Last thoughts on Jury Duty

I'm a lame blogger... I had all these thoughts about the Jury process, but was then too lazy to write them down.

The most interesting part of the process is that they don't tell you the LAW until after you've heard all the evidence, including witnesses. Apparently the judge doesn't necessarily know all laws that will be relevant before the case, and doesn't want to bias the jury's reaction to the evidence. What it means, though, is that it's very hard to know what's important and what's not. Taking notes helps, but not everyone does it.

I really wish they did video recordings of the testimonies, and let the jury have computers to take notes on, although I suppose they don't want all the clickity-clack of 14 people typing away...

Anyway, you only find out the LAW at the end, during closing arguments, and when the judge gives you the law in a very monotone voice. Thankfully you get a copy of it to read in the deliberation room, but it's not a lot of education.

We ended up declaring the defendant "not guilty" because there was a distinct and reasonable possibility that his actions were in self-defense as defined by the law, or at least how we all understood the definition. In talking to the DA afterwords, though, it sounded like he thought we mis-applied the definition based on some set of esoteric law theories. Too bad none of us studied law...

I still think we made the right decision given the information we had available to us. An interesting process, though. I can now see why it's common perception that criminals often get off free. It's a heavy burden to prove guilt without leaving room for a reasonable alternative explanation. But it's a good thing, in the end, I think. It makes it much harder to put an innocent person behind bars.