Ann Althouse has a post implying that Robert Blake was acquitted because television shows like "CSI" have conditioned jurors to expect neat, concise packages of evidence that conclusively show the defendant's guilt.
Every time there is a high-profile acquittal, someone invents a new theory of why juries suck. Usually this is a way of saying, "I disagree with this verdict," but with a patina of theorizing on top. When conservatives do it, the reason offered is that jurors are decadent and stupid. When liberals do it, the reason offered is that jurors are weak-minded and gulled by high-priced defense lawyers using Jedi mind tricks. Or the Chewbacca defense.
CSI has warped jurors exactly the same way that Perry Mason screwed with the expectations of jurors a generation before. That is, not at all.
I've had the distinct displeasure of serving on two juries now: one, a death penalty criminal trial (with secret sequestration sauce), and the other, a medical malpractice case. From those experiences, I think I can safely say that the jury system is a cleverly designed subterfuge. In fact, the whole point is a subtle and sadistic form of punishment of the jurors, who must all be people who have been found guilty of other crimes by some secret process. If I am wrong in this judgment, then it is still certainly true that the experience of being a juror in a trial of any moment is excruciating.
Jurors - to put it mildly - bring a wide range of experiences and skills with them into deliberations. Some of them may have not read a book in years. Others - I'm looking in a mirror here - may have only a nodding acquaintance with common sense. That diversity of background is surprisingly useful because, in a jury room where all are equal, it cuts down on group think.
But the one thing that jurors seem to almost universally share - based solely on my being trapped with a couple dozen of them for weeks on end - is that they take the process seriously. They listen to testimony seriously. They read the evidence closely. They parse words for meaning; they weigh credibility. They read the jury instructions delivered at the end of the trial like biblical scholars looking for clues to the afterlife. Then they get into heated, days-long arguments that can come to blows over whether someone should live or die. What they do not do is go back to the jury room and say things like, "You know, if he's guilty, then where's the cool scientific evidence they have on CSI?" Those things only happen in the imaginations of tendentious law professors and guest commentators on CNN.
i got me some jury duty on the 31st. let's see if they take me.
Posted by: dragonballyee | March 21, 2005 at 12:06 AM
Good luck. They take your cell phone away at the CJS, so plan on being out of touch. Also, the food sucks there, so bring your own if you are going to want anything. And a book, of course.
Posted by: Mithras | March 21, 2005 at 12:35 AM
I always show up for jury duty day (it's one day or one trial here), but I've never served. I once got into a courtroom, but they didn't get to me. I used to think that there's no way I'd get onto a jury--advanced degree, plus anti-death-penalty, plus used to work with junkies and alcoholics--but it seems that those things don't matter so much any more. In any case, that's pretty impressive that you've managed to get onto two juries--aren't you a lawyer?
Posted by: Emma Goldman | March 21, 2005 at 10:40 AM
In any case, that's pretty impressive that you've managed to get onto two juries--aren't you a lawyer?
Yes. Impressive is not the word I would use. In the med mal case, I informed the parties that (a) I am an attorney, (b) I am friends with the judge, and (c) (1) my girlfriend is a physician and (2) we recently had had, um, vigorous discussions about medical malpractice law.
They looked at me. The one guy asked, "So, in this case, can you be fair?"
Which, of course, got past all my logical defenses and pricked my vanity. "Sure I can be fair," I said.
I got picked.
Next time I am going to just go in and look at the guy and say, "I don't like your kind. And your client looks like a communist to me. What are you, a commie lover?"
Posted by: Mithras | March 21, 2005 at 11:39 AM
Good luck with that strategy; let me know how that works out for you.
It is truly amazing that you got picked for the med mal case. I would have thought that any of the three would have been a sufficient condition to exclude you. (Once again demonstrating that I don't know shit.)
Posted by: Emma Goldman | March 21, 2005 at 01:11 PM
I would have thought that any of the three would have been a sufficient condition to exclude you.
Me, too. But I got my revenge. I found out later from the judge that halfway through the trial, the plaintiff's attorney remarked, "I think I made a mistake picking that guy." Must have been the way I rolled my eyes every time he talked.
Posted by: Mithras | March 21, 2005 at 02:05 PM
I tell 'em I'm a musician. I've never survived voir dire on a criminal case, but done my time on whiplash cases.
Posted by: Melanie | March 23, 2005 at 07:51 PM