It was just like high school: the jurors got to know each other, had lunch together, shared some laughs during recess. During the six-week trial, things could get frustrating, too: Each of us had our own beliefs and ideas—and prejudices.
Mix that in with the people who were in a rush to get back to work or tired of jury duty, and we got a dead end. This could have been the end of it. I would go on with my fashionable life, return to my husband and being a mother.
But something happened for me. I found out after the trial that at the re-trial, the district attorney was seeking life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences for both James and Robert. It was such an awful, confusing, impossible notion to me.
So I kept in touch with both attorneys. Less than four months later, in October, it began — and without James beside him, all eyes were on Robert, tattoos and all. Another juror from the first trial, Jill, and myself decided to attend this new trial. At the opening arguments, he saw us, and, I think, recognized us, giving a small nod in our direction. I observed the new set of jurors, seated as we had been, listening to all of the same pieces of evidence.
They mostly seemed older, some a bit stone-faced, which gave me a strange feeling. I was so anxious for Robert. Later on that day, I heard from his attorney that the jurors had asked to review some evidence, which gave me a surge of confidence.
Less than 24 hours later, I got a text saying there was already a verdict. When we got there an hour later, we sat down, the jurors came in, and none of them looked towards the seating area—except the last one.
My heart sunk. I was floored. Then I started to call every lawyer I could in California, then other states, getting to know the law and how sentences work. The following week, he actually called me. He sounded so young. It was difficult to speak freely, as every few minutes I was reminded by an automatic voice that the call could be listened to and recorded. We had another call few weeks later, and he seemed a bit more cheerful. S entencing came a few days shy of Christmas.
Life without parole: a death sentence with a different sticker on it. It was never proven that Robert was the shooter in this crime, and he was shown to be a contributing U. Juries are a key part of our legal system.
They're generally made up of 12 people who are tasked with hearing evidence presented in a trial and returning a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The key reason is that juries help people trust the justice system. Without juries, trials would be decided by a single judge who might not be representative of the broader population instead of a group of people representing a cross-section of society. Think about someone who is particularly biased or prejudiced: if they were deciding on a case themselves, the outcome could be very different than if they had to reach agreement with 11 other people in a jury room.
Having a jury also forces lawyers to explain things in terms an average person can understand, rather than a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo. After all, we need to understand the law if we're going to avoid breaking it, says Jacqui Horan, a jury researcher and associate professor at Monash University. Look, I get it. You saw the jury duty letter and thought, "How I am going to get out of this? We all have busy lives and jury duty can be a major inconvenience.
But, like voting, it's an important civic duty that we shouldn't take for granted. I'll get to this shortly. All that said, sometimes jury duty is going to be impractical or impossible, which is why courts allow people to be exempted or excused in certain circumstances. Here's a short and abridged list of some of the reasons you might be excused, courtesy of David Tait, a professor of justice research at Western Sydney University.
For most people though, simply having to work is not going to be a good enough reason to avoid jury service. For a case in point, consider the chief financial officer who tried to dodge jury duty in Victoria because he had meetings to attend. If you're called to court, it's not a given that you'll be put on a jury immediately.
For one, lawyers have an opportunity to veto potential jurors by using what's called a "peremptory challenge". The reasoning for these challenges tend to be based on little more than superstition or folklore, says Professor Horan. In Victoria, for instance, teachers and nurses are often challenged because of pervasive stereotypes that they have "strong views" or are overly sympathetic to victims.
In many cases, lawyers will challenge potential jurors simply because of the way they look, Professor Horan adds. If you are excused, challenged or otherwise exempted, you might be required to come back to court another time.
Under the National Employer Standards, all employers are required to top their staff's jury pay to their normal wage for the first ten days of jury service , but this does not cover casual workers. Some states like Victoria require employers to keep paying their staff at full pay. Some lucky employees often public servants will get full pay even when it isn't required by law.
But, if you don't have access to these generous perks, you're a casual worker, or if you're assigned to a particularly long trial, there's a real chance you could be left worse off financially for serving on a jury. Jurors typically serve on trials that take between seven and 12 days, though more involved matters — such as those for alleged terrorists — can take months or even a year or more, says Professor Tait.
All of them wait. We sit in the same two rows of blue chairs at the side of court seven in Southwark, central London, where we have looked on and listened to prosecution and defence arguments. My face feels hot, my hands clammy. Our foreman, Victor — a cheerful, tanned TV advertising exec dressed in one of his jazzy shirts as usual — is about to stand and reveal our verdicts on nine charges.
Rather him than me. And yet, putting aside this last-minute nervous tension in the room, I feel lucky to have done jury service. It may take over your mind during a trial, when you go to bed still mulling over whether to trust a piece of evidence.
A disturbing case might make you wonder what is wrong with the world, but serving on a good jury can restore your faith in humanity.
Many barristers, judges and police officers still passionately believe juries are the best way of delivering justice. Amid concerns over how jurors handle difficult rape or fraud cases, however, and with the internet making it easier for them to misbehave covertly, significant figures are questioning whether this age-old tradition should be reformed or even abolished.
Although we are all allowed to talk about our cases once proceedings are over, the ban on discussing deliberations means that in practice very little is ever shared in public, for fear of inadvertently breaking the law. Even the highest legal authorities in the land never hear how a jury reached its verdict.
Over the next four days, i will provide a unique glimpse inside this secretive institution, through the in-depth story of one real-life case as well as the revealing testimony of past jurors and those who work in the courts day in and day out. If the system is on trial, do we find it guilty or not guilty? Across England and Wales, the chance of being summoned for jury service is 35 per cent, according to the Ministry of Justice.
Only half of those people will sit on a trial, because many are excused, ruled ineligible or surplus to requirement. The figure is likely to be similar in Northern Ireland, but thought to be is far higher in Scotland — calculated at 95 per cent by statistician Deirdre Toher — because 15 people form a jury rather than 12, and the groups they are selected from are also bigger. When the news comes, it arrives on a pink sheet of paper. Opening the envelope, I had expected to find a gas bill or credit card statement.
My pulse speeds up. Nervous because what case will I be put on? Will my company mind me being away? What if we make the wrong decision? Jury summons like mine, and citations as they are called in Scotland, are sent to , people in the UK every year. However, the number of people who are successful in avoiding jury service after being summoned is on the rise, with 29 per cent now excused, up from 26 per cent in In , a lower-league footballer argued that he must be let off because his team had an away match at Cheltenham Town.
She sends me a thumbs-up emoji. I accept the summons using a new online system, and that is it. England and Wales: Twelve people form a jury, picked at random from a group of 15, also randomly chosen. Judges, barristers, MPs, vicars, bishops, doctors and peers are all now expected to serve as jurors if they are summoned, under changes made in Under legislation, non-jury trials can be heard as a last resort when there is danger of jury tampering.
Scotland: Juries consist of 15 people, selected from groups of Many more people are exempt north of the border, including police cadets, special constables and members of the clergy, as well as various social workers and legal staff.
0コメント