Sept. 23, 2026 — About 210,000 Wisconsin residents a year are summoned and more than 61,000 of them report to their county courthouse to serve on jury duty.

All three branches of Wisconsin government designated September as Juror Appreciation Month. Lawyers join in praising the work jurors do in preserving the American right of trial by jury.

“There’s a lot of value in people serving on juries because I think there would be a lot less skepticism as far as the judicial system,” said personal injury lawyer Allan​ M. Foeckler of Cannon & Dunphy S.C. in Brookfield.

“My experience is that people who sit on juries truly want to do the right thing.”

“I never underestimate the jury. They are far smarter than many give them credit for,” said Patricia Epstein Putney, whose practice at Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C. in Madison involves civil litigation defense.

“This is one of the last vestiges of exceptionally direct democracy,” said Kevin M. Smith, regional attorney manager for the Wisconsin State Public Defenders – Janesville Region.

Both Foeckler and Smith almost got to the jury box. Neither have served yet — but they hope to soon.

‘The Most Transcendent Privilege’

“This is one of the last vestiges of exceptionally direct democracy.” — Kevin M. Smith, regional attorney manager for the Wisconsin State Public Defenders – Janesville Region.

Magna Carta’s requirement that legal action may be done only “by the lawful judgment of [the defendant’s] equals”^[1] has traditionally marked the establishment of the right to trial by jury.

The original English juries did more than determine the facts. Jurors also served as witnesses, “chosen as being likely to be already informed.”^[2]

Courts relied on these early jurors for their judgment: “The knowledge required of them is their own perception, or what their fathers have told them, or what they may trust as fully as their own perceptions.”^[3]

Sir William Blackstone considered the civil jury “the most transcendent privilege” because an individual “cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors or equals.”^[4]

These 12 “indifferent” individuals, summoned by authority specifically for the trial, “will be found the best investigators of the truth, and the surest guardians of public justice.”^[5]

The jury achieves higher purpose in criminal trials, Blackstone said, where those citizens serve as a barrier against overreaching government to guarantee rights.^[6]

The “liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate,” Blackstone concluded.^[7]

Blackstone saw liberty weakened when new specialized courts gave the judge alone the power to decide the case.^[8]

A Barrier to Tyranny

Americans united in the Declaration of Independence’s indictment against King George III “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”

After the American Revolution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists agreed zealously in preserving trial by jury, which remains constitutionally required in federal criminal cases.^[9]

“The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention,” Alexander Hamilton wrote, “if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon trial by jury.”^[10]

Reassuring the uncertain, Hamilton echoed Blackstone. Trial by jury is “a barrier to … tyranny” and “the very palladium of free government.”^[11]

The concerns that the new Constitution failed to ensure a jury in civil matters resulted in the Seventh Amendment.^[12]

Common-law countries share a faith in the jury. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes the right to jury trial for offenses punishable by at least five years' imprisonment.^[13]

A recent proposal in Great Britain “to limit the availability of jury trial in England and Wales,” due to an estimated five-year backlog of criminal cases, has “provoked a tsunami of outrage.”

Juries in Wisconsin

“I never underestimate the jury. They are far smarter than many give them credit for.” — Patricia Epstein Putney's practice at Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C. in Madison involves civil litigation defense.

The framers of the Wisconsin Constitution enshrined the right of jury trials as “inviolate” in the Declaration of Rights, article I, section 5.

“Jury service is a civic duty” for all U.S. citizens in Wisconsin who are at least 18 years old and can understand English. People convicted of felonies who have not had their civil rights restored are ineligible.^[14]

The prospective juror list draws from Wisconsin Department of Transportation records and other state government sources to create the jury array from which a circuit court randomly selects names for jury service.^[15]

Citizens gather in courthouses to be directed into courtrooms, asked questions, and sometimes removed from consideration to create a jury and alternates.^[16]

The selected jurors take an oath or affirmation “to try the issues submitted to them and, unless discharged by the court, to give a verdict according to the law and the evidence given in court.”^[17]

The jury’s existence establishes when criminal jeopardy attaches. Juror deliberations to reach a verdict remain shrouded in privacy.^[18]

‘Conscience of the Community’

“The judge molds or frames what [the jury is] allowed to learn about, but then once that’s in, it’s all up to those 12 people,” Putney said.

“Twelve people who don’t know each other walk into a room and come walking out, whether it’s a criminal case or a civil case, coming up with what the conscience of that community thinks of that case,” Foeckler said.

In this process, “Juries generally get things right and should be trusted.”

“It’s heartening,” Foeckler said, “having been through trials and even trials I’ve lost, where at the end of the day, I have to admit, the jury probably got it right.”

“In my experience,” Putney said, “I feel they do get it right, and I can say, even where I haven’t prevailed in a trial, I still think the jury fairly weighed and assessed the evidence that they were allowed to hear.”

Juries provide the community’s valuation for an individual’s loss, Foeckler added. Fewer trials means less data to know how much an injured person has been harmed.

Fewer trials also mean that “the defendant is not really getting their day in court,” Putney said. “Money is often being paid when it should not be.”

‘Keys to Freedom’

“Twelve people who don’t know each other walk into a room ... coming up with what the conscience of that community thinks of that case.” — Personal injury lawyer Alla​n M. Foeckler of Cannon & Dunphy S.C. in Brookfield.

“They hold the keys to freedom for your client,” Smith said. A jury “can just say, ‘We don’t believe that this is a proper application of this law, even if it meets the elements.’”

“So, when it comes to the most power in that courtroom, they’re the most powerful.”

Juror feedback benefits the legal system, Smith explained.

Judges may see “the same thing every single day. And they see complaint, plea, complaint, plea, complaint, plea, and it starts to shape their perception of reasonable,” Smith said.

A jury that represents the community offers new input to break the cycle.

Jury involvement grants “ownership of your collective systems that have a direct result,” Smith said.

Worth Fighting For

The U.S. Supreme Court this term will consider whether a criminal sentence may come from a six-member jury.

Hamed Kian was found guilty of five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine with a suspended license, a felony in Florida punishable by up to five years in prison for each count.

Kian argues that the Sixth Amendment’s jury right, applicable to Florida by the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a jury of 12 members.

Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Utah allow — in some criminal trials — juries smaller than 12 members, according to Kian’s petition for certiorari.

Wisconsin sets a few exceptions to a 12-member jury and allows a defendant to agree to a jury of less than 12 members.^[19]

A 1970 case, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, allowed a smaller jury based on a functional argument: Six jurors can do as well as 12.

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020), brought Williams into doubt by holding that the verdict of a 12-member jury must be unanimous.

Ramos, according to Kian, reverses Williams. Oral arguments are expected early next year. The battle to preserve the right to a jury trial continues.

Endnotes

[1] Magna Carta ¶ 39. ^

[2] James Bradley Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 90 (1898); see, generally, id. at 90 – 132 (describing inclusion of witnesses in juries and its gradual end). ^

[3] Id. at 63. ^

[4] William Blackstone, 3 Commentaries 379 (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) (1768). ^

[5] Id. at 380. ^

[6] William Blackstone, 4 Commentaries 343 (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) (1769). ^

[7] Id. ^

[8] Blackstone, 3 Commentaries 380; Blackstone, 4 Commentaries 343 – 44. ^

[9] U.S. Const. art. III, § 3. ^

[10] The Federalist No. 83, at 499 (Alexander Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). ^

[11] Id. ^

[12] U.S. Const, amend. VII (“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”); see The FederalistNo. 83, at 495 (emphasizing the most successful objection to the Constitution as “the want of a constitutional provision for trial by jury in civil cases”). ^

[13] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms § 11(f). ^

[14] Wis. Stat. § 756.001(2) – (4) (setting state policy); Wis. Stat. § 756.02 (establishing qualifications). ^

[15] Wis. Stat. §§ 756.04 – .06. ^

[16] Wis. Stat. § 805.08 (establishing general process); Wis. Stat. § 972.01 (relying upon requirements in Wis. Stat. § 805.08(3)); Wis. Stat. §§ 972.02 – .04 (challenges to potential jurors in criminal trials). ^

[17] Wis. Stat. § 756.08(1). ^

[18] Wis. Stat. § 756.08(2) (location of private deliberations); Wis. Stat. § 972.07 (when jeopardy attaches); Wis. Stat. § 972.10(1)(a) (privacy of jurors’ notes). ^

[19] Wis. Stat. § 756.06(2) (providing exceptions to 12-member jury); Wis. Stat. § 972.02(2) (granting ability to stipulate to smaller jury in criminal trial).