Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

I have to say that I'm deeply concerned anytime someone thinks they know
more from reading a news report than does a jury which heard the facts and
saw the evidence in a case.  That just seems a bit presumptive and perhaps
even dangerous to me.

As for me...I served on a jury for a large case that took over three weeks.
It was a civil case against an accused individual and his employer.  They
chose to have a single case with both parties represented by the same
attorneys.

Based on my experience, I have to concur with what the others here have
posted.  All the people on the jury wanted to do the right thing and tried
to decide the case based on the facts.  At many points the discussion was
heated, but everyone in that room respected the awesome responsibility of
the duty they had been asked to perform.  In the end I think we reached a
fair and proper decision.  And in three separate appeals the juries and
judges all upheld our decision.  

In the case we heard, the jury felt that the verdict alone did not convey
our overwhelming decision on the facts and we decided to write a letter in
order to better convey our unanimous opinion on the issue.  All 12 of us
signed the letter and delivered it with the verdict.  The judge granted our
request that the letter be read in court after the verdict was read.  And,
in all three appeals the judges and juries cited that letter as a convincing
factor in their decision to uphold the verdict.  And that it was clear
evidence that we had understood and considered the issue at hand, that we
had rendered a fair and impartial decision and that we had been concerned,
upset and perhaps even bit outraged at actions of the defense to slander and
character assassinate the accuser.

Having sat on that jury and having been it's foreman, I can say that I saw
11 other people being very deliberate and very concerned about making the
right decision and about upholding the law.  For at least 4 of the people on
that jury, that meant making a decision that would find their employer
guilty.  And in 2 cases, that entity was the major client of a business
owned or operated by the juror.  So even with some concern for potential
reprisal, they made the decision they felt was appropriate given the facts
of the case.  

shea



  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:internetworkers-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Steven Champeon
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 1:16 AM
> To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Jurors [was: legal outrage...]
> 
> on Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:40:38PM -0400, Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> > Alan,
> >
> > You've missed the entire point of juries. Juries are not supposed to
> > decide what the law is. That's what the judge is there for. As we
> > were told when I sat on a jury, the jury is the "judge of the facts"
> > and the judge is the "judge of the law". The jury hears what the
> > facts are, then the judge tells them what the law says and then they
> > decide whether the facts rise to the level of whatever the law says.
> > You can't have one without the other without unbalancing everything.
> 
> I just served, myself. And I'm gonna have to agree with Tanner here.
> 
> Bear in mind, too - and this is where the years of Law and Order reruns
> are coming in handy ;) - it's a deeply interdependent process. The judge
> decides matters of law, the jury decides matters of fact, and the
> prosecutor(s) and the police decide how to try to apply the law, by
> determining what to charge criminals /with/.
> 
> If you steal my car, and the prosecutor charges you with manslaughter,
> guess what - you'll likely get away with theft, because the jury isn't
> there to decide whether you're a bad guy, or whether you're being well
> treated in custody, or whether you deserve a medal. They're there, like
> it or not, to decide whether, given the facts in the case, you are
> guilty _of the crime with which you are charged_.
> 
> And if you don't think that it's possible to introduce enough reasonable
> doubt into the minds of any sane person to sway their judgement away
> from "guilty", you've never been on a jury with a good defense lawyer.
> The case I just sat for had a really bad defense lawyer, I thought, and
> he still managed to keep us in deliberations for half an hour, as we
> went through and dealt with all of the possibilities.
> 
> Maybe the case you were talking about just had a really good defense
> team and a really bad prosecutor. Don't blame the jury for that.
> 
> --
> hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w:
> http://hesketh.com
> Buy "Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation, 2/e"
> today!
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159059231X/heskecominc-
> 20/ref=nosim/
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers