Serving on a Jury
Most Americans
have seen episodes of Law & Order
or old re-runs of Perry Mason television
shows and think they know what it’s like to be a juror. However, unlike most fictionalized accounts,
nothing seems so cut and dried in a real courtroom. In my experience, at least, there was no
crying admission from the guilty party being questioned on the stand. (In fact, the defendant didn’t testify at all
in his defense.) No one rushed in toward
the end of the trial with information that proved what actually happened. There was not even any plea deal in the works.
No, in the second degree burglary case
in Albany a few weeks ago, there were many unanswered questions in the mind of
the jurors when we were asked to deliberate.
Here you have twelve people of differing ages, from all walks of life, who
don’t know each other being ushered into a deliberation room after the closing
arguments. The foreperson, who will
eventually read the verdict, is not actually in charge; no one is. There is necessarily, I suppose, that awkward
moment at first and the question: “Where do we begin?”
Before
the trial started, we jurors had been instructed by the judge to try to assess
the accuracy and credibility of the witnesses. We weren’t allowed to take notes at any time, mainly
so that we could concentrate on the words and demeanor of the witnesses to see
if they appeared to be believable. During
deliberations, we were permitted, even encouraged, to have testimony from any
or all witnesses re-read in the courtroom by the court reporter. We were reminded, especially by the defense
attorney, that police officers are human and may make mistakes. Their testimony was not to be considered more
trustworthy than other witnesses simply by the fact that they came from people wearing
uniforms. Two of the main witnesses in
the case—one for the prosecution and the other for the defense—are felons serving
time for the burglary in question. These two
individuals, each led into court in their prison clothing and in shackles, had
conflicting versions of who was present and what occurred on the night of the crime. I believe the jury was
unanimous in believing that neither was telling the whole truth. One juror had the idea of using a white
board to list the statements by each of these witnesses so that we could try to
determine which one was more credible. 
Another
charge from the judge was to examine the evidence presented during the trial. Two types of evidence exist in criminal
trials: direct and circumstantial. From
what I understand, direct evidence is based solely on fact; examples include reliable
witness testimony, audio or surveillance
tapes. With circumstantial evidence,
on the other hand the jury is left to infer the defendant’s guilt or lack thereof. Unfortunately, in this particular case, much of
the evidence was circumstantial. For instance, police
had collected a pair of latex gloves found at and near the scene of
the crime which contained the defendant's DNA, but also that of others. Not being experts in genetic
material, our group decided to have the long and somewhat complicated report by
the DNA expert re-read to us in court.
Some jurors were convinced of the defendant’s participation in the crime by
this evidence while others were not. Verdict:
a hung jury resulting in a mistrial. I
suppose this conclusion was unsatisfactory for all involved, but I believe that
we all sincerely tried to come to a decision and that this was the best we could do
given the facts of the case.
1 comments:
We are immensely grateful for the outstanding professionalism demonstrated by the staff at Bedford Village during the entire process of planning and executing our wedding ceremony. Their wedding halls , meticulous organization, combined with an unwavering commitment to excellence, ensured that every detail was flawlessly executed. From coordinating logistics to managing the flow of events, their expertise was evident at every turn.
Post a Comment