Day 4 began with the prosecution saying they had no questions for jurors 16-18. I was prospective juror #18.
The questioning at times could be quite intense.
The judge usually was pretty mild. He might press a bit to clarify what a juror wrote on the questionnaire. The prosecution usually was too. Mostly seeking clarification. At times, the defense seemed to push harder to get the juror to reveal their views on things.
Once something gets out in the open like the jurors strong views for or against capital punishment, the questioning ceases.
In the huddles with the judge, defense and prosecution to decide which jurors are removed for cause, I'm guessing the lawyers for the respective sides are trying to convince the judge to excuse a juror for cause rather than having to use one of their own peremptory challenges. Apparently, both sides are allocated a finite number of peremptory challenges.
During peremptory challenges, they look over their notes about the existing jurors in the box and also look around at the remaining prospective jurors probably trying to figure out whether who is in the box is the "best" option or they should try to question a few more prospective ones.
In the end, the job of the two sides would be to identify jurors who would be sympathetic to their side but fair enough to both sides so one side or the other won't seek to remove them. We wouldn't want jurors who automatically assume the defendant is guilty. Likewise, we don't want jurors who would assume law enforcement officials fudge the facts to make the arrests.
Without "mind reading" machines, how do we identify fair jurors?
And so we answer 30+ pages of questions and get questioned by the judge, the defense and the prosecution. And somehow, a jury of 12 people (plus 6 alternates) gets selected and they decide guilty or not guilty? And if guilty, is the defendant guilty of the special circumstances? And if so, then they have to decide with one voice, whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.
Even sitting as a prospective juror, I felt the weight of this burden. As a someone who supports the death penalty, was I willing to sit on a jury for 2 months (thus missing work) and sharing the responsibility of perhaps actually imposing a death sentence? The answer was yes, I was willing, not gladly, but out a civic duty.
In the end, I was prospective juror #3 for about 2 hours on the 4th day of jury selection when I was excused by the prosecution in peremptory. I hypothesized that I was excused due to the CSI Effect. In my questionnaire, I indicated that I did watch those kinds of TV shows and my molecular biology background probably added to the prosecution concerns about wanted too much of this kind of evidence to support their case.
In my conversations with other prospective jurors (we didn't discuss any specifics of the case), none of us wanted to be on the jury but I think we were all moved by Judge Wesley's passionate speech at the beginning of jury selection about it being a civic duty and how the disruption of our lives pales in comparison to the sacrifice of military personnel and their families.
I had only thought about the death penalty in the abstract and really didn't understand how it worked and I think many of us were in that situation.
Is the system "fair"?
I suppose one wonders in the absolute abstract sense.
Is it "fair" in comparison to what? Fair as it is now to some other hypothetical ways we could handle these kinds of cases? I'm sure people disagree.
But I don't see how else to do it until we have mind reading machines and video cameras everywhere ... we have this system where two sides contend to convince 12 ordinary people.
UPDATE: Since I was not selected to be on the jury, I can now read the news about the case.
UPDATE: The jury found the defendant's guilty on all charges.
UPDATE: The jury has voted for the death penalty.
No comments:
Post a Comment