There are glimpses of hope in the justice system in which I work. Most of the time, though, I seem to think that there is some Adam Smithian“invisible hand” churning the old, rickety wheels of the court system in this country. This latest story though shows some signs of progress—maybe.

Enter Timothy Lawrence Becktel. Sentenced to 15-40 years for assault with an intent to commit murder by stabbing a friend in his apartment, Becktel recently won a new trial thanks to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In a written opinion the court wrote that because the judge in Becktel’s case failed to put the jury under oath once it was empaneled, he was denied his rights under the state laws. Further, such failure was an error of “grave significance.”

Though many people have commented that this was a “waste of time” and entirely “unnecessary,” a large part of me feels that this was the correct decision. Having a jury sworn in under oath is not a mere formality or part of the “pomp and circumstance” of court. It establishes an understanding between the jury and the entire court proceeding and process. As the court wrote, “the oath represents a solemn promise on the part of each juror to do his duty according to the dictates of the law to see that justice is done. This duty is not just a final duty to render a verdict in accordance with the law,but the duty to act in accordance with the law at all stages of trial,"the court stated, citing a 1976 opinion in the case of People v. Pribble,72 Mich. App. 219.

To me, an oath shows at the very least that the jurors are required to pay attention to the evidence and to the entire trial proceeding. When someone’s life and liberty lies in peril or in danger thereof, the jury needs to be held to some standard. They are to pay attention and observe the entire legal process and then make a decision in an impartial manner.

The constitution ensures that all people have a fundamental right to an impartial jury. For this reason, it seems that the Court made a correct decision and a step toward living up to the sense of justice that seems to frequently elude it.