I just got back from 3 days of jury duty for an armed robbery case. Ultimately our jury could not reach a verdict. I can't say I was suprised because the evidence was largely circumstantial and hinged on the credibility of an accomplice already serving time for the crimes. The first jury vote was 10-2 in favor of guilt immediately upon beginning deliberations. One juror then took up the drama queen role by declaring that she was convinced of guilt but the state hadn't provided enough evidence. Huh!? So it soon became 9-3 in favor of guilt. At this point I'm thinking that 11 (the drama queen being the exception) of us have arrived at a decision we are comfortable with after seeing the same evidence presented and measuring them against the standards the judge instructed us to use. In good faith our deliberations continued with sort of a round table discussion of the trial. One juror opposed to conviction was outspoken about her views which was great for me to hear the other side of the issue. Her arguements ranged from: she couldn't put any faith in statements made by a criminal (which directly implicated the defendent), she didn't think that law enforcement had followed proceedure, she didn't know enough about the defendents life story, there should have been forensic evidence presented, and she was sure she couldn't convict based on her faithful viewing of LAW AND ORDER!!!! I nearly fell out of my chair. What does this say about our society that we can't as a group of 12 divorce ourselves of fantasy long enough to administer a well thought out (and in this case well executed) system of justice? Based on my experience, I'm suprised the state convicts anyone at a jury trial since they are to some degree being held to the standards of television situation dramas. I think I'm still in shock from that realization.
Joe said: "I can't say I was suprised because the evidence was largely circumstantial and hinged on the credibility of an accomplice already serving time for the crimes." Well there you go then. Whatever the bizarre rationales given by your fellow jurors, it sounds like the prosecutors didn't have much to go on. Jailhouse snitches are easily bought off by the prosecution and jurors know that. Rodger
Her comment about "faithful viewing of Law and Order" could be a problem if the right lawyer found out about it (and cared)... I heard recently some people had "gotten out of" jury duty when it was discovered they were regular watchers of CSI. Make sense, really, when you consider most of what goes on in those shows is made up and may or may not be the way things happen (which does vary from state to state), but a lot of folks have a little problem telling the difference....
I'm not saying that 10 of us were right and 2 were wrong. Discussing the issues revealed that we all saw things a little different and weighed the evidence and testamony differently. I don't have a problem with that nor do I have a problem with people seeing the same evidence completely differently. Heck, on the surface, the system worked just as designed. My problem, and reason for this bitch, is that one persons rational was based on a TV show. When the potential jurors were questioned before the trail we were asked, among other things: 1) Would you dismiss a convicted felon's statements, used as evidence in this trial, because of his past criminal history? 2) Would you be able to judge the evidence presented without the expectation that the proceedings be dramatic as, say, Perry Mason? We all gave the same answer to these questions but in deliberations these two issues were cited by jurors as reasons for their decisions. Having spent 3 days with these people I don't think they are liars but rather are incapable of applying a rational thought process. I'm just amazed after this experience that jury's ever arrive at a consensus.
OTOH, my father once served on a jury in Alexandria, VA where evidence was circumstantial and eyewitness reports were unreliable (it was dark). 9 of the 12 jurors voted to convict based solely on the concept that the accused "looks guilty."
I watch Jag religiously so I would be a kick ass juror because they are always accurate. My deliberations would include, "What did they say... i was looking at Col. McKensie's tits."
" Welcome, to the real word." Soap operas are the only true form fo reality shows, , , right? Doesn't it surprise you, that the average person in this country couldn't make a clear cut judgement in a court of law? How could they. 99% of what we should believe in is considered wrong, racist, and pollictale(spelling) incorrect. Keep your head about you. I say you are on the right path.
Jury duty is no easy task when taken seriously. It is very difficult to separate REASONABLE doubt from no doubt at all. I had a hard time once convincing some ding-dong what reasonable meant. This lady had more what-ifs that a 6 year old. In the words of Yogi Berra "It's hard to REASON with an UNREASONABLE person"
