I think whoever is behind the movement to allow jurors to ask questions, take notes, and discuss cases in progress should get the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I can say that because I used to cover trials as a reporter, and often talked to jurors after their verdicts.
Whenever Jack Kevorkian was on trial, both sides wheeled in phalanxes of expensive experts to discuss both the medical aspects and the ethics of his assisted suicides. The experts had vast credentials, and often totally contradicted each other.
“How did you sort that all out?” I asked later. “We didn’t even try,” one retired mechanic told me. “We agreed we couldn’t understand any of it, and so we set it all aside.”
One of the most sobering experiences of my life was actually being on a jury. Normally, when I am called for jury duty, I get speedily dismissed from any case. Lawyers don’t want journalists on juries, especially if they are trying to hide something.
But once, to my astonishment, I actually was selected. This was a minor trial in district court involving a traffic accident. Essentially, it was one woman’s word against the other woman’s. There were no witnesses, and no way to figure out who was telling the truth.
The other jurors, who were mainly housewives and retirees, elected me foreman, because I had a college education.
To my surprise, they were all ready to convict the woman being accused. Her accuser was well-dressed, attractive, and spoke in an educated and professional way. The accused was kind of dumpy, poorly dressed, and badly needed advice on hair styling.
So I explained the whole concept of reasonable doubt. To their credit, my fellow jurors got it, changed their minds and acquitted the woman. I suppose the judge must have given us some instructions – I don’t remember – but it hadn’t penetrated. That was a very minor case.
However, it opened my eyes. Ever since, I have found it absolutely crazy that we require jurors to sit through long trials without taking notes, being able to ask questions or discuss what was going on.
No system is perfect. A judge once told me he was afraid that jurors might fancy themselves legal experts, or experts in intellectual property law, or something.
That is a risk. But what we doing now is asking them to do exactly that, without any tools to help them. We have a system where lawyers hire high-priced jury consultants to try and select jurors on the basis of personality type. After that, the attorneys tailor the way they present their case in a way designed to appeal to jurors’ emotions.
What I think the court system sometimes forgets is that our concept of justice requires that it be dispensed by a jury of our peers. These days, the jury of our peers has been largely gagged and bound and manipulated by high-priced and high-powered lawyers.
We need to restore the balance. That’s nothing more, after all, than simple justice,
Comments