heads.

In most rural villages, where there is an absence of pipes and tanker trucks, girls might walk a few miles twice a day to a neighboring village’s well. After hoisting heavy buckets from 20 feet below ground level, they then carry the full containers home.

Finding safe water is even more difficult. Rivers are blackened by untreated sewage and fertilizers from farms’ run offs. Clothing factories in the city of Tirupur dump dyed wastewater into the local reservoir.

India can’t deliver water 24/7 because its pipes are often laced with tiny cracks. If forced to hold water pressure all day every day, water would pour from those growing fissures, losing as much as half of the water. While replacing pipes would save water in the long run, doing so would require money that water authorities don’t have.

More than anywhere else, India’s water is lost on its farms. In the 1960s, a drought drastically reduced the country’s grain production. To prevent mass starvation, the government began offering free electricity to farmers to use to dig wells and pump up groundwater. The number of wells rose from 800,000 in 1975 to 22 million in 2000. While the farmers’ hard work held back the famine, their success came at an alarming cost.

Finding a better way to manage India’s water is urgent for two reasons. First, India’s population is growing. Fifty years ago, India’s population was under 500 million, but by 2040, the number will have passed 1.5 billion.

Second, India is experiencing climate change. The mountain glaciers that feed India’s major rivers are rapidly melting away. “Rising temperatures mean that water will evaporate more quickly from rivers, reservoirs, and soil”, explains Veena Srinivasan, a senior research affiliate at the Pacific Institute’s International Communities and Water Initiative.

Experts have many good ideas for making the water supply safe and accessible. Srinivasan argues that rates should be raised, and meters should measure water use in wealthy homes. If people pay for the water they use, they will make wiser choices. Further, Rajendra K. Pachauri, director of New Delhi’s The Energy and Resources Institute, has called for the government to begin charging farmers more for electricity.

Experts want to educate people on how to protect the water supply. While Srinivasan favors programs to teach how to use less water at home, Sanmugam Prathapar of Delhi’s International Water Institute believes families should learn to boil and filter water to make it safe to drink. Farmers can be taught irrigation methods to plant grains that require less water.

Water storage must improve. Srinivasan says that India should expand reservoirs so it can capture heavy rainfalls to be used during droughts.

Fourth, polluters must act more responsibly. Leading conservationist Rajendra Singh has urged that factories be required to treat wastewater so that it’s clean before released into the water supply. He also believes in tougher penalties for polluters.

The World Health Organization estimates that over 700,000 Indians a year die because of poor water and sanitation. Unfortunately, the shortage of clean water is just one crisis facing India. Hundreds of millions of people can’t read or write, and one one-third have no electricity. Many in India are hoping that the fast-growing technology industry will bring in enough money so that people won’t have to choose which problem to solve.

Read “The Drought” to answer Questions 26-31.

The Drought
by Gary Soto

The clouds shouldered a path up the mountains
East of Ocampo, and then descended,
Scraping their bellies gray on the cracked shingles of slate.

They entered the valley, and passed the roads that went
Trackless, the houses blown open, their cellars creaking
And lined with the bottles that held their breath for years.

They passed the fields where the trees dried thin as hat racks
And the plow’s tooth bit the earth for what endured.
But what continued were the wind that plucked the birds spineless

And the young who left with a few seeds in each pocket,
Their belts tightened on the fifth notch of hunger—
Under the sky that deafened from listening for rain.

Read 'Waste Not, Want Not" to answer Questions 32-35.

Waste Not, Want Not:
Food Waste and Hunger Exist Side by Side
by Jeanne Miller

Forty percent of the food that’s produced in this country never makes it into the mouth of a human being. “That’s like going to the grocery store and buying five bags of groceries, then dropping two bags in the parking lot and not bothering to pick them up,” says Dana Gunders, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. In a recent year we discarded 34 million tons of food while 17 million American households could not always be sure where their next meal was coming from. How can this be? And what can we do about it?

Starting at the Farm
Farm manager Nick Papadopoulos says, “I was standing in our walk-in cooler one Sunday, and I saw boxes of unsold vegetables that had come back from the farmers’ market. I realized that they were going to go to the chickens and the compost. It was still premium, edible, sellable food,” he says. “It made me want to bang my head on the wall.”

Several months earlier Papadopoulos had taken a break from a career as a business consultant to help manage his family’s farm in Petaluma, California. He had repeatedly watched fresh, nutritious vegetables going into the compost pile. That Sunday, thinking of all the care and resources that had gone into growing and harvesting the unsold produce, he decided he had to do something. The farm had a Facebook page and a lot of fans. He put an alert on Facebook to tell the farm’s crowd that he wanted to strike a deal. “Within 45 minutes a woman texted and said she could pick up the vegetables.” She bought the produce at a discount and shared it with her neighbors. Papadopoulos says, “Twenty families were fed and we made some of our money back. Afterwards there was a nice feeling of accomplishment on everyone’s part.”

An App for That
It wasn’t long before he and a friend had created CropMobster, an online alert system that uses social media to announce the availability of food at risk of going to waste. Hundreds of farmers and grocers have signed up for the service and thousands of people have signed up for alerts. In the first year, about 1 million servings of food were saved.

CropMobster now operates in several counties in northern California. Recently it partnered with the city of Elk Grove, near Sacramento, California, to launch the city’s own community exchange app. There, students at Foulk Ranch School who had studied food waste got involved. Among other projects, they harvested 400 pounds of kale and squash from a farm and delivered it to a food bank. Led by sixth-grade teacher Jim Bentley, students documented their activities in short videos.

Environmental Costs
When food goes to waste, all the resources that went into producing it also go to waste. The human labor, the fuel, the fertilizer, and the water are all thrown away. Twenty-five percent of the fresh water in the U.S. goes into food that never gets eaten. Gunders notes, “When it comes to water usage, throwing away a hamburger is like taking a 90-minute shower.”

We spend about 1 billion dollars per year just to dispose of excess food. Some of it goes into compost piles, some of it goes into animal feed, but most of it goes into landfills. There it decays and gives off methane gas, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Gunders says, “No matter how organically or how sustainably we grow our food, if we’re not eating it, it’s not a good use of those resources.”

Tackling the Problem
CropMobster is just one of many new approaches to solving the problem of food waste using technology. Sometimes stores will reject a truckload of fruit or vegetables because of its appearance—apples too small, carrots too crooked, tomatoes too ripe. An organization called Food Cowboy has a website that allows truckers to post an alert that a delivery has been refused. A charity on the trucker’s route can respond, and Food Cowboy makes sure the food goes to hungry people instead of to a landfill.

Another organization, Food Shift, is taking a different tack. Currently charities depend mainly on volunteers to collect and distribute food. Hoping to create jobs in food recovery and make it sustainable, Food Shift partners with retail stores and other food providers. For a fee, it agrees to take care of all the excess food so the seller doesn’t have to. It has containers in the store that it picks up regularly and takes to food charities. Chad Solari, Director of Produce and Floral at Andronico’s Community Markets in California, explains the program. “When our staff pulls things with expired dates off the shelves, or switches out the day-old bread, or runs through the produce rack and comes up with ripe bananas, it will all go in one spot. We know where to put it, we know somebody’s going to come and pick it up, we know where it’s going.”

More to Be Done
These successful efforts to pull food from the waste stream are hopeful signs that things can change. Dana Gunders points out that, in the long run, capturing the excess at the end of the food cycle isn’t enough. “To me,” she says, “the ideal food system is one that’s designed up front to feed everyone. In that system we’d be so efficient at using everything that there wouldn’t be enough at the end to be captured and redistributed.

Read "Leave La Jolla's Sea Lions Alone" to answer Questions 36-41.

Leave La Jolla's Sea Lions Alone
by Sharada Saraf

March 9, 2017

For years, La Jolla Cove’s striking sea life and beautiful scenery have drawn thousands of visitors from across the world to California. However, some animals that make the cove their home have been increasingly seen as unwelcome and inconvenient by the residents of La Jolla.

Perhaps more famous locally for their stench rather than their essential part of our unique coastal ecosystem, the sea lions of La Jolla have been subject to harsh criticism over the past few years. Despite La Jolla Cove being their natural breeding location, the sea lions’ increasing numbers have sparked growing complaints among La Jolla residents about the poor water quality and clashes between beachgoers and the animals. Claiming that the sea lions pose a major health and public safety problem, the La Jolla Town Council and Task Force on California Sea Lions has issued a “Call to Action” with members pushing for the city to give them the authority to draft and execute a removal plan.

While the plan does not concentrate on any particular method of removing the sea lions, the document relies heavily on a June 2016 investigation conducted by marine mammalian expert Dr. Doyle Hannan, who was contracted by the city to analyze the issue. The potential deterrent options recommended by Dr. Hannan include non-lethal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-approved methods, installing gates and fences, and using low-voltage fencing to corral the sea lions into certain areas. The Town Council, however, claiming that the cove is a “dirty CSL [California Sea Lion] litter box,” wants to take it a step further by installing plastic barriers to prevent the animals from reaching the beach at all.

While there has been a strong push against the sea lions’ presence in the cove, there has been an equally strong push to abandon any deterrence methods and keep the animals in their natural habitat. Over 95,000 people have signed a petition, written by a UC San Diego student, urging San Diego mayor Kevin Falcouner to deny the Task Force’s request, protect the sea lions’ habitat, and urge visitors to visit the nearby La Jolla Shores beach instead.

Proponents claim that in the event of hostile interactions between humans and animals, the natural inhabitants of the region shouldn’t be the ones to relocate and that humans should instead. In response to La Jolla residents’ concerns about water quality, the drafter of the petition has insisted that “due to the sea lions habitat being at the La Jolla Cove, naturally their feces would be present in the water, causing natural, but occasional, issues with water quality.” To resolve this, the drafter proposes redirecting tourists to other beaches along the coast and preventing beachgoers from accessing the water.

While the concerns of La Jolla residents are valid and understandable, the correct solution would be to accept the sea lions’ presence and important role in the coastal ecosystem rather than harassing them and eventually forcing them off the cove. La Jolla residents have miles of coast and sea lion-free beaches at their disposal; therefore, moving to strip sea lions of the small area they call home isn’t the right decision.

This solution may make La Jolla business owners unhappy, but what they, along with the Town Council, aren’t considering is the huge potential market for ecotourism. Regardless of the smell, many people are still drawn to La Jolla because of the ability to observe the sea lions in their natural habitat. This presents a major opportunity for La Jolla businesses; by embracing their presence instead of implementing expensive deterrents, La Jolla’s economic future is secure so long as eco-tourism remains popular, which it likely will.

Public education and increased signage, additionally recommended by Dr. Hannan, prevents any hostile interactions between humans and the mammals and allows ecotourists to respectfully and safely observe the sea lions while enjoying the beauty of the cove. While Mayor Falcouner hasn’t acted on the issue yet, proponents hope that he not only denies the request of the Task Force but also enacts a measure to permanently protect La Jolla Cove’s sea lions for future generations to enjoy.