I have long assumed that most jurors would prefer not to be there, that very few people relish the idea of confronting criminals, crimes, judges, and lawyers up close and personal. From my web-surfing I've found ample evidence that even in high-profile trials most people try to be excused from jury duty. But maybe people who live in Las Vegas are different.

I just Googled "juror experiences" and found a lawyer's blog, http://juryology.com/2006/07/one-jurors-experience.php, with a link to this former Las Vegas juror's blog post: http://www.bloggingvegas.com/lasvegas/opinion/jury_duty_101-11066.html.

When the TV pundits said that the O. J. Simpson jury didn't laugh much, I took that as a sign they weren't having fun. Now, the same pundits are wondering if this will be another case of "jury nullification" because they finally laughed at a star witness.

It seems to me that if a jury would rather not be in court, then they're more likely to take the situation seriously.  If trials are just another form of entertainment for Las Vegas juries, though, I think everyone in Las Vegas is in trouble--especially O. J. Simpson.

I've never been to Las Vegas. I've specifically avoided it. I don't want to be in a place where prostitution is legal because they think it's a "victimless crime." (The victim is the prostitute.) So, I won't make any assumptions about the above blogging juror or extrapolate to the entire community. I don't know enough to form an opinion.

Assuming that the O. J. Simpson jury is more like a real American jury than that single Vegas juror, I suspect by now they're fed up. The alleged crimes seem to me to be nothing but the stupid antics of a bunch of "men behaving badly" when no adult supervision was available. This isn't me (one juror) wanting to nullify the law. Robbery should be illegal. I would never nullify a law against it, no matter who owned the stolen property. This is me (one juror) saying that no matter how you parse the language of the Nevada statutes concerning robbery, armed robbery, and kidnapping the current trial isn't revealing that these crimes occurred.

If I were on that jury, right now I would have heard that the two defendants are facing life imprisonment, a draconian punishment for a ridiculous "event." I would know that one of the accusers actually apologized to Simpson for having the property in question and that the other accuser is possibly mentally ill. I would know that most of the prosecution witnesses were threatened with life imprisonment if they refused to testify against Simpson. I would know that neither of the defendants was carrying a weapon during the incident. It would take some very dramatic testimony to incline me to convict the defendants on any but the most trivial of the charges.

And I find O. J. disgusting, and I don't live in a state that thinks prostitution isn't a crime against women and children.