Professional Jurors

[rbrnmw2]

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

I would think if only used in Capital cases it would violate equal protection and due process rights

 

[sorrell skye]

I suppose the question here was: given the evidence of Ms Anthony from June 16 onward, the decomp car, the lying, the remains close to the home, th evidence in the trunk and on the computer and so on, is it reasonable to believe that she had nothing to do with the murder? I don't think so, but the jury seems to have bought into the idea that it's quite normal for a former police officer to stage an accident to look like a murder and put duct tape on the face of a child that accidentally drowned - apparently, that appeared more reasonable to the jury.

bbm

As I stated in a previous post, the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective and open to interpretation.

Based on the one juror and the alternate jurors that have come forward to give interviews, it would seem that the jurors could not even agree that a murder had occurred - they claimed they had doubt.

IMO, this illustrates the problem regarding reasonable doubt. It illustrates the subjectivity as to the definition of reasonable doubt.

I have listened to attorneys discuss this case post-verdict, and some of them have admitted that reasonable doubt is an extremely difficult concept to define.

If reasonable doubt is subjective (which I believe it is) then how can any interpretation of it be trusted, whether or not the ultimate verdict is guilty or not guilty?

As far as I'm concerned, the basic problem begins and ends with the definition and interpretation of reasonable doubt.

 

[otto]

bbm

As I stated in a previous post, the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective and open to interpretation.

Based on the one juror and the alternate jurors that have come forward to give interviews, it would seem that the jurors could not even agree that a murder had occurred - they claimed they had doubt.

IMO, this illustrates the problem regarding reasonable doubt based on what the evidence suggests. It illustrates the subjectivity as to the definition of reasonable doubt.

I have listened to attorneys discuss this case post-verdict, and some of them have admitted that reasonable doubt is an extremely difficult concept to define.

If reasonable doubt is subjective (which I believe it is) then how can any interpretation of it be trusted, whether or not the ultimate verdict is guilty or not guilty?

As far as I'm concerned, the basic problem begins and ends with the definition and interpretation of reasonable doubt.

After three years of investigation, the evidence was put before the jury. We have heard that they couldn't figure out how Caylee died, so they couldn't attach any kind of punishment. I don't see that as reasonable doubt, but rather as the jury being completly confused about what they were supposed to be doing. No lawyer is going to stand up and declare that the jury was confused because that puts the entire system in question ... which is a violation of professional code of conduct. Instead, lawyers have to say that the system works, the jury did their jobs, but at the same time we know that the jury was considering points that were outside of the scope of their task.

I'm in favor of jury education, not professional jurors.

 

[bessie]

Professional jurors? :nerves: Scary notion.

How about running instructional videos on due process in jurors lounges while potential jurors are sitting around waiting to be called?

 

[otto]

Professional jurors? :nerves: Scary notion.

How about running instructional videos on due process in jurors lounges while potential jurors are sitting around waiting to be called?

I like that idea. That combines what I suggested about education, someone else suggested cost effectiveness. If selected for the jury, a short multiple choice quiz could be given regarding basics like: whether the prosecution is required to present a motive, whether actual cause of death must be known in order to determine that it was a murder, etc.

That would eliminate that a problem, like what happened in this case, happens again.

 

[Saffron]

I've been "thanking" both points of view in this thread. So many of you have such good reasoning about this and I'm learning as I read along. It's a frustrating subject, that's for sure.

 

[otto]

There would have to be more video education for death penalty qualified juries, but I think it would be an effective, inexpensive, education tool that could be used to ensure that jurors are clear on the parameters of their task.

I get the distinct impression that someone in the jury room re: Ms Anthony had an agenda of expectations that were debated even though they were not factors in the decision. Something took the jury off track and into debating, and being influenced by, areas that did not concern them ... I think that mandatory education is the solution.

 

[Stella5]

I'm torn on the subject of professional jurors as there is pro's and con's to consider. With that being said one thing I discussed at length with an attorney friend is whether or not it would be a good idea to let the jurors discuss the case during the trial. IMHO in this trial, I honestly believe it would have benefited the jurors to be able to discuss the trial on a nightly basis of what happened that particular day during court. To be kept completely silent for 6 months; and then to try to remember what you heard and make your points to your fellow jurors would be extremely difficult IMO.... especially when you fail to take notes and leave your notebook on your chair when you retire to deliberate. Something needs to change... whether a Professional Juror is appointed the foreman for each & every trial to guide deliberations... or whether we let jurors deliberate or discuss the trial throughout the trial. The system certainly isn't perfect, and it does need to be fixed. Our fore fathers wanted us judged by a jury of our peers 200 plus years ago.... a lot has changed in 200 years. MOO

 

[erynne936]

No to professional jurors - too easy to corrupt! But I do support a workshop/training to educate jurors and an IQ/comprehension test. Because of all the CSI etc programs jurors apparently need to be educated re how things are in a real life trial as opposed to what they have seen on TV.

 

[2goldfish]

my husband's been denigrating juries of peers since the jury selection for this one began - he in from hungary and there, they have bench trials.

I was reading this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ows-revolted-parents-sickening-pantomime.html

which is about japan, which appears to use a "jury" of 6 judges.

a poster, I forget who, said she'd heard that if you are guilty, choose jury ...if innocent, choose a judge....because they know the law and understand all the evidence so will judge you accordingly in both cases.

between these things, I do NOT think professional jurors are the answer....nor some professional and some "peers". I think the fairest in almost all cases, is a bench trial or a jury made up of judges.

 

[otto]

my husband's been denigrating juries of peers since the jury selection for this one began - he in from hungary and there, they have bench trials.

I was reading this article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ows-revolted-parents-sickening-pantomime.html

which is about japan, which appears to use a "jury" of 6 judges.

a poster, I forget who, said she'd heard that if you are guilty, choose jury ...if innocent, choose a judge....because they know the law and understand all the evidence so will judge you accordingly in both cases.

between these things, I do NOT think professional jurors are the answer....nor some professional and some "peers". I think the fairest in almost all cases, is a bench trial or a jury made up of judges.

There is a new book about the murder of Lucie Blackman that explains the Japanese judicial system in great detail.

Just looked at the article and that is just like a few other murders of British women that go to Japan to work as illegals in the hostess industry ... which is very close to the prostitution industry.

 

[lorann]

I would hate the thought of going to professional jurors but would rather cherish the thought of a professional trial. The judge hurried jury selection to meet deadlines and save money. Due to fearing the almighty appeal, the defense was allowed to disobey the guidelines set up. The sidebars in this case caused so many times the jury had to leave the courtroom and be idle. So the line of questioning lost impetus - a tactic used by both sides. Had the judge curtailed some of these tactics, the jurors would have been more alert. Jury instructions should be more clear cut and written so each juror could understand, they need to be told simply - you can find this person guilty of murder and vote the death penalty, you can find this person guilty of manslaughter, or you can find this person innocent of all charges. I think jurors should have to go over the evidence and weigh the importance. There are always going to be people who have stronger personalities who can sway and those who are easily swayed. Had the trial been controlled better, less idle time, maybe these jurors wouldn't have been so eager to just get it over with.

ETA It was obvious that the jury were discussing this case - asking for the heart sticker etc. and the we felt by the alternative juror. I thought someone was with them before they went into deliberations...

 

[Tuffy]

No to professional jurors - too easy to corrupt! But I do support a workshop/training to educate jurors and an IQ/comprehension test. Because of all the CSI etc programs jurors apparently need to be educated re how things are in a real life trial as opposed to what they have seen on TV.

I'm not so worried about IQ as I am about common sense in this case. There appeared to be some college educated jurors, and yet...

I hope this country never changes the justice system. Our country was founded on the idea that common men could rule themselves. We don't need royalty, or specially trained people to rule us. That makes our society a little more dangerous, but freedom doesn't equal safety. There is a risk involved in living free. The risk in our justice system, is that the guilty might not get convicted. Our forefathers believed that was better than the risk of incarcerating the innocent.

IMO, it would be way worse to have a system that is either secret, or doesn't guarantee a jury by your peers. If you are accused of a crime, you have the right to a jury by your peers, but you could choose to have a judge hear, and decide your case too.

Keep in mind, this is something that our forefathers knew about, and had decided that it was worth dying for to not have to live without that right.

 

[rbrnmw2]

http://florida.fija.org/about/

With people like this running around this verdict will be repeated

 

[PaulaF513]

Here's another reason I don't think the jury understood reasonable doubt: Most people do not understand circumstantial evidence and it appears this jury certainly did not.

Ballistics, DNA testing, forensics, fingerprints, all of that is circumstantial evidence. The opposite of circumstantial evidence is direct evidence. Direct evidence is a witness who actually saw the crime committed, for example.

Many cases do not involve any direct evidence. Few people seem to understand that. Thus, they give circumstantial evidence far less weight than it should have.

Well we learn every day...I always thought that fingerprints were direct evidence....and that DNA was leaning strongly in the same direction. That kind of makes moot the many arguments that neither were found to link directly to KC, hence the NG verdict.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

The thought of professional jurors makes me cringe as well. Our legal system does need revamped in a number of ways, but I do not think professional jurors is the answer. I do not think a group of professional jurors in this case would have changed the outcome. The state simply did not prove the charges beyond a resonable doubt.

When a man or woman with the same criminal background gets 20 years to life, for the exact same crime a different man or woman with the same criminal background gets 5 years probation, the system needs work.

When a man or woman gets 2 years in prison for their first DUI, and a different man or woman gets 6 months probation for their 6th DUI, the system needs work.

When a person can be clumsy, spill hot coffee on their crotch and win a million dollar lawsuit because the coffee was too hot, our system needs work.

Our country is progressing technologically at an unbelievable pace, and the law is not keeping up. Maybe, the juror of the future will be an android that has a computer brain with all the laws downloaded into it, and a set of lie detector eyes, that can tell if the witness is lying. The androids would be devoid of emotion, know who was lying, know the letter of the law, and would base its verdict on the just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[Tuffy]

The thought of professional jurors makes me cringe as well. Our legal system does need revamped in a number of ways, but I do not think professional jurors is the answer. I do not think a group of professional jurors in this case would have changed the outcome. The state simply did not prove the charges beyond a resonable doubt.

When a man or woman with the same criminal background gets 20 years to life, for the exact same crime a different man or woman with the same criminal background gets 5 years probation, the system needs work.

When a man or woman gets 2 years in prison for their first DUI, and a different man or woman gets 6 months probation for their 6th DUI, the system needs work.

When a person can be clumsy, spill hot coffee on their crotch and win a million dollar lawsuit because the coffee was too hot, our system needs work.

Our country is progressing technologically at an unbelievable pace, and the law is not keeping up. Maybe, the juror of the future will be an android that has a computer brain with all the laws downloaded into it, and a set of lie detector eyes, that can tell if the witness is lying. The androids would be devoid of emotion, know who was lying, know the letter of the law, and would base its verdict on the just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

I completely agree with you. I don't think we could change anything with our system that would solve the problems that you list, though. Do you have any ideas that would address the disparity? Much of it is due to the differences between jurisdictions, and the opinions of each case. I don't know if we should go to a one size fits all punishment system, as I think it really does need to go case by case.

 

[gmt]

I support the idea one poster had here to video tape the deliberations for a Judge to review before verdict to see if jurors did their job.

 

[Etilema]

How about jury duty that is like being the the National Guard--you serve one week a year or something, and receive special training throughout the year to keep you up-to-date on forensics, legal theory, etc?

 

[EgyptNug]

I think professional jurors are the way to go. Educated, fair jurors.

I have a friend who lives on an island of less than 10,000 residents. They have permanent jurors that work part time and they take the job seriously. They are nominated/elected every couple of years, just like judges are here in the US. I think the process works.

It's clear from this case that the CSI effect has created an unreasonable standard that is far higher than historical US guilty verdict expectations. Before 30-40 years ago there wasn't (generally) videotapes to capture actions, and there wasn't dna testing - it was 99% circumstantial. But people nowadays (potential jurors) that watch tv 20 hours a week and see these crime shows think that if there's no dna or video tapes for the crime, then there's reasonable doubt. They do not seem to understand that most criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I don't see how we're going to combat the misconceptions of jurors in their belief that circumstantial evidence = not guilty. I think it would be far easier and more realistic to nominate professional jurors. Intellient jurors that are not looking to get out of Dodge in 12 hours or less deliberation..