JURY SYSTEMS

I wager there is some reality to the statement. I was just reading how the children of the upper class are almost never found in the military. I have a feeling that this may apply with respect to juries.

Here is a pertinent, and humorous, quote.

"A jury is composed of twelve men of average ignorance. "
--Herbert Spencer

I've forgotten now who it was that said a jury is composed of 12 men whose job it is to decide which side has the better lawyer.

They also have no particular loyalty either to the prosecution or the defense. They are not in any sense part of the system doing the prosecution. They are liable to judge the defendant fairly, because they are his peers.

Not disagreeing with you, Brandon. I just like a clever put-down. Of anything or anybody.

Any system has flaws. However, our present system is too deeply flawed and should be trashed.

Why? Your arguments so far are false. What else you got?

Why are my arguments false? Oh, it is because you say so.


A lily-white jury handed down a verdict in the Rodney King case that so outraged the black community and others, that Los Angeles was transformed into an urban war zone. Shortly thereafter, a black jury rendered a verdict exonerating football star O. J. Simpson for the murder of his wife and her male friend. The acquittal of the King police officers for the brutal beating of a black man long after he was submissive and compliant seemed incomprehensible to the black community who, however, readily supported an acquittal of O. J. Simpson notwithstanding overwhelming scientific proof establishing, to the majority of Americans, his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many other, in this writer's opinion, examples by the thousands of verdicts rendered by something less than fair and impartial juries. One would think that seemingly aberrant verdicts would give rise to a groundswell of support for a refinement of our jury system aimed at enhancing the likelihood of fulfilling the entitlement of a fair and impartial jury. Surprisingly, many among the bench and bar are encouraging a movement that would severely restrict or even completely eliminate peremptory challenges. Perhaps it is not the intent of the establishment to abolish the jury system as much as it is simply a by-product of their larger plan to reform our tort reparation system; but whatever the objective, the result is the same. Exaggerated anecdotes, half truths and distorted results have all played their part in undermining the public's belief in one of our most cherished and valuable rights. Clearly this movement was driven by a desire to enhance the corporate bottom line.
--International Academy of Trial Lawyers

Your arguments would hold a lot more water, advocate, if you didn't spout so much factual nonsense. I don't know what the King jury's actual motivation was, but I can tell you for a fact that Rodney King was anything but "submissive and compliant" when the LA constabulary worked him over. I don't know if the Rodney King jury was shown the entire videotape or just that edited portion which all the TV networks kept replaying for our edification and shocked amazement. I have seen the entire tape (twice -- once at the FBI National Academy in Quantico, VA, once at the International Law Enforcement Academy at Roswell, NM, a US State Dept. facility). While I fully agree that the beating of King was in no sense justified, as he had been rendered prone and harmless, he was at no point, while conscious, "submissive and compliant." He kept trying to get up from the prone position. The LA cops kept beating him down. There was no need to do that, I agree, but Rodney King was not compliant.

As for the O.J. Simpson jury, I wasn't on it so am in no position to judge whether Simpson was or was not guilty of the double murder. However, as an outside observer, it's quite easy to see where the jury would have concluded that there was "reasonable doubt." The prosecution's witnesses shot the prosecution squarely in the kneecap, insuring that a good defense attorney could make the jury see that the evidence could conceivably be tainted, given the character of some of the people who had gathered and handled it.

A jury can base its decision only on the evidence which has been presented to it. It is not omniscient.

I am glad that you agree that the police acted improperly in the King case. He was intoxicated and didn't fully comply by trying to rise. But the beating was disgusting and warranted convictions. A professional jury would have had no trouble in convicting. As it was, the acquittals caused a terrible riot with many injuries and property loss. I expect this type of thing to happen again and again.

In the OJ case, there was a mountain of evidence saying that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if the jury chose to reject a few pieces of evidence, this should not have brought an acquittal. For instance, the blood evidence alone was more than just powerful. The victims' blood was found in OJ's Bronco and in his driveway and house. What more is needed? But a double murderer went free to play golf in FL for the rest of his life.

A professional jury would have never let him off the hook.

As you probably know, the five-month long trial of Phil Spector just ended with a hung jury. It was ten to two for conviction. It seems that a famous person cannot be convicted in LA.

Spector had pulled guns on a host of men and women, told his driver that he thought he killed a woman, hid his bloody coat, wiped down the gun, etc., and, through his top-notch lawyers, conned some on the jury to believe that the woman committed suicide.

How can anyone defend our jury system in the face of this type of fiasco.

Sure I can, and I will.

For most people, when they hear the phrase "jury duty", their first thought is how to get out of it. Jury duty ends up being, often enough, the provenance of the unemployed, the elderly, and the folks who couldn't think up a good enough excuse to get out of it. If intelligent, reasonable and fair people spent their time serving rather than ditching, you'd see more intelligent verdicts.

PS Re OJ -- not to open up that can of worms again, but there were not "mountains of evidence" vs. him. Rather, it was an enormous amount of smoke and mirrors, very poorly presented by people who were a lot more interested in making their careers than in making a case. They never actually put OJ at the scene of the crime, and the defense had a field day with that. Same thing with the gloves, a ridiculous rookie mistake. You never, ever, ever ask a question you don't know the answer to, and the question was, had the gloves shrunk? Of course they had, wet leather, improperly stored, tends to do that. The defense also seized on that like a dog with a bone.

Was their evidence? Sure there was, but it was hidden under the piles of bullshit and preening that were going on, and all the flirty-flirt nonsense between Clark and Darden. Don't blame the jury, or even OJ, for the fact that the DA's office put on such a laugher of a prosecution.

You should also consider the acquittals for Robert Blake and Michael Jackson, despite overwhelming evidence showing guilt. All one needs in LA to beat the rap is lots of money.

I am extremely familiar with the OJ trial, and can say that you are completely wrong.

The prosecution actually did a good job, but you had an undereducated black jury, suspicious of the police, which was not about to convict. Did you know that the victims' blood was found in OJ's Blazer and home. But the jury believed Cochran that the police planted the blood. Puleez! It was shown that OJ had plenty of time to murder, and there was a witness (a driver) who saw someone looking like OJ going into OJ's house just after the time of the murder. There was a ton of other evidence showing guilt.

In the subsequent civil trial, with a more educated and less biased jury, OJ was quickly deemed the killer.

I had no idea we were suddenly discussing all of LA's criminal justice system. Let's not change the dynamics, mmmkay? Plus I have no time to review every single case out there, sorry.

Now, about that DNA evidence. Yes, no prob, I concede. But what do people remember? Ask a bunch of people, and do it with an even tone in your voice, no leading inflections, words or gestures. Just Do you remember the OJ trial from the '90s?. And be sure to ask it of nonlawyers and non Law students. Get this info from people who actually would serve on juries, like your letter carrier, or the guy bagging groceries, or a neighborhood dog walker. And dollars to donuts, people will mention one or more of the following:

• the glove
  
• Marcia Clark or Chris Darden
  
• Judge Ito
  
• Mark Fuhrman
  
• Jonnie Cochran
  
• loads of TV coverage
  
• OJ's supposed search for the 'real' killers

Few, if any, will mention DNA. Why? Because that evidence, which was very real and should have been front and center, was buried under a ton of crap and innuendo and flirty nonsense and everyone getting in their own little personal soundbite. Yes, I pin the media for some of this. They saw the story, continually fed it to us and we, as consumers, lapped it up, so the cycle continued.

But you have to toss some of that blame on the prosecution. Get the DNA out there and in the open. And keep it front and center no matter what else is happening. And explain -- something that was not done to the jury's satisfaction -- why this DNA was important. After all, when you visit a place regularly, as he clearly did (his kids lived there), you leave DNA around, whether you cut yourself on a sharp corner cabinet or you blow your nose and leave the tissue in the trash. Better prosecutorial presentation addresses those issues and shows why this particular DNA mattered. Better prosecutorial presentation would have also dealt with Fuhrman, who absolutely shot the prosecution in the foot, pun not intended.

As for the verdict in the civil case, that's apples and oranges. The burden of proof was considerably less (as it always is) and you had a jury that may've felt they were the only ones who could 'do anything' and so they may have gone in with unconscious biases. Feeling you're the last bastion between civilization and a nonconvicted killer is going to create a bias, even if it's not an acknowledged one.

You have been trying -- for quite a while -- to sell your idea of a paid professional jury. While the jury system is far from perfect it is not something that will be fixed by creating another layer of insulated arbiters of the law. Actually, your statements prove my point -- the problem with jury work is that no one wants to do it, so the smart and the successful get out of it. Get them on juries. Make them do their civic duty.

Basically, you made my case. A professional jury would be immune to the BS put forward by the defense, and would focus on the evidence that is really valid.

Your wish that we somehow get better juries by limiting exclusions is utopian. Let's hope this happens, but even were it to happen, I think there would be little improvement in the quality of verdicts in difficult cases. For instance, the jury instructions in the Spector case filled, as I recall, 42 pages, and were exceedingly complex. I doubt that, say, a CPA could reasonably cope with this. Moreover, there is little, if any, likelihood that your wish will ever be implemented.

But defense attorneys are delighted that there are a lot of people like yourself who, mindlessly, have this enduring affection for the current unworkable jury system.

This case really illustrates the failure of our jury system.


Spector faces murder case retrial
Oct 4, 2007

Music producer Phil Spector is to face a retrial on a charge of murdering actress Lana Clarkson, officials have confirmed.

Spector's first trial ended in a mistrial last month when the jury were deadlocked 10-2, with the majority favouring conviction.

Lawyers have been back to court, and prosecutor Alan Jackson formally confirmed that the district attorney's office will retry Spector.

But he will be seeking a new legal team after lead defence lawyer Roger Rosen announced that he will not be back for the second trial.

One member of the team, Christopher Plourd, said he would remain as counsel to Spector for a time but said the star was "looking for a new lawyer".

Spector, 67, is accused of murdering Miss Clarkson, 40, on February 3, 2003, at his California mansion.

The actress met Spector in her job as a nightclub hostess and went home with him after work. She died of a gunshot fired inside her mouth while seated.

At his trial, the prosecution contended that Spector has a history of threatening women with guns when they try to leave his presence.

The defence sought to show that Miss Clarkson was depressed by career struggles and other problems and that the gunshot was self-inflicted, either an accident or a suicide.

The legal team which defended Spector during the trial was his third. The first team was fired and the second resigned.