Thanks Natsound - that is a good article.
I take exception to the part about the people who "don't trust the jury system".
This trial has highlighted the deficiencies within our current jury system. By their own words, members of this jury revealed that they did not do what they were instructed to do. They used their own criteria to render a verdict and clearly did not understand some of the jury instructions.
To accuse those who vociferously disagree with the verdict (and criticize the justifications for the verdict) as being somehow unpatriotic and against the constitution is offensive.
We have seen our jury system corrupted by jury selection experts.
We have seen our jury system corrupted by "stealth" jurors who render a surprise verdict with an eye toward how much they will gain financially for said verdict.
We have seen people excused from jury duty for any reason with the result being a jury too dumb to get out of jury duty.
We have seen on TV both the OJ Simpson trial and the Casey Anthony trial
We have a right and responsibility to speak out - it is our duty and obligation as citizens. It is also the duty and obligation of our respective legislatures to enact some changes. There have been some excellent suggestions on this Websleuth forum.
I don't want the next Casey Anthony acquitted.
Excellent post - definitely worth quoting.
The entire process of
voie dire needs serious overhauling, imo. Having gone through this myself, I no longer believe that any jury is a "jury of one's peers". Jurors are carefully and methodically selected with the defendant/plaintiff getting to choose the people whom he or she believes will be most favorable to his/her side. When they can pick and choose the jurors who will render the verdict in his/her case, it becomes apparent that certain individuals aren't wanted due to their education, financial status, knowledge of the law, etc.
When I served on a jury in a civil case (professional malpractice), I was in the original group of 40 random potential jurors. Seven people would be seated for the trial that was supposed to last two weeks. Once
voie dire commenced, the process was painstakingly slow with little progress being made and few jurors selected in a little over an hour.
The Judge called for a break at that time, and when we returned to the courtroom, the attorneys went to a sidebar. When they returned to their seats, the Judge told everyone that he was not going to bring in another group of 40 potential jurors as he saw no reason why they could not find seven individuals from the first group. He admonished the attorneys for the tedious process that was taking too long, and that he expected opening statements after lunch.
If the plaintiff had been able to choose from another group of jurors, I would never have been seated on the panel. The plaintiff clearly wanted uneducated, middle class folks who would side with her against a prominent member of the legal profession. A panel with this composition would NOT be a jury of this successful, wealthy business-owner's peers. You'll pardon my crassness when I say that the system sucks :innocent: