Reasonable Doubt.

[pat]

I was going to write about the two Jackson jury members that basically said they were browbeaten into voting for an acquittal. Now a third has come forth.

In the first two cases, the jurors said they were threatened with removal from the jury by the foreman if they did not change their vote. This is not as ridiculous as it might sound: the foreman clearly had no authority to throw anyone of the jury. However, if you remember the Scott Peterson trial, the jury was deadlocked for a long time, the judge replaced two jurors, and voila! they reached a guilty verdict. I can see where someone who was not too thoughtful might come to the conclusion that recalcitrant jurors could be removed, if not by the foreman, then by the judge at the foreman's behest. (The way the Peterson trial was handled in its final phases may have impacts on jury deliberations for years to come.)

So what? They had an obligation to vote their consciences, and they failed. They had a duty to risk being removed. Had that happened, I would have no problem with them going public. (The book deals -- sheesh.) I have little respect for them. So they come forward now -- what is going to happen other than they make money off it all?

The third juror is a different case entirely. The woman said yes, she thought Jackson was guilty. But she questioned whether his accuser might be lying, and in the end felt there was reasonable doubt.

That's the way it's supposed to work, folks. That's why an acquittal does not mean an exoneration. "Not Guilty" really, in many cases, means "Not Proven." If there is a reasonable doubt, you're supposed to let the accused go.

Taking away a man's liberty is a very serious thing. In this country, I worry too often that jurors do not in fact honor that "reasonable doubt" standard, but fall back upon a "I think he did it" standard.* (If you read about criminal law, and about the evidence that has placed people in prison or death row, you have to wonder. And that's not including police or prosecutorial malfeasance.) Regardless of how I feel about the Jackson verdict, I have a great deal of respect for that third juror.

She gets it.




*In case you're curious, the burden of proof in a civil case is "the preponderance of the evidence," which means that more evidence supports one side as opposed to another, which is closer to "I think he did it."

Comments

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

I was once on a jury which had to vote on 11 counts. We were absolutely positive that he had done every single thing he was accused of, but he was only proven guilty for 6, so we voted guilty for 6 and not guilty for the other 5.

One of the jurors felt awful because he was a cop who was ruining his life.

While the case was coming to trial, the accused was studying for a law degree. Presumably, when he got out of jail, he was able to use it.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I was glad to read this. Part of the problem, like most things, is that you don't read when the system works as it should.

Whether or not he was able to use the law degree would depend upon what he went to jail for.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

Taking away a man's liberty is a very serious thing.

Speaking as someone who has covered a lot of trials, and who has served on a jury four times, I say *sing it*!

I'm still disturbed by the Peterson verdict. As much as I think he did it. It's an odd place to be.

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I find the Peterson verdict very troubling. There were questions about how the police conducted the case, and the removal of two jurors from the jury after deliberations bother me. One of those jurors clearly needed to be removed, but I have questions about the removal of the jury foreman.