Have you ever served on a jury? It is truly a wonderful, fascinating - and occasionally maddening - way to perform one's civic duty. This book examines jury duty from one writer's perspective. I've spent a career that revolves around the courtroom, and really look forward to hearing from all of you about how this book matches your own experiences.

Let me know if you plan on joining me in the discussion. You have PLENTY of time to get the book - we don't start the discussion until January 1, 2002, so save your comments until then!

Welcome to all.

What's your role, Sarah? Prosecutor, Defense Attorney or maybe - JUDGE?

I'll in the Courtroom watching and listening and looking forward to the discussion.

Me, too, (she said ungramatically).

Lorrie

Skip this if you have read it elsewhere.

I have sent notices, for those interested in continuing to receive it to REPLY .... since email addresses come and go are changed and boxes get full.

But I have not heard from a lot of people who post here regularly or the lurkers that are here.

SO .... if you still want Book Bytes.....
Click on my name.
Click on my email address
Send me an email with Book Bytes in the subject line
And I will add your name to the new list.

I have no experience with criminal law, so I will be a complete non-expert in discussing this book. By the same token, I have had the honor to serve as a juror, and it truly affirmed my belief in the system. For this reason, among others, I am very interested in reading this author's perspective.

Is anyone else considering getting the book and joining the discussion?

That makes two non-experts so far, Lorrie are you an expert? And I've never served on a jury. Where are the rules for a jury written - in the Constitution? And what exactly is the wording?

I served on a jury many years ago, in the city of Chicago, and I remember how I felt like a steer in a herc of cattle while we all sat and waited, and waited, and waited. I was frustrated that I never got called on a criminal case, only civil litigation. So I'm surely no expert.

Lorrie

I want everyone to know that I just got off the phone with Perry Mason, and he tells me he will be happy to join our group whenever we decide to begin. He has offered to discuss some of his better-known courtroom cases, and that should be very interesting, shouldn't it?

(told with a sly smile)

Lorrie

What we need, Lorrie, is a good expert on "juries." Don't both sides in a criminal case hire experts who decide who will serve and who will be excused?

Who are they - psychologists?

I understand that the defense, especially, pays an exorbitant fee to "jury psychologists," who do nothing but work up a psychological profile of each potential juror, and who play a big role in determining which jurors should be challenged, or not. But I'm sure we'll read more about this when we get into the book.

Lorrie

I've read the book, Lorrie, and I don't think so. This book gives only the bare outlines of the trial - its focus is on the jury proceedings after the trial is over. THE JURY IS ON TRIAL HERE, so to speak.

Just as in 12 Angry Men.

Hey, this is just for fun and I really never read the book.

WELCOME, RUTH! You did well in your practicing and we hope you get the book at the Library and join us in January! Nice to say HOWDY to a newcomer!

PLEASE BE ADVISED.....

that as we have only two people who are interested in this discussion, we are considering cancelling it as several others of utmost interest are conflicting.

Of course, we will not do so if people have planned to read this book and are interested.

However, we are giving notice that unless you post a message to that effect by DECEMBER 15th, we shall cancel this scheduled discussion.

I'm planning on participating!

Good, Gail, and with your additional interest, we'll go ahead with this discussion. Thanks for posting. See you in January!

I look forward to hearing some of your views. Just bought the book and will join in the discussion.

Hey, Roger! Welcome to the group! We're all looking forward to your opinion on this book and what it's all about!

Lorrie

Hi Lorrie, Thanks for the welcome. I'm no expert but part of the reason I decided to read the book and join this group was because a couple of years ago I was a jury foreman at a drug trial. I just started the book and am looking forward to see what Mr. Burnett's experience was on his jury. Roger

Well, Roger, at lest you made it on to a jury! My only experience with jury duty was when I was selected for a jury in a civil case, but there was a settlement two days after the trial began, so that was that!

Yes, it should be interesting. I haven't started the book yet, but there should be plenty of time before we begin. It's good to see you in here, and we're looking forward to your participation.

Lorrie

I've been called to Jury Duty almost yearly since I got my driver's license. However, in my earlier years I was always excused because I was pregnant, just had a baby, was nursing, or had 4 pre-schoolers. Later on I really wanted to serve but for some reason my panel never got called up to be questioned - they always got their 12 jurors before it got to the panel I was on. Quite often I was called right at Christmas time, and since the court is usually very quiet then, I served my 1 day and we were sent home.

Now I have received a call to jury duty for January 14. I'm hoping this time I can be seated on a jury -- I think it would be an interesting juxtaposition to be on a jury while participating in a discussion on the book. (Probably enough to get me disqualified if the attorneys knew it!)

Gail.

I begged twice to be exonerated from jury duty, years ago. I must have pled a pretty darned good case because I was never recalled after that.

Moving to Florida I thought when we filed for new addresses and drivers licensure,etc. our name would automatically go into the selection box. As of yet neither Bill nor I have been called.

I served as an "expert witness" twice while teaching Infectious Diseases to hospital, county and prison employees.

I had forgotten all about this book and just peeked in to see what it was about. I remember Sarah and I discussing this months ago.

Count me in. It will give me something to get my teeth into on the long drive home next week.

Hi, just ran into this.. Will check into the library. Want to participate and have preferenced this discussion. Now to find the book..Paper or hard back??

GREAT TO HAVE YOU BOTH, ANDY AND STEPAHNIE! (am filling in for Sarah for the moment)

It is a hardback only (too recent to be a paperback), but it's been out long enough that it should be readily available in most libraries.

Sarah, being an attorney in the real world, will afford us an excellent opportunity to discuss all facets of the law and juries. And we have a number of folks here who have served on juries - it will be a good discussion!

Who else plans on joining the discussion?

Disclaimer - I do not promise that my years as a lawyer will be of any use to understanding the miraculous thing that is the jury! (Of course, my stint as a juror will be a great help!)

Looking forward to starting the discussion next Tuesday. We'll start off discussing the first chapter.

Well, I completed this book on our long drive home and I am full of questions. I'm not at all sure I would have been as kind as our author was to this judge (after he left the courtroom.)

Hurrah, The book has arrived, although starting January 1, I will have a six year old granddaughther for a few days and will probably not get much done. Still I will catch up, I promise.

I have the book reserved at two libraries - our city and our county branch library. The one at the city is OVERDUE now and who knows when it will be returned! SURELY one of them will be available. If not, my kids kindly got me a Barnes and Noble Gift Certificate for Christmas, so I'm covered, thank goodness. I look forward to reading it and to our discussion.

Me, too, Sarah, I'll be here with the book in hand.

Me, too, Sarah, whenever I can squeeze in the time!

Lorrie

I bought the book yesterday and plan to participate.

As I mentioned to Ella, I've been told by those who should know that the U.S. has more jury trials than all the rest of the world combined. Part of that is because of the Constitution's sixth amendment, which guarantees the right of criminal defendants to choose a jury trial. But many civil cases also go to juries, and I've served on at least one; I'm not sure why such cases go to juries.

Most recently, maybe 3-4 years ago, I served on a jury deciding what was, essentially, a lover's quarrel that turned spiteful. They both worked in a bowling alley--she as bartender/waitress, he as handyman. She was in an unhappy marriage to a long-distance trucker who was usually out of town. He persuaded her to move out, then bought furniture, etc., to help her set up independent housekeeping. Then they had a falling out, she got back with her husband, and he contended that the furniture, etc., was merely a loan, not a gift, and that he owed her. He had absolutely no paperwork--nothing--to show that a loan was involved.

Just out of what I considered spite, he took her to court because he was (slightly) more able to afford a lawyer than she was. The defense (her) asked for a directed verdict (where the judge circumvents the jury by deciding that one side has no case). I thought a directed verdict in her favor was in order. But the judge made us decide. At the start, it was 10-2 for her (the two dissenters being women!). Before long, it was 12-0.

I have been plowing through the book for the first chaper and prelude.. Hopefully so I will not fall behind. Thus far it is quite fascinating.

Of course, near the end of the biggest paragraph in #31 above, I should have said that he contended...that she owed him. Sorry.

Rambler- isn't that something like breech of contract? In that case, wouldn't it be a verbal contract?

ALF: But in court, we were faced with a he said/she said situation. If the plaintiff can't make any kind of reasonable argument--no paperwork, for example--that a loan or debt was involved, we didn't see that he had any case at all.

As Sam Goldwyn famously said, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on". And in this case, there appeared to be no contract, verbal or otherwise.

Gothca! I would have to agree.

Hello Rambler, what amount of time was involved in that (silly) trial? It seems to me a waste of the judge's time and the expense of paying jurors to sit in such a case. We've all read reports of overloaded court cases and I certainly think a directed verdict would have been in order in that jury trial. Why did the judge think a jury was needed?

I believe I read in the last year or two that prisoners can no longer appeal their cases as this was overloading the court. Do any of you remember the particulars of that decision and who it was made by?

Ella: That silly trial took 2-3 hours, including jury deliberation. Just a guess, but perhaps directed verdicts are easier to appeal on the grounds that one party or the other wanted a jury trial and didn't get it.

As I mentioned to you, in Cook county, Ill., if you're over 65 you can be excused from jury duty merely by requesting it by mail. If the court is inconveniently located or I just don't feel like serving, that's what I do.

I don't mean to begin by being difficult or pedantic, but the opening-pages quotes by Guthrie and Stevens make no sense to me.

As for Guthrie, I think a "hangman's noose" and a "slipknot" are similar or identical. What is the distinction he's making? Calaboose, of course, is slang for jail.

The Wallace Stevens quote reads: "Eventually an imaginary world is entirely without interest." Really? Among bookfolk, there seem to be far more fans of fiction than non-fiction. The same with TV, movies, etc.

Can someone tell me what these guys are talking about?

Hi Rambler - we'll be here tomorrow when the official opening of the new books of the NEW YEAR begin. Am nursing a bad cold or I would get the book out and study those quotes. See you tomorrow sometime!

Welcome to the beginning of the discussion. The book covers many themes, all of which I hope to explore at some point during this month-long discussion.

Some ground rules: We will discuss the book at a pre-ordained, somewhat artificial pace so we can keep the discussion going for a full month. This does not mean you shouldn't read ahead, or comment on things that come later. In this book, there is no real mystery - we are told the verdict up front - so I am not too concerned anyone will reveal the ending before others get there. On the other hand, if we discuss everything in the first week, what will we have to discuss in the following three? So that's why we have a discussion schedule.

Second, please talk to each other, and acknowledge each others' posts. I'll try to stimulate that process if it isn't happening on its own, but most of what makes these discussions work is the work YOU do in having a conversation with your fellow readers.

Third, if you have outside experiences that help you interpret Burnett's story, by all means bring them in. I'd rather not have the entire discussion focused on our own experiences of jury duty, but please weave those experiences in as you see fit.

Finally, have fun. This is not a difficult book to read, but we may have distinct differences of opinion about the jury system and the author's attitude toward it. Keep in mind that we are here to have a good time and not to get bogged down in our differences.

That said, I wanted to throw out a couple of points for you to chew on. Most of all, this discussion is yours, however, so feel free to take the discussion in another direction if you wish to.

The book raises several themes, and I'd be curious which appeals to you.

First, class and educational differences affect Burnett's view of his fellow jurors and, to some degree, of the participants in the case. He is an academic, suddenly drawn into a fairly sordid trial who quickly comes to fairly judgmental opinions about his fellow jurors. Is his assessment of them fair? Should he have entered the process with a more open mind? Are all approaches to being a juror the "right" ones, even if they are not intellectual but rather based on feeling and intuition?

Second, we very quickly feel Burnett's dissatisfaction with the constraints of the law, of the inability of a jury to reach a middle ground verdict. This is a common complaint about the law - that defendants often "get off on a technicality." What are your feelings about how well the law punishes the guilty and lets the innocent go free - and how the process might be improved if you are troubled by it.

Third, there seem to be facts unique to Burnett's experience that contributed to the fraught atmosphere that existed in his particular experience. For one, the state could sequester criminal jurors - something New York no longer does, from what I've heard. How did "locking the jurors up" - even if they were in hotel rooms and not in cells - contribute to what happened in jury room? What could the judge have done to make the jurors' experiences more comfortable? Was Burnett's experience representative of your own views of jury service? Or did this particular case present its own unique challenges?

Finally, does this book change your view of the jury system? It's rare that a juror writes about his experience (this actually surprises me - think about all those jurors in sensational cases that HAVEN'T written tell-all books). It's intriguing to look inside those doors and see what really goes on? Are you surprised by what you find?

Let's hear from all of you! Welcome!

Good Morning to all!  Thank you Sarah for the proposed discussion schedule which I believe will keep us all "on track."  When I read a book I keep side notes to differentiate points that are unclear to me, points that I feel are relevant to the story/theme and points to catagorize my own opinion.  This novel lends many different facets to my notes, that's for sure.

I kept vacillating between Burnett's skill in catagorizing everything he faced and the  highbrow, erudite manner in which he did it.  His skills as a historian, with a keen eye and an analytical mind  lent  a more accurate description of the synopsis of the trial and its jurors.  His ability to compute and weigh not only the evidence but the responsibilities each juror was charged with made me look at this story more thoroughly.  I was impressed with his ability to analyze the other jurors states of mind as well as their outward physical manners.He was clearly atttempting to establish the evidence and not speculate.  As a historian he was comfortable with analyzing, indexing, summarizing and itemizing.  I loved his description of his "forced holiday."  I can just see me thinking the same thing.  Aha!  Few days off to regroup, read, organize my thoughts and then home I go.  Wasn't he in for a shock?  23 hours alone with anybody does not appeal to my sense of peace.

The  many inaccuracies and blunders committed by the cops could be a story alone.

The judge annoyed me with his brusque, clipped address, particularly when the case was handed over for deliberation.  I thought that judges were charged with the task of explaining to jurors the importance of weighing  the evidence, their conduct during their deliberation and the options they were faced with.  I felt that he was threatening and rude to the jurors, trying to impress everyone with the "power" that he held.

I am still at the beginning of the book. At this point, I am somewhat put off by the superiority exhibited by the author. He truly seems to be down on everyone involved. Judge,other jury members and very quick to judgement on outward appearances of fellow jurors. I found myself agreeing with him about the silliness of jurors not being able to write down things that struck them . I do understand that not discussing is important, but terribly hard if you are having problems understanding the people involved. At this moment I am at the point where the three witnesses are being interviewed. He does an excellent job of portraying the people involved. He also seemed to have a bias against the prosecuter at this point. I think it is the superiority thing again.

I know just what you mean Stephanie. His air of superiority stands out BUT in the same token that is what he does for a living. He weighs everything! A historian must balance, evaluate and examine what is set before him. Keeping that in mind, I was better able to tolerate Mr. Burnett's lofty, patronizing tone.

Sarah, you mentioned a discussion schedule but I'm not sure what it is. ALF is discussing the book as a whole and Stephanie is discussing the beginning chapters.

So am I to assume that we just join in wherever we desire?

Rambler asked a couple of questions about the quotes of Woody Guthrie and Wallace Stevens at the very beginning of the book and I did want to respond to that. Guthrie's quote, of course, refers to either a jury or a judge - whomever makes the decision to hang or put to death an individual. In the old wild west days it was often a posse made up of concerned citizens and they didn't hesitate to hang the guilty or so we are told.

How different is it today? The jury is made up of "concerned" citizens or those forced to be "concerned" citizens by our law that you must do your duty and sit when you are called upon.

Stevens' quote is beyond my understanding. An "imaginary world" is entirely without interest? Who says so, who believes that?

Are we taking one chapter at a time here? I have reviewed the PRELIMINARY chapter and have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the defendant to use the knife in the manner in which the alleged killing was done. I can't picture this kind of a knife very well, but considering the position the defendant was in I doubt if he could have maneuvered that knife very well.

Not sure I can stick with this book, short though it is. Like others, I don't care for the author's air of superiority. Early on, he seems to judge fellow-jurors, and others, by how fashionable their clothing or accessories are, how articulate their language. This stuff means little to me.

Do we have any volunteer respondents to my queries regarding the Woody Guthrie and Wallace Stevens quotes mentioned in my #39?

This book was written last year and they did lock up the jurors, so I assume they still are doing that and is it any wonder that the author went home to his wife crying (pg.12) after spending 23 hours of "sustained conversation" in a small bare room where armed guards even escorted them into the restrooms, where at night they had to wash out their clothes in bathroom sinks, no phones, newspapers or TV were allowed.

From civilization to bedlam with no opportunity to accustom oneself to it.

What did those of you who have been in a courtroom think of the author's comparison of a courtroom to a church -

"Only behind the judge's seat did this paneling extend to the beamed ceiling, creating a lofy frame where brushed metal letters announced 'In God We Trust.' The invocation confirmed the sacral architecture: the altarlike bench, the choirlike jury box, the lecternlike witness stand, the rood screen of the balustrade separating the congregation in their pews from the powerful seats beyond"

Did the courtroom have any effect upon you at all - were you somewhat awed to be in this setting?

I did not get the opinion that some of you had about the author. In the first chapter he describes the jury as follows: two professional historians, two ad-copy writers, a globe-trotting software developer, an industrial-vacuum cleaner repairman, an interior decorator, an actress, and a couple of others of less clear occupations.

What is wrong with his description of the characters?

Could we not just begin discussing the first two chapters of the book? Rambler, I did respond to your post #39 - any comments from others about the Guthrie and Stevens' quotes from the front of the book.

Ella and others: Bear with me on the discussion schedule; I'll get one up in the next week.

Stephanie, ALF, Rambler, Ella: On your exchange about the author's attitude, I noticed that about half the reviews commented on his haughtiness, while half either didn't mention it, or, as ALF points out, overlooked it because of Burnett's academic background. I, like Stephanie and Rambler, do find that the initial description of the characters slants one's impressions of them from the outset:

"Leah Tennent, the self-possessed and buoyantly bohemian young woman with whom I read Wallace Stevens poems in the back of the bus. Olivelle "Vel" Tover, the youthful, clear-eyed black woman with an elaborate braided coiffure who studied a manual of purgative and rejuvenating fasts in the waiting area; we discussed together the value of self-denial, of cleansing the body through the strictest diets. Rachel Patis, the solid, quiet, unflappable West Indian woman who volunteered at her local police precinct and wore blouses trimmed with lace; she moved slowly, sat very still, seemed like an older lady. Patricia Malley, "Pat," the dyed-blonde tough-girl in the tight black jeans who spoke loudly and much, often well. She seemed instantly animated in Dean's company, adjusted her eyeliner, laughed easily and with gusto."

We're supposed to like Leah and dislike Pat from this description, don't you think?

It's interesting that in criticizing the system, the author does what he finds the system guilty of: slants the facts to favor his version of events.

Ella, when I was practicing law, I was always impressed with the trappings of officialdom in a strange courtroom (it was harder to be impressed when it was a courtroom I was used to being in). There's something special, in my view, about courtrooms, and the effort made to establish a sense that important things happen there promotes respect for the system. Whether you agree that it deserves respect is another matter, but I always felt I was standing at attention when I was in a courtroom. I liked that feeling somehow.

Sarah:

In Post #48, you said "It's interesting that in criticizing the system, the author does what he finds the system guilty of: slants the facts to favor his version of events."

That's exactly the thought that wwent through my mind when I read the author's somewhat tainted descriptions of his fellow-jurors. Like some of the others here, I definitely got a feeling of patronizing from the things he wrote.

And did anyone appreciate the amusing scene when the bailiff was calling out names, then categories, and when he bawled out, "Anyone who cannot understand English?" and several people got up and walked out! I thought that was very funny.

Lorrie

Sarah, I don't agree with the speculation that we are not to like Pat - the dyed-blonde tough-girl in the tight black jeans who spoke loudly and much, often well. He says that she spoke well, even though we, as a society, often think that a dyed-blonde tough girl in tight black jeans would be stupid. The author, in my opinion, is just describing the people as he sees them.

I do wish I knew where all of you are coming from when you say the author has an air of superiority.

Yes, funny, Lorrie, but somewhere the author says, I believe, that over 80% of those who were summoned to jury duty had an excuse and did not serve. I can understand that - especially if they knew they were to serve as a juror for a capital crime - would any of you want to do that? I wouldn't!

I've only been summoned once for jury duty and it was while I was recuperating from surgery and I had to be excused. However, I might have been in the crowd that "didn't understand English" if I knew I was to sit in a case such as this.

Call me cowardardly.

We now have a discussion schedule posted and it will be easier to stay on the "same page" so to speak.

It seems that several of us have taken a dislike to our author. I may be out 21 bucks! Oh, well.

Rambler, I don't see that as a reason for leaving the discussion. We have had book discussions before that the majority of the people participating did not like the way the author writes or his/her characters, but found the subject interesting, as many of us do here.

Serving on a jury is one of our most honorable duties, whether we like the people who are with us or not. Would you refuse to serve if you did not like those sitting beside you? Or the criminal sitting at the defense table? Of course not.

Stay with us, it can only get more exciting as we get into this crime and the jury's attempt to arrive at a just decision.

Thanks Ella for that hard work. Rambler, stay with us - we need your views too!! Even if we don't like his attitude, I think Ella's right that we can have an interesting discussion about the jury system with this book as a "backdrop."

I loved serving on a jury - it was my one chance to see the process from the other side of the jury box. It was so fascinating to see how people didn't miss a thing, and how a jury can see through all of those things we do for show in a courtroom. That's why I was intrigued with this book - how could it be so awful? And then I realized this jury was sequestered - imprisoned, really - and that it was a capital case - that that changed everything. Has anyone ever served on a criminal trial (mine was civil, and oh so much less heart rending than might be a murder case).

Ella, you have a point about the "spoke well" line although I couldn't help but feel Burnett was surprised that such a woman spoke well. It was almost as if that tag was a bemused afterthought.

I dont pretend to understand the Wallace Stevens quote except that it sounds as if the author was somewhat comtempuous of fiction. As a historian, I suspect he considers non fiction as much more interesting than fiction, although he seems to be a poetry fanatic. I feel as if someone else does. I simply could not believe that Milcray could have stabbed him as he said from being down on the floor. The whole murder seems much more calculated to me than is mentioned. But that is not the jurys fault. They only get to judge on what is brought up. I have been called for jury duty about six times, Three in Massachusetts where it is one day or one trial.. No excuses there. All must show up.. We had priest, policemen,lawyers, etc. All three times, I was not on any panels, so did not serve. Then here, I was on two different panels. One , I was dismissed when I said that my younger son was in law enforcement and I knew the prosecuter.. Sure fire outs.. Then last January, I was called, put on panel, put on jury and when we came into court, the defense attorney stood up and asked for a conference.. It seems the defendant had decided to plead guilty and take his chances.. So we were dismissed.. However the few times I was called before a judge, they were uniformly pleasant with the jury and acted as a protector. Therefore in this book, I found the judge genuinely appalling. What a dreadful man.

Wallace Stevens, unbeknownst to me, is apparently a well-known poet. You may read about him at several sites on the Internet; I picked out two if you are interested:

Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens

Wallace STevens

This is rather frightening for me that I cannot decipher what the fellow is talking about, as I'm designated to be the Discussion Leader for a biography of Edna St. Vincent Millay, a poet, in March. Oh, gosh, am I going to need help with poetry! My favorite has always been Robert Frost who to me is easily understood and is wonderful!

Thanks, Stephanie, for your post and telling us of your experience in "sure fire outs." Hahaha You knew the right people, would you have wanted to sit on a jury in a murder trial?

Would anyone here?

Sarah, what was your jury trial about?

As for our author's pretentious attitude toward the jurors, allow me to quote from one paragraph in which he is describing his fellow jurors:

Dean-the big, solid, former bull-riding cowboy turned vacuum-cleaner repairman.....a blowhard contractor of some sort, I assumed......before the trial ended, he had blown my sterotype (indeed, any sterotype) wide open.

I still fail to see where this author is condescending as some of you have noted.

One of the ladies in our building here was called for jury duty a couple years ago, and she served on a murder trial. However, they weren't sequestered, and she was able to come home every night. I remember how much I admired her scrupulousness in not talking about a case that was all over the newspapers at the time. And you can imagine how excruciating it was for us not to be able to ask her questions about the case. this place is such a hotbed of gossip, anyhow!

I once served on a jury, but it was for civil cases, and I remember how disappointed I was not to be able to go over to criminal court.

Lorrie

Mr. Burnett stated that a jury-duty waiting room secreted an unexpeced libidinous energy. Is this true?  If this is accurate, is it due to the heightened emotions and/or the atmosphere of tension?
It is such a long route to the truth.  It would be most difficult to be experiencing  libidinous impulses.

I was surprised and dismayed to read that the jurors were unable to make notes.  Why is this?
 

Hi all. I'm new to this discussion and have been very interested in reading some of your posts. I was a jury foreman on a drug trial which lasted a month and we were sequestered for the entire trial. Some of the author's experiences mirror my own. I will tell up front that I did not like this book. I found it boring and more a vehicle for the author to display his intellectual superiority. Frankly, I found him to be a pompous ass.

On page 12 the author states "Before it was over, we had spent three nights and four days continuously attended by armed guards (who exteded their affable surveillance into all lavatories); we had been shuttled to outlying hotels, into rooms with disconnected phones and sinks in which we washed our clothes" Seems to me with the short time they were sequestered that they could have take sufficient clothes. We were allowed to have friends and family bring us clean clothes every couple of days and made our exchanges under the watchful eyes of our bailiffs. They also searched the clean clothes to make sure notheing was being smuggled in to us.

On page 13 the author states "In writing this book, I have made no additional investigations of the events at issue, I have not revisited the records of the trial, and I have not interviewed any of the people involved." On page 14 he goes on to say "At different moments while writing this account-much of it longhand in a notebook during the weeks following the acquittal..." This author must have one phenominal memory to recall in such exact detail what he writes on pages 38-42. Maybe he took some dramatic lisence and fleshed out the details presented at trial.

On page 16 the author discribes himself as a "professor of history" focused on "the history of science". Then on page 26 discribes himself as "professor of intellectual history". Snob!! On page 17 he states "My only formal responsibilities were to read and write. But things piled up on the desk-student evaluations,....." He wasn't required to teach? Then, how could he do student evaluations. Odd.

I apologize if some of what I've said iritates some of you but these were some of thoughts I had while reading this book. On a scale of 10, I'd give this book a 3.

Roger

Apparently, it is the state who governs the sequestering of juries, is that correct, Sarah? There is no federal law concerning this - I never knew that, just never had occasion to think about it. LORRIE - have you talked to that person in your building since the murder trial and asked how she and her fellow jurors arrived at a decision? Would be interesting to hear about.

ALF, when I read that statement about "libidinous energy" in the jury room, I thought it was the author's attempt at a bit of levity (21) and, obviously, he didn't succeed with you. But as to taking notes during the trial, we must ask SARAH that question and hope she knows. SARAH, SARAH???

We are all new to this discussion, ROGER, and all opinions are welcomed and encouraged whether they are negative opinions about the author, the writing or disagreement about comments made. Actually, a conversation that differs in opinions is often more interesting than one where we all agree. We encourage disparate views.

I find it interesting that you were allowed to have family bring you fresh clothes, where the author states the opposite. Again, I wonder if this differs in states, courts or judges. Were you shown a movie similar to what the author viewed, ROGER, or would that have been a New York show only (haha)

The author is descriptive in detailing courtrooms and buildings; I've mentioned his comparison of a courtroom to a church, the judge to a minister, etc., and now he mentions the court building - "grim and forbidding in a Stalinist sort of way (towering, gray, squint-windowed) but it clearly beat the heck out of the Inquisition". I've been in so many cities where that description fits the Court House - in the small town I grew up in the jail was attached to the Courthouse and I used to shudder at the iron bars over the windows and wonder at the inmates. Courthouses were among the first buildings up in cities across America and they built them to last.

Has anyone ever seen a new Court House, built in the last 25 years?

The author describes his own emotions at several points that strike me as the truth - "the vaulting room , the somber judge, the armed guards, the trappings of the state's power" - pomp and circumstances can certainly heighten awareness, if not fright - as it did in one mother.

Stick around, Roger, you may be the only one among us with experience in a criminal trial and we'll have many questions to ask of you.

Later, ella

Roger - welcome and what a great addition you will be to this discussion. I think a lot of reviewers found the author pompous - oh well! Let's talk anyway.

In state court, the state laws concerning sequestration, etc., govern. I have read that New York State no longer allows sequestration.

It is up to the individual judge whether to allow notetaking - some do, some don't. The concern about notetaking is that people write things down selectively, and things can take on more importance - and have more sway with a jury - by virtue of being written down. Some judges/lawyers view this as a good thing; others don't want one juror's written note on a topic to influence deliberations unduly.

If we're talking about a murder trial, I don't see any reason why a judge would consider that any notes taken by a juror would be unduly influencing the decision. Notes help to sort out pertinent points.

Well, I for one have seen new courthouses. Of course I live in Florida and they are heavily into population growth and we constantly need new buildings. I have also been to several Jury holding areas and some are much nicer than others. In Massachusetts in Cambridge, the jury holding area is wonderful. Has computers, tv's,comfortable chairs, etc. Orange county, Florida.. Again very comfortable. They showed us a movie on how to behave as a juror and the reasons why. But in Volusia county, they were in the process of building the new courthouse. So. the jury holding area was the downstairs on an old courthouse. They wanted a lot of names, because they were trying to get a jury for a malpractice trial. So we were all over the downstairs. Not enough chairs, nothing but fold ups at that except for the normal jury area. Bathrooms very primitive, no coffee.. Whew.. Just truly uncomfortable. I gather that with the new courthouse done, they are nice, but have not seen them. Our author seems to have made up his mind early.. What I mean is that for most of the book.. he is heavily committed to a mistrial. It is only very late, that he changes. I have problems with the fact that I dont see where he ever actually tried to determine to listen to testimoney.Is this just me?

I'm going to let Sarah answer your question, ALF! Have no idea.

STEPHANIE, so there are new courthouses, and what a lovely jury room in Cambridge with computers, tv's and comfortable chairs, much different than what our author describes in N.Y. Thanks so much for your remarks, I appreciate it immensely.

We are trying to stick the schedule listed in the heading, so I can't answer your question about the mistrial at the moment, but stay tuned........

I found several sites about jury sequestration on the Internet - this particular one is about Minnesota law but I have a feeling it applies to most states and trials as it says that juries can be sequestered if it is a sensational trial.

Minnesota law about jury sequestration

That makes sense - wasn't the O.J.Simpson jury sequestered? How many of you watched that infamous case or read books about it?

And this site asks the question "Should we stop sequestering juries except when clearly necessary? Yes, since sequestering intensifies the isolation that distorts reasoning."

Problems of juries

And what do you think of this proposed change in jury deliberation? Maybe Sarah will have something to day about this.

"To set the stage for deliberation, the jury must be actively involved in the trial itself. The machinery for this involvement already exists in the practice of allowing jurors to question witnesses directly. The Federal Rules of Evidence establish the right of a federal trial judge to question witnesses, and federal and state courts have held that it is within a trial judge's discretion to permit questions from jurors. Judges in at least thirty states are soliciting written questions from jurors and posing them to witnesses after screening them with the two sides' attorneys.

Ella, I think that allowing jurors to ask questions can be a good thing. Of course, they often want to ask about the very things that are most strongly disallowed in the evidence code - e.g., prior convictions - and therefore it makes absolute sense for the judge and parties to screen the questions. I have read that jurors allowed to ask questions feel much more engaged in the process, and less alienated, and that is a good thing. On the other hand, the questions may be about things that no one else cares about, which is why no one brought it up. Overall, I have mixed feelings. Does a doctor let you dictate how he does his surgery?

You can find anything on the Internet! Wonder if attorneys still need bookcases of Rules and Procedures? ALF, here's the answer to your question, at least in NY. I found this at Jury Note-taking You asked for it (hahaha)

;220.10 Note-taking by Jurors

(a) Application. This section shall apply to all cases, both civil and criminal, heard by a jury in any court.

(b) After the jury has been sworn and before any opening statements or addresses, the court shall determine if the jurors may take notes of the proceedings. In making this determination, the court shall consider the probable length of the trial and the nature and complexity of the evidence likely to be admitted.

(c) If the court authorizes note-taking, it shall direct the jurors that they may make written notes of the proceedings, except the opening statements or addresses, closing statements or summations and the court's charge to the jury, if they so desire and that the court will provide materials for that purpose if they so request. The court also shall instruct the jurors in the proper use of any notes taken, and its instructions shall include but not be limited to the following:

(1) Jurors should not permit their note-taking to distract them from the proceedings;

(2) Any notes taken are only an aid to memory and should not take precedence over a juror's independent recollection, nor should they be relied upon as a substitute for a read back from the trial record;

(3) Those jurors who choose not to take notes should rely on their own independent recollection of the evidence and should not be influenced by any notes that another juror may take; and

(4) Any notes taken are only for the note-taker's own personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence.

(d) [Superceded by AO/204/00]

(e) Any notes taken are confidential and shall not be available for examination or review by any party or other person. After the jury has rendered its verdict, the court shall ensure that the notes are promptly collected and destroyed.

Just out of curiousity, let's talk a bit about the questions asked by the judge and here I must add that I would feel as our author did:

"I felt nervous, afraid of my voice in the room. What we were doing seemed inpossibly grave."

Have you ever been a victim of a crime? To that I would answer yes, our home was robbed once in the middle of the afternoon and we must have intruded on the robbery as jewelry (inexpensive stuff) was dropped at the patio door in their haste.

But nothing like some of these jurors - "family friend killed, got mugged twice, held at gunpoint." Any of you had similar experiences?

Do you understand "REASONABLE DOUBT?" And what do you think about the judge's question - "Is there anyone here who would hold the state to an unreasonable standard?"

Could you judge a murder on that basis? What famous cases have you read about?

Again, I sympathize with our author when he raised his hand and stated that if he thought the defendant would face the death penalty he might be inclined to acquit even if he thought him guilty.

I know that's wrong, no one should acquit a murderer, but it would be difficult for me knowing I was responsible for the death of someone

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS TODAY? WE WANT TO HEAR THEM!

I would think that I would have problems with the death penalty and then I consider some of the truly horrible criimes against children here in Florida in the past few years.. For me the answer seems to be that upon some occasions the death penalty is appropriate. I still do not understand why you cannot have a written copy of the judges instructions to the jury. It would surely be helpful to know exactly what constitutes the varying degrees of guilt. In the past few years, I have read of several cases that were complicated and I got the feelilng the jury got a bit confused on degrees of guilt. Just my opinion. I was amazed in the general questions when I was called on a panel. This is questions for all.. Fully 75-80% of the panel answered yes to questions on drug use and/or friends who have problems with drugs. Obviously I have led a very sheltered life.. Also when they were asked about jail, again a high percentage knew someone who was either in jail or had been. Again noone I ever knew..

For some odd reason, Ella, when I click on your link to Minnesota Laws About Jury duties, I get an error message. The others work. Too bad, I would be especially interested to see what this state of mine says aboout sequestering juries, etc.

Alf, and Stephanie:

Yes, I thought the author sounded fairly condescending, and he comes across as a bit of a pompous ass, but on the other hand I admire his clear-headed thinking and wanting to do the jury duties in a reasonable, systematic way. Some of the arguments that the other jurors give are really nonsensical, and it's hard to make sense of the reasoning of others.

Even after your well-researched points on note-taking by jurists, Ella, I still feel that the judge could have allowed it, or was that voted against early on? I couldn't find that.

All in all, the treatment of this particular jury by the system leaves a lot to be desired, in my opinion. Surely the court could have kept them more informed as to what would be required of them in sofar as clothing changes, contact with family, and other things.

Lorrie

Roger:

I found your experience on the jury with that month-long drug trial very interesting. can you tell us a little more about what it was like, for instance, was it necessary for you to smuggle food in, as the author did? And how did you relate to your fellow jurors?

Rambler:

Hi, Rambler, good to see you posting here! Come back and join us, I'm always glad to see your pertinent points posted.

Sarah: Do you think that the courts will allow more questioning of the witnesses? In some movie versions of trials, I noticed that occasionally a juor requests the court to ask a question of a witness, is this strictly Hollywood or is it allowed somewhere?

Stephanie:

I also admire the author for his honest answer when asked about finding a guilty plea in case of a death sentence I am definitely not in favor of the death sentence, but that is neither here nor there right now. Your posts are very intriguing, I must say!

Lorrie

Hi LORRIE! That Minnesota clickable works for me, try this:

http://www.courts.state.mn.us/video/inside/jury.pdf

That's just the site without the HTML, maybe it will work.

Some cities have arbitration boards where citizens can go to reach a compromise, rather than go to a court. I first learned of this when my daughter had a dispute with her landlord, neither would give an inch and finally they went to an arbitration board in the city and came to a compromise. I think both she and the landlord paid a small fee for the service, much less than a small claims court fee would be.

Anyone here ever sued anyone? Have you heard of these arbitration boards - a solution to the overloaded court dockets I would think.

Rambler:

One question. What do you think would have happened if you all had said that the defendant's absence did not bother you? Did they feel that your judgement would have been impaired If you answered yes? also, I'm curious. Why did you think it was likely that the defendant was a minority person?

Ella:

I have heard of arbitration boards in different cities. In some cases they are used a lot to settle differences between renters and landlords, as in your example.

Incidentally, I still can't get your link to work, but it's not you. My little error box comes up and says "Failure to launch Acrobat," whatever that means. I guess I'll have to ask one of our techies around here. I am horribly computer-illiterate.

Lorrie

Oh good grief Stepahanie, what a horror story that was.  I would have contersued!  Cost be damned after that humiliation.

Thank you so much Ella for your research on the "note taking."  Each individual judge can determine  whether or not jurors can take notes.  I hadn't realized the disparity between the states in jury trials was so broad.

Oh, Stephanie, you are right. That is a horrible story. How stressful it must have been for you and your husband, but as far as i can tell it looks like a matter of two things: one, a definite lack of communication, and two, the contrast in cultures where to Oriental people the idea of "face" is so important. (Like the importance of stressing ownership of the shop, or status, rather than the practicality of gaining more customers).

I live in a building where we have gained a huge group of new tenants over the past few years----all of them Russian emigres. These are wonderful new neighbors, friendly, immaculate, eager to please (most of them) but I can't tell you how much harm has been done because they seem reluctant to learn and speak English, thereby building a terrible sense of mistrust and suspicion on the part of my neighbors. I can't stress enough the importance of being able to communicate with our new citizens. So much misunderstanding and skepticism could be avoided.

Does it seem to anyone else that justice seems to be slanted in favor of these new minorities, that our courts appear to be bending over backwards to avoid what they might perceive to be discrimination?

Lorrie

STEPHANIE, that's sad and I agree that all of the courts - officialdom - ARE aware of criticism that might arise due to race and are being very careful not to upset these minority organizations; this has been going on for a long time and I wonder how long it will continue in the face of terrorism?

THANKS SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS, IT IS ALL GREATLY APPRECIATED BY SARAH AND I - LOVE COMING IN TO READ YOUR STORIES.

But perhaps we should return to our text? Would you have recused yourself in voir dire when you were informed that the case would involve explicit discussions of homosexual activity and that you would need to weigh the testimony of drag performers, male prostitutes and transvestitites? Were you surprised that none of the jurors did? How about all those questions about one man raping another?

I liked this question that the author asked: (36)

How did it happen, I wondered, that a practice of truth-seeking had evolved to divide the job up in all these curious ways? The asking of questions was reserved to those who would play no role in judging the answers, while we, the jury, who were supposed to try to figure out what had gone on, had to remain absolutely silent. And thought it was up to us to decide if the defendant was guilty, we would have no part in determing the consequences of the decision; the business of setting punishments was reserved to the judge, we wouldn't even know what they might be.

We know, as the author knows, that the jury system is the best and only way to decide the guilt or innocence of anyone in a trial; nevertheless I would, if I were sitting in a jury box, ask myself those same questions.

How do you feel about it?

I forgot to ask an important question (after you answer the ones above haha, you have assignments here!) am full of them today.

ROGER - are you still around? You were chosen as a foreman in that drug trial you mentioned and I want to know how a foreman is chosen and by whom? In this book (29) the "gay" juror was the foreman, but no mention as to how that was accomplished, or maybe I'm missing it?

Also, Roger, as I recall, you mentioned the phenomenal memory this author must have had to write the details so painstakingly. On pg 14 he states that he kept notes during the weeks of the trial and I would think he kept very good ones. He may have had the idea for this book all along and typed on his computer every night. I could do that, couldn't you, which leads me to SARAH's comment that very seldom do jurors write a "tell-all" book. Why not?

I've always been under the impression that a jury is instructed not to discuss anything about the case, before during and after the trial. Is this correct? Considering the diversity of 12 individuals and their ethical behavior, I find it difficult to believe they would all hold to that premise.

Those jurors seemed very emotional to me. Perhaps this is a normal reaction, I was never that far into jury duty, but it seems to me these people got very uptight after only a few hours. Is this due to the loss of freedom, the confinement, do you suppose?

I couldn't care less about the aura surrounding the type of crime here. I am more interested in the varying degrees of blame-seeking these people keep searching for, and how they agonize over whether this crime was self-defense, etc.

Lorrie

The Courts also use mediation as a device to resolve cases short of trial. Each state and court system seems to go on an "alternative dispute resolution" kick from time to time, but I've always had mixed feelings about how successful these measures are.

On notetaking, I completely agree with all the points in the statute - notes can take on an importance that they do not deserve.

Generally, a jury is free - but not obligated - to discuss the case once the trial is over. Litigants learn very important things about their strategy by talking to jurors after the case is over. I always made a point of talking to the jurors once a trial of mine was over - if they'd talk. Generally, they were willing to talk to me.

I would imagine that when you are asked in front of others if you would object to the mentions of homosexuality or other pursuits, that most people would not admit that it would bother them. I had read an account of the OJ trial by a juror and I honestly thought that he mentioned one of the reasons he was excused in the middle of the trial was because he was taking notes at night for his book. Does anyone else remember anything like that? I think that the further the evidence you hear is away from your type of life, the more you are likely to view it with no prejudice.. But that could be me. I have never believed that it is anyones business but your own as to your sexual preferences and practice.. As long as it does not involve minors that is..

Hello all. It looks like you are learning quite a bit here about the "behind-the-scenes" life of a trial. This sounds like an extraordinary book.

I want to remind you all to choose the way you present ideas carefully when you refer to those of ethnicities or cultures different from your own. Sometimes it is not essential to a story to bring up race, language or culture and doing so, seems prejudicial. I don't think that any of the participants here mean to express bigoted remarks but since there are legal as well as ethical issues to consider, SeniorNet will err on the side of being overly sensitive and may remove messages that might imply a degree of bigotry even where none was intended. Please email me if you have any questions.

Marcie: What post(s) prompted your #81? Did I miss something?

Lorrie: In the case I mentioned, there had to be big bucks involved. I could hardly think of another reason, except for his (presumably) minority status, for the defendant not to appear in court in Chicago, supposedly America's most segregated (and perhaps prejudiced) large city.

Back to the book. Anybody make any sense of the upfront quotes from Woody Guthrie or Wallace Stevens? What's the distinction between the hangman's noose and the slipknot?

"103 Corlears Street". I read it three times. Don't understand the gymnastics.

1. "How It Ended". Page 1: Does it really matter how the jurors wrote "not guilty" on their "five-by-seven ruled cards"? No problem otherwise.

2. "How It Began". The author mentions he figured jury duty was a chance to get some reading done. Thirty years ago, over the course of two weeks in Cook County's criminal court jury waiting room, I read an entire new biography of Shakespeare. Don't remember any courting (no pun) behavior such as mentioned at the top of p. 21. P. 22-23 seems terribly wordy. OK, it's a murder trial. Do we need to be told of every element in the room, or drag in Oscar Wilde? I'm not interested in G. Graham Burnett.

P. 24: "Unlike many of those trying to be excused, I faced no particular hardship if I ended up being asked to serve." No problem with the author--but if only the comfortable serve, does the accused get a jury of his peers? Enough for now!

I just got the book this afternoon, expecting to hate it, but so far, through page 76, I am finding almost a totally opposite reaction than most of you have.

I found his descriptions of the potential jurors -- well, oh so human. It may not be our best human trait, but I do think almost all of us make little internal judgments that are not always complimentary when we first see/meet people. We do what we call "people-watching" and it is in fun. Most of us know first impressions aren't always accurate. I did not think of the author's first impressions as pompous -- I have done the same thing when I've had to sit in a jury room all day. The difference is that no one knows what I thought because I wasn't writing a book.

But more than that, I think the author says some VERY funny things. If any of you have ever participated in a old group therapy session, you can't help but laugh at the paragraph on page 12 where he describes the deliberations as "a clutch of strangers yelled, cursed, rolled on the floor, vomited, whispered, embraced, etc." Oh, it brought back such memories of the late 60s and early 70s.

If you've ever sat in a jury waiting room all day waiting for your panel to be called (mine never was) you will have to laugh at his description, "In the twice-exhaled air of the jury waiting room..."

And probably the funniest I found was on page 27, where the judge asks if there is anyone who would hold the state to an unreasonable standard. This author, for whom his training has not equipped him to utter either a yes or no answer in good conscience, says, "No more epistemological fretting or historical relativism -- the greatest abstraction in human affairs had just taken shape and entered the room." And then he fesses up, "I kept my hand in my lap. If all the others thought they were going to be reasonable, then, hell, I thought, I can be just as reasonable as anyone else."

I find that excruciatingly funny!! I may just be weird, but oh, how I hope that I can come out of my experience with Jury duty next week (Jan. 16 I report) with such a delightful sense of the absurd. This guy is doing great, in my opinion.

If this guy is doing great, please explain the Woody Guthry and Wallace Stevens stuff. Does one have to be from New York or California to get it?

Rambler, I don't get it either, but then I usually don't get those little things like that in the front of books. (Most poetry is fairly obscure to me too.) The references undoubtedly mean a lot more to him than to you and me. But "not getting it" doesn't either spoil or make the book for me. In some of his paragraphs I really have to stretch to even TRY to understand what he's saying. But then maybe if I had his brain and his academic degrees I'd be writing the book!

But alas......

Thanks for asking that question, ALF, I've heard that also - but SARAH answered it for both of us. Jurors are free to discuss the case after it is over, so now we are left wondering about all those people who do NOT write books and do not make the big bucks! Think of the jurors in the OJSimpson trial and what they could have told the world! The attorneys certainly made money by writing books on that particular trial - how many books? I remember Marcia Clark's book - I didn't read it but I remember Ginny talking about it - and I think one of the defense counsel wrote one but cannot remember who?

Excellent observations, STEPHANIE! And I agree that people would not admit to their prejudicial views on homosexuality if asked in public - I don't remember hearing that about the O.J. Simpson juror taking notes and being excused. SARAH, do you know anything about this?

Hello, RAMBLER - am happy to see you back in our discussion. Sorry, I can't answer your question about the quotes in the front of the book, other than to say that on pg. 15 the author and Leah Tennent both enjoyed reading Wallace Stevens poems, so there are people who like him! I don't understand Woody Guthrie either, but I did look up the definition of a slipknot for you: "1) A knot made with a loop so that it slips easily along the rope or cord around which it is tired. Also called a "running knot. 2) A knot made so that it can readily be untied by pulling one free end. I know you are asking why Guthrie put the little word "or" in there? Again, I'm sorry, I don't know!

As to your second point, I like his writing style - his habit of describing how he felt about the courtroom and behavior of others (e.g. "sympathetic chitchat on the inconvenience,") - it's what strangers would do when they are thrown together, even conversational couples would get together I would think. I'm rather a loner so I'm not sure I would pair off, I'd probably go to lunch and pull out a paperback book from my purse, but then, maybe I would.

Perhaps, this is a male/female thing we are talking about here? Styles of writing? You like just the facts and none of this extraneous nonsense, right?

This statement is very interesting - if only the comfortable serve, does the accused get a jury of his peers? I'll have to give that some thought - WHAT DO THE REST OF YOU THINK ABOUT RAMBLER'S STATEMENT?

GAIL - I am so delighted to welcome you to the discussion and I need your help here, we think alike in many instances. I just read your statement - We do what we call "people-watching" and it is in fun. Most of us know first impressions aren't always accurate. I did not think of the author's first impressions as pompous. and…….

Then I read further, after reading your delightful comments, that you will be leaving us next week for jury dury? Oh, say, it isn't so!!!!! Are you going to mention this book and our discussion????? Or do you dare?

Perhaps one way of being excused if you want to - hahaha - would be to have this book on your lap in the jury waiting room?

---

Now, can anyone - SARAH! - tell me how a foreman of a jury is picked? That question may not get answered either, RAMBLER, along with your own.

I would love to serve on a jury but I'd like to pick my case! No gory things for me, thanks. At any rate, I've got evenings -- and I'll be with you then (said with fingers crossed).

Oh, good, Gail! You will be able to continue as I understand it, that is until you are sequestered (OH, NO, just kidding). You must let us know if you get on a jury, certainly you can say if it's civil or criminal.

It might be wise as we proceed to remember that the judge is an old man (32); his clerk fell asleep during the trial and the judge did not complain, he just called a recess. The author states "Thomas (the clerk) and the judge were two old, old men; one sensed they had worked together for a long time."

Which leads me to ask the question, when does a judge retire? When he wants to? If he is incompetent because of age who can ask him to resign? I'm reminded of our former president who some thought had Altzheimer's disease before his term was up; however, that is off the point.

SARAH - can you answer?

later, ella

I also would love to know how they pick a foreman of the jury. Its one of those things, that I honestly thought that the jury decided, but in this book, it did not seem so. I was disturbed in the book that Milcray seems to have lied so consistantly. How could the jury believe anything he said.. They testified to his hospital admission.. There was testimony on so many parts of his story.. Granted I did not believe the two witnesses that were friends of the dead man either. It must be so hard to know who to believe in the witnesses.

On picking a foreperson - it varies. It appears that in this trial, it was done at random: whichever juror occupied seat 1 was the foreperson. Generally, however, the jury chooses its foreperson when it begins to deliberate. I was foreperson on my jury - but it was not nearly the experience our author describes.

I'm with you, Gail - I really enjoy this author's writing style. I find him very funny - and self-deprecating. He seems to be making fun of his own academic need to analyze everything to death, and of how absurd that tendency is in the midst of this trial.

Since I just got the book yesterday afternoon, I didn't want to get too far behind, so I've used every spare minute to read. Honestly, this is one of the best books I've read in a long time, so it's been really easy to do.

Let me share another couple of things I liked: The author isn't very fond of the judge, but it comes out in such funny ways. Pg. 57: Where the author describes the witness saying like a "Southern belle catcalled in a roadhouse, 'Judge, I am NOT gonna sit here and let him make a clown of me, and I am not gonna let him yell at me!'" and the judge ("a sourbone, a humbug autocrat," pauses for a moment. The author describes what happens in this pause: "A wry smile passed across his beadle lips." Well, I had to look up "beadle." If I hadn't, I would have missed this very funny image: Websters New Collegiate offers: a minor parish official, whose duties include ushering and preserving order at services and sometimes civil functions." Burnett really put the judge in his place, in a very delightful way. One can think that, but not say it, of course.

Page 45: The detective tells Milcray to tell his story. There is some question down the road whether or not the detective asked appropriately. "No," (the detective tells the defense attorney) All I said was 'Tell me what happened, just tell me the story.'" Burnett observes in the next paragraph "But once you tell your story into the law, it becomes the object of a precise semantic dissecton. The whole of the story is of no interset; instead, patient surgeons of language wait and watch, snip and assay, looking for certain phrases...." AHA!!! Remember Clinton the lawyer says, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." What an insightful paragraph this is.

On page 73, the author finds a particular set of histrionics by the prosecutor "so egregious" that he hopes the prosecution loses. Then he reflects: "How did that whisper of a thought affect what followed? (maybe he means his own conclusion of not guilty?) It is difficult to say." I think this is a profound insight. So much that passes for a fleeting moment may not really pass at all, if we aren't careful.

And finally, on the last page of the first section, when the defense attorney steps into the elevator and begins a conversation with someone else, the author overhears it and wonders if the attorney is trying to influence him. It is hard not to think the world revolves around us, sometimes. How is one to judge what someone else means?

That's it, guys. Sorry to be so long, but I just had to get it out of my system!!

We have today and tomorrow to finish up PART ONE - if and that's only if - we are all willing! IT IS YOUR DISCUSSION AND YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT so please, we don't want to rush anyone into a deadline here!

---

YES, YES, STEPHANIE - the truth - the truth - the truth!! Samples linked the bloods of the victim and the defendant, there was little doubt that Milcray was guilty of the stabbling, but, as you said, witnesses are difficult to believe, particularly in this story where even the two police officers couldn't tell the truth about which one kicked in the door, HEAVENS!

The only remaining question was how and why ( and as the author says motive cannot be factored in the equasion). Was it self defense?

And, like GAIL, I find the author's language charming. Here's an example:

"…as I look back, some of the hypotheticals we entertained have about them a feverish and fantastical quality. Such are the perils of the imagination in a trial: the sense of drama goads one to raise the dramatic ante; to conceive of fantastic resolutions worthy of the setting, the cast, the deeds……truth is usually hard-won, complicated, and time intensive, or, at least, there are as many truths like this as there are simple ones."

and Burnett continues with this:

"Once let loose in a jury, however, such a worthy veridical work ethic can lead to the collective construction of giant follies. …….More than one case, I suspect, has been resolved…by the operation of this earnest principle in the jury room: take the long route to reach the truth; no shortcuts, no matter how obvious they seem."

IF I COULD WRITE LIKE THIS, I wouldn't be wasting time typing on this keyboard exclaiming about authors!

(I had to look up the word "veridical" = accurate, veracious; this guy loves words, okay with me! I like 'em too!

HEY, GAIL! We'll take turns looking up words, okay??? Hahaha Thanks for "beadle." And you were so right - it fits the judge!

I WOULDN'T WANT THIS GUY LECTURING IN A CLASSROOM WITH WORDS LIKE THAT THOUGH, WOULD YOU? Maybe he just writes this way?

And what about those witnesses of the prosecutor? This character by the name of Pessel? And here we have both Pessel and the "super" of the apartment noticing blood and the super cleaned it up - and neither called the police that night? COME ON!

Wouldn't you have wondered about blood trailing to an apartment door?

?ella

To follow up on what you're saying, Ella, I also thought the police did an incredibly incompetent job of securing the crime scene and gathering evidence. They left everything behind that wasn't covered in blood - egad! They left the wig in a corner for a day. They let Pessel in the apartment unsupervised. And on and on!

I must say, though, I was surprised as I read on how much Burnett did what he initially said he WOULDN'T do - go over the whole case and, in essence, re-try it in his book. I expected, as in the wonderful movie "12 Angry Men," that we'd only learn about the crime through the words of the various jurors - an approach that worked very well in the movie and would be interesting in the book. Do any of you understand why Burnett decided to do what he did? Is he trying to suck us into his story by regaling us with the sensationalist story first? It seemed a bit of a cheap device.

I'm puzzled by Ella's comment that the judge is an old man (32). This is from her post #89.

On maybe the most recent jury I served on, a clean-cut and seemingly bright law student was selected as foreman. I guess we figured he was the logical choice.

What cyber-nerd decided that the title of our book is Trial By Jury (not A Trial By Jury)? What's next? Christmas Carol? Midsummer Night's Dream?

To follow up on what you're saying, Ella, I also thought the police did an incredibly incompetent job of securing the crime scene and gathering evidence. They left everything behind that wasn't covered in blood - egad! They left the wig in a corner for a day. They let Pessel in the apartment unsupervised. And on and on!

I must say, though, I was surprised as I read on how much Burnett did what he initially said he WOULDN'T do - go over the whole case and, in essence, re-try it in his book. I expected, as in the wonderful movie "12 Angry Men," that we'd only learn about the crime through the words of the various jurors - an approach that worked very well in the movie and would be interesting in the book. Do any of you understand why Burnett decided to do what he did? Is he trying to suck us into his story by regaling us with the sensationalist story first? It seemed a bit of a cheap device.

Sarah: Let us not forget the fact that the sloppy police work made no effort to trace the calls to Cuffee.

No caller ID in todays world?

Cops said that there was no clothing found at the apartment while the crime scene photps showed evidence to the contrary. WHO kicked in the door? Which cop? They both proclaimed their bravado with that one. Forensics linked samples of blood..... Pessel's testimony throws a whole different light on this case (IMHO.)

ALF - Having once worked for a telephone company, I was surprised that they could even track incoming calls, until I realized that Cuffee had Caller ID. How times - and technology - change!

GAIL!!! You picked up some of my favorite passages in the book. I also loved this (p.70): "Without doubt, the actual truth existed in his (Milcray's) mind and probably nowhere else in the spacious universe, with the possible exception of the mind of God. What we all wanted to know resided in an electrochemical array in Milcray's brain, in the gray matter where his memory flickered in live cells. The truth was therefore in the room with us, in our midst -- inside the well-shaped head of Monte Virginia Milcray."

Brilliant stuff. Took my breath away.

Sarah, I felt the same way about that passage. I laughed at the "except perhaps in the mind of God" bit. That kind of little addendum on his sentences is just so delightful. But the whole paragraph is just stunning, I think.

I just checked on my "holds" at the library and see I am number 1 on the waiting list so should get this book in a few days and hope to join in the discussion.

In the 1970's, while live in the Kansas City, Missouri area I was called for jury duty on a murder case and we were sequestered during the trial. If I recall correctly the trail lasted two days so we were only sequestered overnight and were treated very well. I came away from the experience with a profound appreciation for our justice system and admiration for the people who served on the jury. It was up to the jury to select a foreman once we retired to the jury room for deliberation.

This was a difficult case with a man accused of murdering a friend or acquaintance. The defendant and the people called as witnesses for the most part (other than the police and experts) lived a lifestyle that involved starting to drink in the morning and continuing all day. The police had signed statements from witnesses that had been taken at the time of the crime and the witnesses got on the stand and denied they had said what was in their statement or that the facts were as they had been at the time. The defense attorney was very good at presenting a lot of things that tended to confuse or obscure the facts or that seemed to have nothing to do with the actual determination of guilt or innocence.

The process in the jury room as we deliberated was very interesting. We had jurors throughout the age range from early 20's to 70's, and from many different walks of life. I don't recall that selecting the foreman was a very significant thing since each of us were equally important to the process. The foreman did have the responsibility to keep things moving. As I recall, our process involved taking an initial vote to see if we all agreed on the verdict, which we didn't, and then we started going around the table with each juror asked to discuss what was essential to their way of thinking and what bothered them. We took several votes and began to narrow things down and eliminate things that appeared to be irrelevant.

At one point we asked the baliff if the judge would allow us to be read back a portion of the testimony or see some of the exhibits. The judge refused our request and told us we had to make our decision based on what we had heard and remembered. We reached a point where it appeared we would not reach a unimous verdict, which was required in this criminal case, but the judge talked with us and asked us to go back and work somemore to come up with a verdict in that we were as capable as any other to reach a verdict. Finally late in the second afternoon we did reach a verdict of guilty. As I recall the sentence was 30 years in prison.

A few years ago I served on another jury involving a DUI case. In that case, which was here in Georgia, the jury worked very much in the same manner it had in the other case in which I served as a juror. Again, each of the juror's took their responsibility with great seriousness and while there was little doubt that the man was drunk, it also appeared that the police had manufactured things and the State really did not prove it's case that this man was the It is a very sobering experience to be on a jury and I would never try to get out of this responsibility. It is not an easy job, especially in criminal cases where you are dealing with another persons freedom, but it certainly is a job that has to be done if we are to be a society of law and order.

Larry

I'm sorry, RAMBLER, I got into that habit during our JOHN ADAMS discussion of putting the page number in parentheses, we each did it - that (32) meant on pg. 32 of our book - it describes both the clerk and the judge as very old, old men.

WELCOME, LARRY! It's so good to see you here and to read of your experience in a sequestered jury and we certainly want to know why you say this: . I came away from the experience with a profound appreciation for our justice system and admiration for the people who served on the jury.

As SARAH mentioned it usually is up to the jury, then, to select their own foreman. RAMBLER mentioned they selected their own foreman also and you selected your own. Hmmmmmmm

And when you stated this - "The police had signed statements from witnesses that had been taken at the time of the crime and the witnesses got on the stand and denied they had said what was in their statement or that the facts were as they had been at the time" - the thought runs through my mind that if they had signed a statement and then lied on the stand wouldn't that be perjury? How could that be possible?

Further you state - "At one point we asked the baliff if the judge would allow us to be read back a portion of the testimony or see some of the exhibits. The judge refused our request and told us we had to make our decision based on what we had heard and remembered"

WHY NOT? Is this at the discretion of the judge or is it a law?

Sarah - can you answer that?

LARRY, I hope you get the book soon, we are going at a slow pace here and your views as to the jury in this book will be important to us. So happy to have you in our discussion.

I keep being puzzled as to why the jury cannot look at the evidence and testimony as they deliberate.. Relying on memory is chancy at best. Murder trials seem to important to use memory and not pin down exactly what was said or discovered.

Ella, my comment about coming away from the jury experience with a profound appreciation of our justice system is based on the fact that I saw how very seriously every single juror took their responsibility. It also showed me, as we often see in the fiction programs on TV involving trials, how very complicated this search for truth or trying to pick out the truth can be. Prior to being on a jury I simply had not realized what a responsibility the common citizen is asked to bear when selected for a jury. It isn't easy and it isn't fun but it is very rewarding when the work is accomplished. It is easy to see why so many cases are settled right before trial since the outcome is probably never something to be taken for granted.

I had the same thoughts about the perjury but I feel confident that none of the witnesses, and probably few overall, would ever be charged with perjury. They are dealing with fading memories and these people would not have been reliable witnesses in the first place based on the questioning that occurred that showed most of them had been under the influence at the time. Believe me it was an eye-opening experience to me as to how certain people in our society live.

Whatever the judge said was what we had to live with in our deliberations. If you are not allowed to take notes, and in the murder trail we were not allowed to do so, then we had to rely on what we could remember as to who said what and how things fit together. I can't image how people serving on a long trial, involving days and days of testimony, can even begin to keep the facts clear. I actually think that most juror's probably pretty well make up their mind somewhere during the trial if they can get the pieces to fit together. While I am sure there must be rules of conduct that a judge must follow, it also appears that judges have tremendous leeway within their courtroom.

Larry

Thanks, Larry, for such a thoughtful post and I have further questions to ask you and the others at a later date, but right now...and before it leaves my memory and before I go to bed , oh, boy - it's past time now....

tonight, I watched 12 Angry Men that I had ordered at the Library and to my surprise it was not the old black/white version with Henry Fonda, but in color starring Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott and Tony Danza, among others, and due to this discussion I took notes! Very interesting - you must get it at your library. The credits at the end of the movie said this - "Made with the assistance of the New York Supreme Court, Jamacia, Queens." What does that say to you?

To me, it says that the movie adheres to the statutues of N.Y.State. But then, we all know that much of what goes on in a courtroom - as LARRY POINTED OUT - is up to the discretion of the judge. However, here are my notes, some of which apply to laws we have discussed and some are just interesting.

• the jurors had notes in their hand, referred to them
• jurors discussed the defendant's past criminal record
• jurors discussed motive for the killing
• they asked to see evidence twice and received it (a knife and a drawing of a room)
• they discussed the attorneys and many decided that the court-appointed defense counsel was no good
• several times different jurors wanted to declare a hung jury, but each time they decided to continue
• I forgot to count how many times they votes, but it was at least five times
• at times they got angry with the foreman as he had the responsibility of keeping order, tough job

Larry, it was about 5 years ago when I first came to Seniornet and you had so much patience with answering all my questions and I want to say thank you again, and also to ask - aren't you proud of my skills in making that HTML list - hahaha!

I just learned lately how to make a wingding - isn't it cute!

?ella

Larry Hanna

January 10, 2002 - 07:08 am

Ella, I am indeed proud of you and the progress that you have made with the computer. One of the less obvious benefits of our discussions is the extensive learning that occurs as we become interested in how things are done and then pursue them ourselves.

You also do a fine job as the discussion leader.

I just got an e-mail from the library this morning saying my turn has come of this book so will try to get to the library today and pick up the book so I will know what we are discussing.

Larry

Ella Gibbons

January 10, 2002 - 09:49 am

Oh, good, Larry.

STEPHANIE - did you see that one of the points the movie made was that the jurors had notes? And that also they asked for evidence and got it, which surprised me. It must up to the discretion of the judge, just as it is up to the discretion of the judge whether to allow cameras in the court room. Remember how Judge Ito was criticized for that in the OJSimpson trial?

Has there been cameras in any sensational trials since?

ALF - you still here?

Yes, SARAH, I think you are right that the author did attempt to suck us into the trial in order to prolong the book a bit, perhaps? Or sensationalize it, as you suggested. Well, it worked for us didn't it - we did get suckered in as we are discussing the witnesses and the attorneys, etc.

Perhaps it's time we stopped this and go into the jury room? The trial took 10 days and we have about taken that long to discuss it - hahaha

GAIL - I know you are ready to go into THE CLOSED ROOM. Everybody else ready for this?

?ella

Stephanie Hochuli

January 10, 2002 - 02:45 pm

I am ready for the closed door for a number of reasons. Why would they not bring a suitcase with enough clothes, etc. The author made no sense in taking food.. Can you imagine how the room would smell of some of the stuff he talked about? The mechanics interested me.. I guess I am influenced that on TV and movie, the jury has all sorts of papers made just to vote.. But this jury did not. Did they even provide pencils? Also the blatant manipulation on the author truly upset me. I guess I am way too independent to have wanted him around. Does the foreman have any responsibilities that are given or do you just take it on yourself. He raised more questions than answered them for me.

Ella Gibbons

January 10, 2002 - 06:14 pm

Oh, good, Stephanie I'm ready to go behind closed doors also, so keep your questions handy we are going to need answers soon. I'm just stepping in the door and find the following quote of the author and am wondering what you think of this:

We associate truth with knowledge, with seeing things fully and clearly, but it is more correct to say that access to truth always depends on a very precise admixture of knowledge and ignorance. This is nicely captured by the traditional figure of justice, a blindfolded woman holding a scale. With her balance she can assess certain things, with her eyes closed she cannot see certain other things. True justice depends as much on her blindness as on her ability to discern.

I've seen that blindfolded woman holding the scales on halls of justice or somewhere and did wonder about the meaning behind that. And what does this signify? What do you make of it?

Stephanie, right below that quote (pg.80) the author goes on about the judge and his desire to keep the jury in ignorance - even refusing to tell them where they will be spending the night.

We'll talk later about his instructions to the jury, but I hope Sarah can come in and answer a few questions for us.

And where are the rest of you? Ready for deliberations?

SarahT

January 10, 2002 - 06:24 pm

I'm here!!

As I recall, the federal courts don't allow cameras in the courtroom. It's up to the judge - and state practice - in state court. (Where would CourtTV be without this?)

The foreperson does not generally have assigned duties. I suspect every foreperson does certain things in common - asks jurors to go around the table and express views, steers the discussion, overseels polling, etc., but nothing is set in stone. In some ways, this is why the job is so hard - one is thrust into it with no instructions and no preparation. One's authority over the others is tenuous at best. It's a very tough role to take. I thought Burnett was very thoughtful about the job.

The jury is always instructed only to deliberate when assembled in its entirety, and it usually falls to the foreperson to enforce this rule (note that Burnett didn't enforce it, which I found worrisome. There were all sorts of side conversations in the bathroom; technically, they're not supposed to happen.)

Gail T.

January 10, 2002 - 08:12 pm

My understanding from the reading is that the author simply inherited the foreperson job because the one originally selected didn't show up one day. The judge moved Burnett into that spot. Once in the jury room Burnett offered to let the rest of the jury appoint someone else in his place. They did not.

I thought Burnett did a darn good job being the jury foreperson. Can you imagine what the deliberations would have been like if Felipe had been selected instead? Or Paige, who believed that an "intuitive" approach, a more freewheeling, less exactly style would work better? Would simply "sensing" what was right and what was wrong be sufficient to render a verdict? Oh, I was very glad that Burnett took on the job.

Now I am scared that I will be seated on a jury when I go to the courthouse next week, afraid I might sit in the wrong chair and end up the chairperson. I am not all that smart anyway, but one of my shortcomings is that I don't suffer fools gladly. I am not a confrontational person; instead I keep my words to myself and then go home and have diarrhea! Woe be unto me if I sit on a jury like Burnett had to sit with.

Ella Gibbons

January 10, 2002 - 09:24 pm

Oh, I haven't reviewed the book that much, you guys! You're ahead of me but I'll catch up to what you are talking about!

Can you believe I've never watched court tv? Other people have mentioned it to me but when I thought of it, I thought it was actors and actresses who played parts based on real life stories and you are telling me, Sarah, that is for real?

Off to bed and review more of the book!

RogerC42

January 10, 2002 - 11:23 pm

As I said earlier I was a foreman on a jury in a major drug trial that lasted a month and we were sequestered the entire time. Becoming jury forman in my case was by pure chance. They brought a group of us in to question us during jury selection and I just happened to be in that chair and as jurors were dismissed for one reason or another others were brought in to fill the seats until an entire panel was in place.

In my case the foreman acted as the conduit between the jurors and the bailiffs and judge. Also, during deliberations, I was kind of a guide to keep things on track and to tally the votes and of course read the dicision in court. It seemed to me that Mr. Burnett took a more proactive and authoritative posture.

Gail T.

January 11, 2002 - 08:27 am

Page 81 and 82 lay out the instructions from the judge to this particular jury. Burnett says "He ran through the charges we were to consider very briskly, despite their complexity."

I am appalled that a jury would have to depend solely on their collective recollections as to all the judge's directions. When being presented with complex directions, often we have to say, "What?" or "Say that again?" Understanding sometimes doesn't come immediately. In fact, the author says that much of the first two days were used in just TRYING to understand the charges themselves. As the author says in his droll, understated way, "It was a great deal to digest orally, in a single sitting, without a pencil."

It is true -- the jury has to do the best they can. But in this particular case, it sure seems that they had to do it the hard way!

Stephanie Hochuli

January 11, 2002 - 03:04 pm

I must confess that this bothers me. The difference in Manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary and murder 2 are complicated. I think the jury and Burnett struggled to understand them and I agree that a simply copy of the actual law might h ave been helpful. Court TV.. Well my husband loves it. We did watch ( possibly on CNN), the trial for the hockey slaying. It has gone to the jury now, but the idea of the children testifying was pretty scary. They were valiant, but the thought of them seeing the death is pretty bad.

Ella Gibbons

January 11, 2002 - 06:26 pm

ROGER - what chair was it you were in? I simply do not understand the different methods by which a foreman/foreperson (we cannot even agree on terms can we -hahaha, we'd make a fine jury!) is chosen. On an Internet site for the state of N.J. I find this - "The trial judge will identify one of the jurors as the foreperson The foreperson's duty is to communicate with the court on the jury's behalf and to facilitate discussions between the jurors. The foreperson does not carry any more weight in the deliberations than any other juror."

And here is everything you ever wanted or needed to know about a trial - called LAW SCHOOL 000 - hahaha! and no mention anywhere about how a foreperson is chosen.

HANDBOOK

I certainly agree, GAIL and STEPHANIE, that in our criminal case the Court erred in not making the charges clearer to the jurors - could not the jurors ask for a written copy of the charges? The court reporter certainly has them and could print them out and have the bailiff bring to the jury room. They seem very complex and I have Burnett's SUMMARY in front of me in print! - how I would ever make sense of them just listening to them I have no idea.

Burnett admits that "much of the first two days of our deliberations consisted of a sustained effort to understand the charges themselves, what they implied, and how we were to about considering them."

LARRY - in your murder trial were the judges' charges simpler and easier to digest than these stated in the book?

SARAH - do you know if jurors could ask this and get an affirmative answer? It seems so basic to me; that if something is not understood by the jurors then they have the right to complain and get satisfaction.

They were given a sheet with key words for the verdicts which were simple to understand, but the charges, if written, would have enabled the jurors to arrive at a verdict in a more reasonable manner I would think..

Ella Gibbons

January 11, 2002 - 06:41 pm

Have any of you been following in the papers or TV the case of the Hockey Dad who killed the Hockey coach in Massachusetts (the verdict currently with the jury)?

ALF

January 12, 2002 - 07:25 am

I am so-o-o delinquent this week on my postings. I have watched this whole sordid "rink rage" trial from the get go and am sickened by the loss of a man over a stupid hockey game. The jury has deliberated and decided (IMHO) a fair verdict of involuntary manslaughter. He'll probably get 5 yrs in prison although it could be up to 20. Regardless, two families are without daddies to help in rearing the children. I've been saddened by this trial.

Back to our discussion. Does anyone know what happens to a juror who just all of a sudden chooses NOT to show up, like the original foreman did? I don't recall his being mentioned again in the book. I felt as if Burnett did an able job of foreman, just by keeping everyone on track when the ground rules were laid. It must be difficult to have 12 people understand, on the same level, the significance of any evidence admitted. One person can attach weight to a point that someone else may see as incredulous or insignificant. What chaos reigns when a juror scoffs at or belittles anothers assumption? This decorator, Paige, I believe was her name, was very rude with her insulting quip about Burnett's attire being changed in order to impress the rest of them. How can a unanimous verdict be reached when the charges were so difficult to understand initially? Wouldn't a fair, reasonable judge have realized this when he charged them?

Ella Gibbons

January 12, 2002 - 09:33 am

HI ALF! The verdict in that hockey Dad case was in our morning paper and I, too, feel so sad for the children in both families - and- the mothers and the parents. Did you notice that the father of the victim shook hands with the perpetrator and said he forgave him and hoped after prison he would work with other parents and children?

Oh, soooo sad.

Yes, I wondered about that juror (foreman) who didn't show up also - did the court take any action, make an effort to find him? What offense could he be charged if found?

Well, it's obvious we have more questions than we are finding solutions for isn't it?

SARAH - are you around to answer some of these questions for us?

If any of you have an opportunity do get the movie version of TWELVE ANGRY MEN and watch it. ALF just mentioned chaos reigning in a jury room - you'll see it there and how it is resolved.

later - ?ella

Stephanie Hochuli

January 12, 2002 - 11:01 am

They did ask the judge for a written copy and he said. No. They could come back into the courtroom ( this took about 45 minutes or so to set up) and have the clerk read it to them again. Seems such an unfair way to decide someones guilt or innocence. I do agree about the hockey trial. A tragedy all around, but Involuntary seemed to have been the right decision.

Larry Hanna

January 12, 2002 - 03:56 pm

Regarding the jury not getting a copy of the instructions or the law, I think we have to remember that it is up to the judge to define and interrupt the law. If the jury had the wording of the law there would be the risk of them trying to do this on their own. I have a feeling this is the reason the judge denied their request.

Regarding the initial foreman of the jury just disappearing, I would think it unlikely that even if the court found out what happened to him that information would be shared with the jury. The judge would deal with the person but that would be a matter separate from the trial and the responsibility of the jury. While I am sure they had a human curiosity it really wasn't any of their business. They had the alternate to provide the 12th juror and their work could continue.

I think we see in this book the reason why going to trial is such a risky thing for both sides and the outcome is in the hands of the 12 people selected for the jury with all their strengths and weaknesses.

On the two jury cases I have participated in the judge did not appoint a foreman but instructed us to select our own foreman. What goes on in the jury room is strictly up to the 12 people in the room and therefore they can conduct their work in the manner they can agree to. I remember that we certainly didn't agree initially and had to go through a difficult process of reconciliation to reach the ultimate verdict. This involved persuasion to convince the minority view that they are wrong for reasons stated and get them to change their vote. No juror need ever change their vote if they feel they are right and that leads to the hung juries. However, I think most jurors realize that our justice system is dependent on them and therefore they have a responsibility to reach a verdict. Probably the longer the deliberations the more difficult has been the process of examining the evidence (as can be remembered by the jurors) to settle on the pertinent points.

Maybe there are some cases that are cut and dried but most seems to have a lot of extenduating circumstances and the exercise of reasonable doubt determinations is anything but easy since we would each hold a different understanding of what is required.

I am finding this to be a very interesting book.

Larry

ALF

January 12, 2002 - 05:52 pm

I was surprised to read that whenever the jurors request a clarification , the entire court is summoned; lawyers, defendant, everybody.

Ella Gibbons

January 12, 2002 - 07:30 pm

THE FIRST DAY……….

Thanks, Larry, for your comments and we'll be looking forward to more from you as we proceed into jury deliberations.

Let's take what happened in the jury room slowly, bit by bit, rather than as a whole piece and we can then consider if the foreman, or any of the jurors acted properly or otherwise, and then ask those of you who have been in trials to compare the behaviors of these jurors with those whom you dealt with.

ROGER, would you elaborate on your comment about this foreman's (Burnett) "proactive and authoritative posture."

GAIL - TAKE NOTE, you may need this information next week - hahahaha! (or some pepto-bismal)

After initial discussion disclosed confusion about the charges and the structure necessary to arrive at a verdict, Burnett proposed that a poll be taken as to the charge of self defense? Going back to the possible verdicts given them by the judge: second degree murder (either intent or depraved indifference) or manslaughter (reckless) why did Burnett pose that question , as the charge of self-defense would mean the defendant was innocent of all wrong-doing, or am I correct in this?

Put another way, if they all are voted that the defendant acted in self defense they could declare him innocent and all go home at that point.

Certainly the case deserved more discussion and I concur that the various charges should have been contemplated.

This is all a bit confusing to read as STEPHANIE stated.

WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS FIRST DAY?

ALF

January 13, 2002 - 07:27 am

I have a comment that startled me when I first read it.

"Paige approached me and explained that she was intuitive and that she hated bureaucracy; she encouraged me to adopt a more freewheeling, less technically exacting and time-consuming style...."

Here we are talking about a man's murder, a mans questionable guilt and a mans future. Paige wants it to be a tea party conversation. Imagine if she were on your jury trial.

The confusion for me would have been to make the decision as to whether he acted in self defense. Noone has convinced me of that yet. Multiple stab wounds?

Stephanie Hochuli

January 13, 2002 - 08:38 am

I have problems in that I think that first you decide whether it was murder or manslaughter and then you look at self defense. They seem to me to be diametrically opposite.. Shouldnt selfdefense be a part of manslaughter? Why would it be murder and self defense. Does not seem to work that way. Am I mistaking something the author wrote?

Ginny

January 13, 2002 - 10:15 am

I learned something yesterday and perhaps Sarah can give her thoughts on this, pertaining to what Larry says above about the Foreman being appointed, or the jury selecting their own Foreman? Apparently it depends on the invididual judge presiding?

Both my husband Winston and I were appointed Foreman of our respective Juries by the Judge before we entered into deliberations. I have always wondered WHY I stuck out or WHAT I did to cause this? Yesterday at lunch an officer with the Sheriff's Department asked me if I had been the last juror selected? And I couldn't remember, but W said in his case he thought he'd never get called. The officer said that usually it's the last juror selected, that every judge has his own idea, some use the first, some the last, some pick a number, etc., so now I know. Sarah, is this the way it's done in California?

I still think people sitting there waiting to be called should be given a paper of instructions which explains Voir Dire. I felt on trial, myself.

Super discussion, All, am enjoying reading along.

&ginny&

SarahT

January 13, 2002 - 10:27 am

On the selection of the foreperson - in California, the standard jury instruction (there are form books containing these) is that the jury will retire to deliberate, and choose its foreperson. Clearly this varies state to state.

On jury instructions/charges - when I was trying cases, you always always always prepared a "clean" set of instructions to be sent into the jury room. It was unfathomable to me that the jury didn't get a set. I agree with everyone who has said that it is nearly impossible to remember all of that very complicated law without having it in front of you.

On reassembling the cast of characters when the jury asks a question - one of the most common errors that causes the reversals on appeal is how the jury is instructed - including how it is instructed after it returns a question to the judge. All parties must assemble to hear the question, argue for their version of the proper response, and object if the judge settles on a response with which they don't agree. Does that help?

Ella Gibbons

January 13, 2002 - 04:47 pm

LARRY - can you tell us a bit more about this comment you made -" I remember that we certainly didn't agree initially and had to go through a difficult process of reconciliation to reach the ultimate verdict." Did you go into the jury room feeling you knew who was guilty? How did you vote - by a show of hands or by written ballot? And how long were your deliberations?

ALF - my feelings exactly. How could Burnett call for a vote of self defense so early? There is so much here to discuss which, of course, they did. I don't think PAIGE liked the foreman at all do you? She felt him to be aloof - possibly snobbish?

I must admit he is a bit strange - changing his clothes to fit his role and bringing his own food - nuts, bread, cheese and oranges to eat - (the food at restaurants not being his usual fare).

WHAT DO ALL YOU THINK OF BURNETT?

I agree with you, STEPHANIE, all the way - all other considerations should be considered before the pleas of self defense is voted on; as I said why did Burnett jump the gun, so to speak!

I think perhaps this is the reason - " that Burnett confesses to an "ingrained bias in favor of defendants?" (pg 91). What do you think?

HI GINNY - Fun to see you here! Although you are throwing another cog into the wheel, or bone into the soup - whatever, because that is a new one, we haven't heard that the foreman is selected because of being the last juror to be seated? MERCY! We have heard it's the person sitting in the first chair (from our book) and several have stated (and I think I found that on the Internet) that the judge appointed the foreman.

HAVE WE RUN THROUGH ALL THE POSSIBILITIES YET? Haha Let's leave that foreman selection up to the judge - if no one volunteers (now that's one we have not considered! OH, BOY, OH BOY,) I'm sure he will take care of it.

IN FACT, THE JUDGE TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING? Didn't we think that before this discussion - that the judge is in charge of the case, makes decisions, etc.

NO SO IN OUR CASE - as Sarah has just stated this and it should be repeated: On jury instructions/charges - when I was trying cases, you always always always prepared a "clean" set of instructions to be sent into the jury room. It was unfathomable to me that the jury didn't get a set. I agree with everyone who has said that it is nearly impossible to remember all of that very complicated law without having it in front of you.

I wonder if this would be grounds for reversal? No, I doubt that, just grounds for complaints, right?

It was clear to me that everyone must assemble when the jury has a question, it just makes sense that all the attorneys, the court reporter, must know what is transpiring in the case; otherwise, as Sarah, this also could be grounds for reversal.

later?ella

SarahT

January 13, 2002 - 06:21 pm

Ella - I go back and forth about Burnett. I don't have a problem with his food choices - I tend to bring fruit everywhere! - and I think in admitting he was changing clothes purposely, he simply acknowledged what we all might tend to do in his situation. Don't you dress up a bit more when you need to feel "presentable" and in charge?

On the other hand, I often winced at how much he placed himself at the center of the universe. He had - or thought he had - a role in the deliberations that was central to how things came out. I would SO like to hear what the other jurors' opinions are on how important Burnett was to the process and the outcome. I suspect he was far LESS important than he surmised!

Ella Gibbons

January 13, 2002 - 08:36 pm

Peeking in before bedtime and I disagree, Sarah, about Burnett's change of clothing. At first, when he was just one of the jurors he wore what he described as "rough urban wear" - whatever that is -but when he became foreman, he changed to office clothing. And I believe Paige was correct in quipping (like that word) that he was trying to impress others as a leader. Clothes do not a leader make.

Larry pointed out that a foreman is just another juror - no more, no less. Clothing does not impress me.

On your second point, yes I do agree that he puffs himself up a bit and as an author he should know better. Too many first person's viewpoints here; however, he does understand/sympathize with others, even to the extent of Paige's sarcasm and I do like the fact that he appreciates other jurors' statements and their lifestyles, which I find fascinating - isn't it Dean (forget the name) who moved into the ghetto to try to help those destitute and drug-addicted people? Now that is some guy and I would love to read his experiences.

Larry Hanna

January 14, 2002 - 04:46 am

When we went into the jury room I would expect that each of us had a verdict in mind, at least a preliminary verdict. However, I tried to keep an open mind throughout the testimony and then as we went into jury deliberations. I felt to change my vote I had to be convinced from the deliberations that some factor I had considered as crucial was not as important as I had thought or that I hadn't considered it in terms of everything else. If juror's did not enter into the deliberations with a willingness to listen to the other juror's and be willing to consider changing their verdict to reach a final verdict the system simply would not work.

I don't remember how we voted but think it was on a paper ballot. However, I do remember we all knew how the other juror's were voting based on our discussions.

I also remember that we eventually got to the point where we had to start identifying the crucial points and what was interesting but not really pertinent to innocence or guilt. This is the way we finally were able to reach a final verdict that we all agreed upon. When the vote gets down where there are only a couple of jurors holding one position there is a lot of pressure exerted by the other jurors. Everyone wants the work to be completed, but only after serious and careful consideration of the case as it can be remembered.

If I recall, it was in the first day of the deliberations that the author indicated he was hopeful there would be a hung jury. Of all the things in the book I found this the most disgusting. Why would another jury be in a better position to determine the verdict. I just considered this as a "cop-out". Either the case was proved or it wasn't and it was their job to make that determination. It is very tough work and I never found it crystal clear as to where the lines are between the charges in terms of making the case fit the defined lines.

When you put 12 people in a small room for many hours a day it is not surprising the tempers flare and personalities clash. I did feel the author saw his foreman role as one of leadership and realized that only with some leadership could they ever get through the process. However, he could do only what the other agreed to allow him to do. I should think it is much better for the jury to select their own foreman since you need someone who is willing to talk and is intelligent enough to analyze what is happening and provide some direction. This person really needs to be someone the group can respect. What if the fellow who seemed totally out of it had been designated as the foreman? Of course, had that happened one of the other jurors would have had to step forward in the jury room and play the role that the author exercised as the foreman. Something will fill a vacuum.

Larry

Stephanie Hochuli

January 14, 2002 - 01:50 pm

I was uncomfortable as well with the opinion of the author that he hoped for a hung jury. Seemed so wishy washy.. I suspect that the author loves to lecture and thought of his fellow jurors as people who should be instructed. I would dearly love to know their opinions of the book.

Ella Gibbons

January 14, 2002 - 05:26 pm

WHERE, WHERE, YOUSE GUYS - what page does it say that Burnett wanted a hung jury? I'm still on the FIRST DAY chapter, where are you? I see nothing in this FIRST DAY chapter about a hung jury!!!

LARRY, I have many questions for you as you were sequestered the same as this jury. Tell us about the motel, the restaurants you ate in and what communication you were allowed with your family! I was surprised that this jury ate in a restaurant, frankly, as their conversation could be overheard by others in the room; if I had to hazard a guess I would thought their meals would be catered in a small conference room in the motel.

Most likely I'm putting too much emphasis on the movie, 12 Angry Men, but their foreman dressed as a UPS driver would, and yet commanded respect.

Larry, now I forget - were you the foreman of the jury you were on? Did people dress casually or in office clothing? Did it matter?

And what would you think of one of the jurors who did not eat with the rest of you, but said he had brought food from home and ate in his room? Just curious!

One little item of interest was the fact that Burnett (who obviously considers himself an "academic") at an early point in the deliberations had decided that he could not vote the defendant guilty; whereas the other "academic" believed the opposite. So much for academia!

later ?ella

Larry Hanna

January 14, 2002 - 06:59 pm

Ella, we were not sequestered for very long so have limited experience. However, as I remember, we just ate in a public place but all sat together with the court officers. I don't remember much about the hotel where we stayed in downtown Kansas City but we each had a private room. I wasn't allowed any communication with my family but was gone only overnight so that wasn't a problem. I am sure if we had continued for a number of days things would be much sharper in my mind.

I was not the foreman of the jury and I don't have any strong memories of the role the foreman played. I just remember that we respected each others opinions and we really didn't have a lot of conflict. If one of the juror's had not wanted to eat with the group (although in this book the author had to sit at the table with the rest of the group whether he ate or not) I really wouldn't have cared. Neither would it have mattered how the jury members were dressed. I thought that when the author changed his manner of dress after becoming the foreman he really was showing respect to the court. While my memory is not clear here I think most of the people in the jury I served on were well dressed, suits for the men, and dress clothes for the ladies.

The author spoke about a desiring to have a "hung" jury at least twice in the book but I don't recall the specific page. I have to admit that I read the book and do not take notes, which is one reason I am not very good in book discussions. However, I think the first mention the author made of the "hung" jury was right as they started deliberations.

Larry

Ella Gibbons

January 15, 2002 - 10:23 am

THE SECOND DAY

HAVE YOU ALL LEFT? FINISHED THIS SLIM BOOK AND WANT TO GET ON WITH ANOTHER ONE?

SHALL WE CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION OR CALL IT AT AN END?

IT'S UP TO YOU!

LARRY, thank you so much for being diligent in answering all of my questions. You are an excellent participant in a discussion - don't think that EVER! - you read others' posts and respond and you are all that any one could ask for.

I am Miss Naivete herself as I've never been on a jury, never been in a courtroom, and I AM THE ONE WHO DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A PROGRAM ON TV REGARDING COURTROOM TRIALS! I thought they were play-acting, if I thought about them at all! One would think I lived 50 years ago???

But now is my chance - perhaps my only chance - to hear firsthand the experiences of some of you who have been in a jury room, and also to learn by listening to your comments what YOU THINK OF OUR JURY SYSTEM.

I would like to continue on into the SECOND DAY, but am going to leave that up to all of you.

LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU DESIRE, PLEASE

Gail T.

January 15, 2002 - 10:48 am

I'm here. Getting ready to make my call to the courthouse this evening to see when I am to report.

I have some observations. First, Burnett refers to this book as a "personal memoir." He says, (pg. 13) "it is by no means my intention to retry this case in a personal memoir." And he admits that each of the 12 jurors would write it differently. He is not writing a definitive book on this case, as a historian would try to do, but merely how he saw it, through his eyes and his experiences. I think we have to keep that in mind as we read and interpret the whole book. We may not LIKE the way he sees things, but we sure can be interested in the way he perceives it.

Second, it does not bother me one whit that he has a predisposition toward defense or toward a hung jury. I think what is remarkable is that he knows he has this bias; once acknowledging it, he then can take it into account when he is deliberating. And I think we see in the book that he changes his mind.

I have done medical transcription at a legal firm that handled defense claims. I have done medical transcription for a doctor-owned company that provided insurance for med-mal practice. My husband has worked in a police department (traffic division) and volunteered in the Sheriff's department. Could I have an ingrained bias in favor of either defense or prosecution? Possibly, and probably.

However, I sat on a jury panel once when the attorneys were questioning potential jurors, and one admitted to a bias. The judge asked him in light of the fact that a juror is discharging one of the fundamental rights of our system -- that is, to give a person a fair trial by his peers, did the juror believe he could set aside his biases and do his best to give this defendant a fair trial. Then he asked all of us to examine our beliefs and to take this jury duty very seriously. I have thought a lot about this, not only while reading the book but also in thinking about my upcoming jury duty. I think that Burnett, regardless of his biases, gave the man a fair hearing.

And as far as academics disagreeing, so do politicians, so do doctors, so do attorneys! No one person and no one profession is the sole bearer of truth!

More later. (I'm sure you are all waiting with baited breath!!)

Gail

Stephanie Hochuli

January 15, 2002 - 12:04 pm

I must confess that like Larry, I read the whole book and dont take notes. So I have problems obeying this business of chapter by chapter. I went over the Second Day.. He clearly talks in this chapter about his desire for a hung jury. I did like the fact that when the jury asked for a lot of information and got it. They discovered things for themselves. I also was impressed by Dean. What a man. He has lived a very unusual life and I think had much to related to the other jurors about the community that the murdered man lived in. The witnesses seemed to have confused most of the jury members. I wonder if this is common. Do Lawyers take this into consideration. Most of the witness on the prosecution side seemed to now impress the jurors at all.

Larry Hanna

January 15, 2002 - 03:46 pm

Stephanie, in the two trials on which I served as a juror I had the definite feeling that both sides tried very hard to confuse the jurors in favor of their side and I suppose that is what the advocacy is all about. That was why we had to examine the various facts and make a decision whether they were pertinent to the actual question of guilt or innocence.

Gail, I think we all have our own bias but when serving on a jury, at least I did, but that I tried very hard not to let that influence my analysis and evaluation of the testimony. Sometimes that is very hard to do but, as you indicated, if we recognize our prejudices we can guard against them. I do think that there are obviously cases where a juror has such strong feelings on things like the death penalty that they cannot be unbiased. In this case they should make that known but I suspect that sometimes they do not want to stand out and so indicate they do not and can be fair when they couldn't be.

Ella, I have to confess that I enjoy watching the various TV shows that feature lawyers and trials and there are some really good ones on currently. I also watched almost every minute of the OJ trial as was recouperating from one of my heart surgeries and wasn't able to do much else. I really haven't gotten involved in Court TV and their real live trials but might watch it if the terrorist trial in Virginia is allowed to be televised.

While I have finished reading this book I am not anxious for the discussion to close but will certainly go along with the wishes of the participants. I think there are probably several other things we might want to comment on as the jury deliberated. I have been fascinated with the author's characterization of the judge. He obviously did not like the man (probably because the judge had berated him). In my limited experience the judge was very courteous to the jury and I never heard the judge berate any juror in the initial or later stages. While not in a courtroom setting I did have some communication with a local judge as we both attended cardiac rehab and he was something else. He was gruff and grouchy in just a casual conversation and few people talked with him. I expect he was something to behold on the bench.

Larry

SarahT

January 15, 2002 - 10:43 pm

Ella - I've been gone because my husband had surgery today, but I'm very eager to have this discussion continue. Larry, I think you're right that there's more to discuss. Because Burnett didn't flesh the judge out as a full character, I never figured out where he was coming from. I've seen judges be gruff with lawyers - and occasionally was at the receiving end of that - but NEVER with jurors. Regardless of whether they are just doing their civic duty, there is virtually no other place where we are called on to spend this much time, and heart and soul, at little to no pay, in service to the state. Those who choose to serve - and jurors who don't want to serve can always finagle their way out of it - deserve respect, I believe.

Stephanie and Larry - on the question of whether the lawyers TRY to confuse the jurors. Usually not, in my experience. I think what tends to happen is that you as the lawyer live with the case, and facts, and witnesses and see things all very clearly. Then you try to tell a complicated tale to folks who are new to the facts, and it just doesn't sink in in one telling. It's natural to need to digest such things several times before really understanding them. And yet the system frowns on giving the jury too much of a second look at the evidence, since giving in to requests such as Pat's (she wanted virtually the entire trial transcript) would slow the process down impossibly.

It's so hard for me to see things objectively, since I worked within the system for so long. My one time as a juror really opened my eyes, however, to how little gets "past" a jury when you have 12 people all listening to the same story. Those 12 people tend to be amazing at putting the puzzle together.

I thought that Burnett explained his desire for a hung jury well, even if I didn't agree with him that it was appropriate to go in with that as a goal. He explained that as a researcher, he saw his life's work as exploring unanswerable questions. It simply was unfathomable to him that he would be called on to answer them, make a judgment, and move on. It was his goal in his work to make sure important questions were never answered fully or finally.

That said, I wondered how he functioned in life? Surely he confronted other hard decisions in his personal life - how did he deal with them?

What did you think of the discussion of law vs. justice, and of jury nullification?

Do you believe our jury system works? Do you have faith in the right/ability of 12 strangers to the facts of the case to decide its outcome?

Ella Gibbons

January 16, 2002 - 12:25 am

OH, I'M SO HAPPY YOU ALL AGREE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, there is so much more I want to know AND SARAH POSES SUCH GREAT QUESTIONS for us to consider, but first…..

We must know, GAIL, what did you find out tonight? Are you reporting for duty?

Which brings up a question that perhaps some of you can answer. I know there is a pool of jurors from which the various courts can pull from, but I'm not sure of the hierarchy of courts. What I do know is there is a probate court (they wouldn't need jurors would they?), Court of Common Pleas, Appeals Court, District Court - isn't there a Superior Court? Or is that a federal court? What I am sure of is the United States Supreme Court is the last resort of any case - but what of all those in between?

SARAH? Gail could end up in any of them possibly? Or which ones? Where do the federal courts physically sit - is there a federal court in each state?

Where did Burnett get the idea that as a foreman he had all this responsibility? I quote:

"I was responsible for managing the room, managing the conversation, and managing the array of psyches around the table."

Who gave him this charge? Does a judge or a bailiff tell a foreman what he should or should not do? If so, I wasn't aware of it. But he seems to be so burdened with his duties as he sees them.

Sarah, I do hope your husband is all right, keep us informed.! I'll try to answer some of those questions, later, very good ones! And I have a few more of my own, also!!

YOU ARE SUCH A GREAT GROUP OF PEOPLE AND SO INTERESTED IN OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.

later, ella

SarahT

January 16, 2002 - 10:32 am

The names of the state courts differ by state, Ella. In California we have Superior Court (trial court), the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court), and the Supreme Court (highest appellate court). Within the trial court system are lots of specialized courts - in San Francisco we have separate Family, Probate, Criminal and Small Claims courts. In smaller counties I've noticed that one judge handles everything - civil and criminal, family, even probate.

In the federal system we have three levels - District Court (trial court), Court of Appeal and US Supreme Court. The District Courts are in every state. The Courts of Appeal tend to be in the most populous state, but they cover cases in several states. California is in the 9th Circuit, which covers many states including California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington. There are 11 circuits in the US.

Gail will have received a summons either from state or federal court. In San Francisco, if you have a state court summons, you serve either in civil or criminal court. My service as a juror (and practice as a lawyer) was in civil court.

Ella, it's possible Burnett was instructed that he had this responsibility. The "foreperson" jury instruction in California is pretty general (I'll post it if I can find it). I always had the impression while reading this book that Burnett ASSUMED he had this responsibility without actually being told he did.

Ella Gibbons

January 16, 2002 - 11:38 am

HEAVENS, Sarah, I had no idea of the structure of all those courts and the fact that there are 11 circuits in the U.S.A. Very interesting to learn that and thank you.

And something else I had never heard of is this nullification of the law and if I had not read it here I would never have believed it. I know we have lurkers here, so I'm going to quote from the book:

"...some famous English case from the seventeenth century; the jury acquitted when the defendant was obviously guilty, doing so as a protest against the law itself; the judge threw the jury in jail, to force them to reach the "correct" veridict; somehow the judge ended up getting censured and the jury was set free, unpunished. Result? A venerable precedent in our legal tradition: juries can do whatever they please, and they are immune from prosecution. If we want, (Burnett said) we can ignore the law."

Sarah, to your knowledge has any jury ever nullified a case?

It's much easier reading about these jurors' reactions to all the arguments given by the various members; however, it would be chaotic if you were in this group. I keep wondering how I would react - to me Burnett makes very good sense when he says:

"two men go into a closed room, one emerges, he claims to have acted in self defense. How could it be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a lie? Perhaps if the defendant had a long criminal record, perhaps if Milcray (the defendant) had been convicted on several occasions of assaulting gay men in the Village--but barring that, I had doubts."

No one, absolutely, knows for a fact what went on in that room and as there was no proof given by the prosecution that it was NOT self defense, then I believe I would have had to vote for not guilty by reason of self defense.

What do the rest of you think? How would you have voted?

SarahT

January 16, 2002 - 11:45 am

Ella, I suspect juries nullify all the time - but because we rarely know what goes on during deliberations, we never find out. I know there was a lot of talk during the OJ trial about nullification. I suspect nullification is common when there is a political bent to a trial - prosecution of logging protesters in Northern California or of Greenpeace, Slapp suits. I suspect someone has studied this area recently.

Ella, I find the idea of having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did NOT act in self defense to be a tough burden to meet. Proving a negative is always hard. I probably would have struggled with this if I'd been on that jury.

Gail T.

January 16, 2002 - 04:44 pm

I went, I watched and I got sent home. No jury duty for me. They were picking jurors for a criminal case. I wasn't one of the 12 seated.

So I'm back!

ALF

January 17, 2002 - 12:32 pm

Isn't that the lawyers are doing? i.e. The defense attorney, threw his arms in the air when Stevie Trevor insisted he's seen Milcray at the scene and said "You're not pointing at me, are you?"

I want to know just how true this is. Does the best actor always get to win the case?

Ella Gibbons

January 17, 2002 - 01:24 pm

HELLO GAIL - are you disappointed or relieved about no jury duty? Always wondered which I would be - our Courthouse is in our downtown area (Columbus, Ohio); certainly not the biggest city, but I would have no knowledge of where to park or where to report for duty.

Perhaps they told you all that Gail? How far along did you get? To the voir dire part? (hope I'm spelling that right?)

Good question, ALF - and I have no answers for that? Does the best, the most charming, lawyer win? What do you think - those of you watch Court TV? Were O.J.Simpson's lawyers the best? The most anyway, what a dream team!

I never watched much of the trial, only the news at night as I was working during then and had catch-up to do at home in the evenings.

SARAH, now that we are in a new century, what do you (and other attorneys) feel was the court trial of the 20th century? Or do you talk about things like that? I've read just about every book on the Monkey-Scopes trial and every book on Clarence Darrow (including his own autobio) and I believe that trial would get my vote!

Any ideas?

Ginny

January 17, 2002 - 02:07 pm

We interrupt this trial....hahahah, no I just read this and it is apparently true, Sarah may know, but I liked it:

A lawyer defending a burglar tried this defense, "My client insterted his arm in the window and removed a few articles. His arm is not himself, and you can't punish him for an offense committed only by his limb."

"Using your logic," the judge replied, "I sentence the defendant's arm to one year's imprisonment. He may or may not accompany it."

The defendant smiled, detached his prosthetic arm, and walked out.

&ginny&

Larry Hanna

January 17, 2002 - 05:32 pm

Ginny, surely that can't be true unless the judge was not very observant. It makes a good story however. On the otherhand, (no pun intended)truth is often stranger than fiction so it might be true.

I think an attorney putting on an act would not play very well with a jury, at least with me. I do expect attorney's try very hard to get on the good side of the jury. I like to think that as a juror I tried to put all of that part aside and made my decisions based on what I understood to be the facts.

Larry

rambler

January 17, 2002 - 05:48 pm

Because the Massachusetts hockey case was brought up on this site some time ago, I'll mention this one, currently before a Florida jury.

A prisoner (lifer?) died with very suspicious injuries--broken bones throughout his body, a bootprint on his chest, etc. The indicted prison guards claimed that he fell down, or that other prison officials beat him up.

This is in a very small, isolated, and impoverished county. It took months to impanel even a 6-person jury. Everybody in the county works for, or knows somebody who works for, the prison.

One of the jurors is actually a retired prison guard! I have no idea why the case couldn't be moved to another county. But I'll bet the prison guards get exonerated. Four beefy guys were acting innocently or in self-defense against a little latino prisoner? As the young folks say: Yeah, right.

Stephanie Hochuli

January 17, 2002 - 06:06 pm

Well I live in Florida and while I hold no brief for the guards. The little Latino Prisoner was on death row and a real handful for the prison. So even though noone has the right to beat another human to death, I suspect that this was something of an accident. I have been interested in the author talking about not wanting to answer questions. For heavens sake, how does he live his life.. Life is full of decisions.

Gail T.

January 17, 2002 - 08:46 pm

I'm not sure where we are in our discussion - but I'll add my quarter's worth because I had a good laugh on page 174.

The verdict was in, the jury splits up and prepares to head for home. Our esteemed author starts thinking about whether he should take the back way out. He discusses whether he should make eye-contact with the prosecutor -- I mean, he doesn't want to let them think he is looking on them in their defeat. He waffles, what if...., should I? Will they think I....? Is the family waiting outside, wanting to quibble? How should I act... He just gets all introspective... and assigns feelings and thoughts to others. He tries to make or not make certain impressions.

At the bottom of page 173, after going through all these mental and emotional machinations he says, "I wanted to prove to myself that I felt right enough about what we had just done that I could pass through them and could countenance whatever they wanted to say or do"

He opens the door and goes out. Voila! The hall is empty. He "prepared myself for more drama than we found." I laughed out loud.

How human that is. Probably his education and his profession and maybe even his position in the ivory tower had prepared him to be the center of his universe -- but by golly, no one but him cared. We do think we are important sometimes, and once in a while we get our comeuppance.

I laughed, because I saw myself.

SarahT

January 18, 2002 - 02:56 pm

Gail, you hit the nail on the head. I truly believe others on the jury would tell a completely different story. Burnett was the center of his own universe, and projected meaning onto the actions of others that I'm sure did not exist.

What would you all do if faced with a case that presented a conflict between what the law required and what was just? Would you even consider nullification?

I suspect good actors often make good courtroom lawyers. Bad actors do not, of course, since everyone knows they're acting. I do agree with you, Larry, that jurors are exceptionally good at cutting through histrionics to get to the truth.

Stephanie Hochuli

January 19, 2002 - 07:10 am

This mornings paper provided me with great puzzlement. Sarah Jane Olson got 20 years to life.. a local man murdered his girlfriend and two babies.. He got 10 years.. What is happening to us. What happened with SJO(ie Kathleen Soliah) happened 20 years ago. As far as is known, she never killed anyone. She may have participated in robbing a bank, and she may have helped plan a bombing. What she really did was hate the war enough to take violent methods or protesting. Wrong.. yes, to be punished,,, yes.. but why the disparity in the crimes. I keep thinking of her jury.. What led them to convict, did they choose the sentence?

ALF

January 19, 2002 - 07:42 am

I believe that a guard was killed during that robbery.

SarahT

January 19, 2002 - 11:31 am

Without commenting on the Sara Jane Olson situation specifically, Stephanie, you're right that juries have a fair amount of discretion in state court sentencing. (In federal court there are fairly strict sentencing guidelines.) Hence the seeming disparities you comment on.

Stephanie Hochuli

January 19, 2002 - 12:24 pm

I'm sorry Sarah, I had forgotten that you are in California. I guess i got so frustrated that our local man managed to kill a girlfriend and the two babies they had together very brutally all by himself and got 10 years.. because he was young,poor, etc. The girl and babies are just as dead. Yes, I believe a guard was killed. I remember this situation quite vividly for a number of reasons. I guess I always felt that this outfit had two parts. One very naive college girls and two.. very very experienced convicts..

SarahT

January 19, 2002 - 05:01 pm

No need for apologies, Stephanie - you make an excellent point.

Do you think you would have struggled with the law vs. justice point that Burnett spent so much time on in the book?

Did you feel the jurors' life experiences influenced how they deliberated?

What would you have voted if you had been on the jury?

What would you do differently if you had been foreperson?

How would you have handled the difficult judge?

Do you look forward to jury duty, or think of it as a chore? Why?

Stephanie Hochuli

January 20, 2002 - 08:24 am

I struggle with the author on the justice issue. I am afraid I would have hung the jury since I did not believe either sides and feel that Milcray definitely needed punishment for what he did. I would guess that it is my internal alarm that feels if you kill, you should be punished somehow. I dont feel one way or another about jury duty. If you are called, you go. We are in a country that exacts certain obligations and this is one of them. I would not like to be on a jury that dealt with violence against children or women. I know I am prejudiced in their favor, so would not be a fair juror.

SarahT

January 20, 2002 - 09:43 am

Stephanie, I'm with you on jury duty. It is one of the few obligations we have as citizens, and I look forward to the chance to serve. Of course, I used to rely on juries in my work, so I feel a special obligation, but there is something special for me about that occasional call to duty. I've heard someone say that voting on line would ruin one of the few experiences we have of paying tribute somehow to the privileges of citizenship - of going to the polling place and participating in the ritual of pulling the lever, or punching the butterfly ballot (oh well!). Those rituals are so few and far between in our society - can going to McDonalds REALLY supplant such things??? - that I relish them somehow.

I am not a senior, so my experience may be unique. Most of you were of age during one of the last several wars, and may have a different take on this issue. I'd be curious to hear from you.

Larry Hanna

January 20, 2002 - 02:07 pm

I remember when I served on the jury that had the DUI case. We did struggle with the matter of the law and justice since there was no question that the man was drunk. The question was whether he was driving and therefore violating the law. It appeared to the jury that the police found only him and jumped to a conclusion that he had to be driving. As I remember it he had bruise marks on his right shoulder where the passenger seatbelt would hit and that indicated to us that he was not driving at the time of the accident. He walked away from the trial as we didn't feel the State had proved their case. Fortunately it was a one car crash and no one was really hurt.

In the case in the book I do think I would have struggled with the issue of justice since there were so many conflicting facts and there really was no doubt he was there. The blood on his clothes also seemed to be a pertinent fact. I thought the case was weak in terms of self-defense on Milcray's part. I thought this case illustrated very well how difficult it is to get at the real situation as there always seem to be extenuating circumstances, such as the drug addict that apparently was on the scene. Perhaps another example of truth being stranger than fiction.

I don't see how our life experiences can help but influence our thinking processes and thus how we deliberate as jurors.

Had I been on the jury I think my initial vote would have been guilty with small doubt in the back of my mind. Thru deliberations I might have changed my mind. It is really hard to say what we will do until we are faced with the situation.

I really didn't feel the foreman did anything wrong so don't know that I would have done anything differently. He tried to maintain some type of order and seemed to try to be fair while maintaining some reason, such as when the juror wanted the transcript read back almost in its entirety.

I wouldn't have done anything with the difficult judge since I am not aware there is anything that can be done.

I have never considered jury duty as a chore or something to be avoided. I recently received another juror's inquiry form to fill out. However, just last week another judge determined that the way the jury pool is handled in our county is not proper and it has put a stop to almost all trials and has thrown into question some of the results of trials already conducted. It sounds like a real mess. The judges were not suppose to play any role in selection of the jury pool but they had and there were some other problems. So I don't expect to be called for jury duty anytime soon.

Larry

SarahT

January 20, 2002 - 06:51 pm

I think I'm with you, Larry, about Burnett's job as foreman. I think he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances. For example, I thought his moments of silence were a great idea. Almost like a "time out" for grownups.

How will trials go on in your county, Larry, if the entire process of jury selection is under fire? I can see how it would be problematic for the judges to select the POOL of jurors, although they are quite central to the process of selecting individual juries.

Larry Hanna

January 21, 2002 - 04:51 am

Sarah, the last I read in the paper was that it will be mid-February before they will be able to get a new jury pool together and start having trials again. I haven't heard anymore about the impact on previous trials but expect that will be seen a little later as new appeals are filed. What a mess.

Larry

SarahT

January 21, 2002 - 11:15 am

Do you all believe juries are essential to our system of justice? (put aside whether the constitution requires them). Would you prefer something like a super-jury - a panel of experts judging the outcome of a trial. A judge ("bench") trial? Note that even in our system, certain claims or issues do not guarantee you a jury trial. Where a matter is strictly legal, it is generally for a judge to resolve. In our administrative law tribunals, which exist in public agencies at the local (e.g., Rent/Housing boards), state (e.g., public utilities regulators, unemployment insurance boards) and federal level (e.g., immigration courts, social security hearing offices), a judge/hearing officer/referee decides issues both of fact and law. Thus, even in our system, at least in some places it has been decided that juries aren't necessary/required.

How would you have decided this case? Would you have tried to get out of serving on this jury, or would you have served willingly?

SarahT

January 21, 2002 - 11:17 am

Larry, I cannot imagine the entire system grinding to a halt in that way. Are other counties pitching in, or are trials simply on hold? If the latter, doesn't this violate criminal defendants' rights to a speedy trial (after all, unless they can make bail, they sit in jail until the end of their trial)?

Larry Hanna

January 21, 2002 - 01:33 pm

Sarah, I haven't seen anything about other counties pitching in. You raise a good question on what happens to those waiting in jail for a trial.

I do believe that juries are essential to your way of life. While you would hope that all judges are honest, history tells us that some of them can be bought and it seems to be the jury system helps overcome some of this problem, although realize that juror's can also be reached. At least they are not identified until the trial time while the judges are known well in advance. Hope that comment isn't too cynical. It just seems like the jury system was another one of the protections built into our constitution.

Larry

Stephanie Hochuli

January 21, 2002 - 02:35 pm

I have a friend who served on a grand jury.. I think federal?? She spent months on that. They did not do trials, but more like witnesses and secret evidence?? She said it was a most confusing experience, but was not allowed to discuss it more. Was very strange.

Larry Hanna

January 21, 2002 - 05:29 pm

Stephanie, when we lived in Montgomery County Maryland my wife was on a county grand jury that lasted 6 months. They had to meet many times and she was not at liberty to discuss anything she heard on that grand jury. I know she was glad when the term ended. She wouldn't even tell me anything other than to say many of the cases dealt with drugs.

Larry

SarahT

January 21, 2002 - 06:56 pm

Yes, the grand jury is a whole other experience. You serve for a set period of time, and decide whether to indict defendants for crimes. A very trying experience, I'm sure (no pun intended!). I had a co-worker who served, and his experience paralleled the one you describe, Larry and Stephanie - secrecy reigned. I expect it's because all the grand jury does is indict; the trial comes later. If the grand jury were to release its information, it could compromise upcoming trials. The grand jury pool, as I understand it, is the same as the regular jury pool in a particular county. Hence, any of us could be called to serve if we are eligible for regular jury duty.

Stephanie Hochuli

January 22, 2002 - 02:18 pm

On a grand jury- Does the judge control the attorneys or is there just a prosecutor? Does the jury get to ask questions. Are there any protocol for them, that is different from regular. I do know that they go home at night.. Thank heaven.. I also have a neighbor who served on a civil trial. It was to do with stealing of information from a company by another. She said it was the most difficult thing she had ever done. There was so much information, so many rules, so many strange things. However they did not have to be held (?) to the same standards of guilt as a criminal trial. That one puzzled me.

SarahT

January 22, 2002 - 03:04 pm

Stephanie, in a civil trial, the standard of proof generally is a "more likely than not" standard, rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. There is also not generally a requirement that the jury verdict be unanimous. Since you're not depriving someone of their liberty in a civil case, the burden of proof is not as high.

I honestly don't know much about grand juries other than what I said before. I never practiced criminal law.

Larry Hanna

January 22, 2002 - 03:56 pm

I have been talking about the jury pool problem we are experiencing here in our county. I realize that this has very little, if anything to do with the book. However, in today's Atlanta paper there was an interesting article that discusses the problems we have in our county. If anyone is interested here is the link: Jury ruling still being scrutinized.

Here is the beginning of the article:

Speculation and uncertainty are now swirling through the Gwinnett County court system a week after a judge's ruling that brought Gwinnett criminal trials to an abrupt halt. No one seems sure if past convictions will be attacked, how long it will take before trials resume or how much of a backlog will be created in the meantime.

Larry

Ella Gibbons

January 24, 2002 - 11:16 am

HAS EVERYONE LEFT - TURNED OFF THE LIGHT IN HERE?

Am sorry I had to leave this book discussion, but have been ill and landed in the hospital; am home now but further tests are in order - Oh, golly!

Sarah, however, BLESS HER HEART, did a marvelous job of sharing her legal knowledge with all and I'd love it if we could give her a round of applause!

There are two trials coming up that I would love to watch if they are going to be televised and I thought perhaps those of you who watch Court TV might know. Is the John Walker trial going to be televised?

And in this week's TIME, there is an investigative report on the mother, Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children. I believe it will be going to trial soon also and I would like to watch it. While I'm home, resting up for another test, I'll watch some Court TV -

Can anyone name the station that this is on?

Have more comments to make, but enough for now. Need to know if anyone is still here - PLEASE POST IF YOU SEE THIS MESSAGE!

I feel as though I just put it in a bottle in the ocean hoping someone will pluck it out.

HELP, HELP!

SarahT

January 24, 2002 - 11:21 am

I suspect it's too early to know about the John Walker case, Ella. On the other, it sounds like a definite Court TV type case. Each cable system has Court TV on a different channel (and some don't have it at all). If you have cable, I'd call your Cable operator.

Ella Gibbons

January 24, 2002 - 11:37 am

Thanks Sarah! You can't tell me if it's on say, TLC, or A&E or something like that. Yes, I have cable, but my local paper just gives the evening programs - maybe if I bought a TV Guide? I've never done that either, I do believe I could live without a television, except for the news and a few others I like.

While I was in the hospital I asked my husband to gather up my library stuff and return it and he took back my A TRIAL BY JURY book; however I know I didn't understand that law vs. justice controversy.

Both concepts state the same thing don't they? We have a dead man and the jury must decide the extent to which the defendant is guilty.

The law says "beyond a reasonable doubt" - wouldn't justice be the same thing?

I'm not explaining this well, but can you tell me in simple language (for me, it must be plain and simple!) what the difference in this case is between law and justice?

Larry Hanna

January 24, 2002 - 03:47 pm

Ella, Court TV is a whole separate cable channel and would not be on A&E or TLC. If you don't have a cable guide, just start clicking the up arrow on your remote and unless they are in a commercial most of the cable channels show a little icon in the lower right-hand corner of the screen and the Court TV one says "Court TV". Of course, when I went to check this on my satellite connection they were having a commercial. If you can get thru to your cable company, what Sarah suggests is also a good idea. Here in Atlanta that isn't a good idea as AT&T Broadband usually has at least an hour or more delay before you can get to a person on the phone.

I think there is a big difference between the law and justice. I think we see examples of this in sentencing where someone who murders another person may get 5 years in jail and in another similar case may get life in prison. This is what the law may say in the applicable jurisdiction but is this really justice. Sarah, if I am offbase here please correct me. I think another area that illustrates this is the 3 strikes and you are out laws since they apparently give judges little discretion to make the punishment fit the crime.

It does look like we may have about come to the end of our discussion on the book, although our general discussion might continue for awhile since we are not getting many posters. I have found this to be a very interesting discussion.

Larry

SarahT

January 24, 2002 - 04:22 pm

On the law vs. justice question, Larry and Ella, I think both words have many meanings. In the context of the book, however, it was a very specific dichotomy: the law had limitations, and did not allow the jury to punish the defendant. Justice would have allowed them to punish him for killing the victim; law would not. The law requires very specific elements to prove your case; justice is a wide open concept.

Ella Gibbons

January 25, 2002 - 08:00 am

THANKS TO ALL WHO PARTICIPATED IN THIS LIVELY DISCUSSION AND WE HOPE TO MEET YOU IN ANOTHER BOOK DISCUSSION SOON!

Larry Hanna

January 25, 2002 - 03:56 pm

Thank you Ella and Sarah for leading this lively and very interesting discussion. I have enjoyed it.

Larry

SarahT

January 26, 2002 - 09:46 pm

Thank YOU, Larry. It was great "talking" to you.

And thanks to Ella and the other participants for an enjoyable discussion.