“Do jurors solve mysteries?”

Yikes! Only an idiot would say “Yes” to that question, especially someone who obviously wants to be chosen to serve on the Anthony jury (which in itself is proof of idiocy). And, yes, someone said “Yes.”

Jury selection in the Casey Anthony trial continues at a snail’s pace, even though opening arguments were scheduled to begin today. IMHO—and I am not a lawyer—this situation arises from a mistake on Judge Belvin Perry’s part: he should have conducted voir dire concerning hardship exemptions and death penalty “qualifications” on the entire group, rather than one at a time.

If he had conducted a group voir dire, a simple show of hands would have eliminated those jurors who genuinely could not serve for a two-month trial. Another show of hands would have eliminated those jurors who did not feel they could impose the death penalty in any case.

After that, a third show of hands would have indicated which jurors had heard a great deal about the case from the media and who felt they could not disregard the pre-trial publicity.

Another benefit of group voir dire would have been that the “tainting” of the jury pool, which occurred early last week, would not have happened. Apparently a prospective juror was also a prospective witness in the trial. Surely such a person would have raised his hand to admit he knew a great deal about the case.

Understanding of Civics

Much as I’m interested in juries and jury selection, even I can’t bear to listen to any more of this. What I’ve learned is that people in Florida don’t seem to have received a very good civics education. Even college-educated jurors seem confused by questions such as:

• “Could you consider the age of a defendant in making a determination of life or death?” (One person responded, “I don’t know why you’re asking me this,” as if she had a right to be offended by it.)
• “Do you think that anyone who’s on trial is probably guilty?” (One person said, “Yes. Somebody must have thought they were guilty at some point or they wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place.”)
• “Can you set aside your religious beliefs” [concerning the death penalty] “and follow the law as the judge explains it to you?” (One person said, “Yes.” Hmmm. Having heard this interchange, I concluded this person wants to be on the jury for some reason; otherwise why would anybody state in public that they are willing to be hypocritical?)
• “Do you understand why the defendant doesn’t have to present a case? In other words, do you think it’s possible to prove a negative?” (One person said, “I don’t know what you mean by that.”)

Jury Reform

In recent years, various legal organizations have studied the need for what they call “jury reform.” A 2005 article (The Verdict on Juries) in the ABA Journal summarizes what it is that most lawyers and judges would like to see change:

• Better pay
• Widening the pool of prospective jurors (including using unemployment roles, which actually makes sense because the unemployed would have no work-related conflicts and could use the pay, if it were at least a living wage)
• Permitting jurors to ask question
• Permitting jurors to take notes
• Protection of juror privacy
• Requiring 12 person juries in all cases, both civil and criminal
• Requiring unanimous verdicts in all cases, both civil and criminal

I don’t quibble with any of these reforms, other than some of the ways in which to widen the jury pool, because I don’t believe that everyone has been taught the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or even any history of the 20th century, without which they can never possibly understand why minorities should be tried by a jury of other minority people, among other things.

The one reform that’s most needed is a way of educating prospective jurors about what they are supposed to do and not supposed to do in the jury room. Jurors need to be provided with guidance on the following:

• Process of selecting a foreperson
• Process of thoroughly reviewing evidence presented in the trial
• Process of reaching consensus without compromising or bullying
• What it means specifically that the jurors are to “use their common sense and life experiences” in reaching a decision
• What they are forbidden by law to do, including conducting their own investigation (both in the jury room and outside the courthouse) and what the consequences may be if they do it anyway
• What the consequences to them may be if they “hang,” by which I mean that the judge must assure them that it is not illegal for them to fail to reach a verdict or reach consensus
• Why it is a bad idea to talk to the press after a trial

My guess is that:

• One of the pushier women (a nurse, perhaps) on the Casey Anthony jury is going to volunteer to be foreperson, and she will be an awful foreperson.
• The jury will fail to review all the evidence and instead focus only on one or two points taken from the prosecution’s closing argument.
• No one on the jury will really understand what “reasonable doubt” is.
• No one on the jury will know a good process for debating the facts.
• Someone on the jury will say at some point, “The judge told us to use common sense and our life experiences. Well, I’m a [fill in the profession] and I know for a fact that what Mr. Witness said is false.”
• Someone else on the jury will say at some point, “I don’t like the way the prosecution seemed to skip right over that fact, as if it were meaningless, but I think it’s very important.” And someone else will say, “If the prosecution didn’t mention it, then we can’t talk about it.”
• Someone on the jury will take out an item of evidence and study it at length. And in the end he or she will say, “Look at this. Why didn’t they notice this in the trial? Look at it. Shake it. Smell it. This proves the defense was lying.”

Because apparently a lot of Florida jurors think the jury’s role is to “solve the mystery.”