A few years ago I was called for jury duty. Normally, I would have been thrilled. I would love to sit on a jury. I’m NOT EVEN JOKING. I believe, in most cases, I could be impartial. I could objectively look at evidence to decide a verdict. I understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” and “reasonable doubt.” And as a mystery writer, I find the whole idea of being on a jury intriguing, even if most actual court cases aren’t nearly as interesting as the novels we read.
Alas, I was happy not to be selected that one time. Ironically, I was currently the faculty supervisor for a student directed high school production of TWELVE ANGRY MEN (actually, TWELVE ANGRY JURORS, since more than half the cast was female). I needed to be there for my students.
A little plug for TWELVE ANGRY MEN. I’m speaking of the Reginald Rose play, but the original 1957 film is pretty awesome too. I haven’t seen the more recent version of the film. In any case, it should be required reading for any student going to public school in the United States. It demonstrates very clearly and dramatically how personal bias might color our presumption of innocence.
I wonder if any of the jurors in the MAKING A MURDERER or SERIAL (Season One) cases read the play, or at least saw the movie.
Because I’ll be honest: After watching the Netflix documentary and listening to the podcast, I don’t think there was enough evidence in either case to convict. Of course, I have not read the trial transcripts. I wasn’t there, and I don’t know. After the one episode of SERIAL in which the jurors were interviewed, I totally understood why they found Syed guilty. There didn’t seem to belittle doubt, at least for them.
But this isn’t about Steven Avery or Adnan Syed. I do have my theories about both cases, but I am not going to share those right now.
It’s no secret that most people would do anything to get out of jury duty. OK, if you really are a racist, or hate all law enforcement officers, or you’re just a self-employed gal or guy whose business will crumble if you are away from it for too long, I get it.
But for the rest of us, don’t you want to make sure that justice is done?
Because anyone, and I do mean anyone, could be accused of a crime. Wouldn’t you want to make sure that justice is done for you or your loved one?
When there is an absence of physical evidence, including but not limited to DNA, in this day of sophisticated evidence collection techniques, that speaks volumes to me. Especially if the prosecution’s theories involve buckets of blood being spilled. Because it’s actually really hard to get rid of blood.
My second quibble isn’t with our national reluctance to be a member of a jury; it is with our legal system. Is it really true that the prosecution is looking to convict rather than to find the truth? Please someone tell me that this is not the case! If cell phone records don’t match, or the key witness’s testimony has some big holes, I feel like the prosecution should have a problem with that, especially if someone might spend the rest of his or her life in jail.
I know people who have been accused, and in some cases convicted of major crimes, while maintaining their innocence. I know people who served hard time for crimes that they did commit, but are now working hard to get back on their feet. I know people who have been set up by friends, but had really good lawyers and got off.
I don’t think I know any murderers.
I know some people who have been treated fairly by the system, and others who were not. I know a lawyer who fought pro bono in her spare time to get a man out of jail, and one former prosecutor who told me, “Everyone is guilty of something. Even the witnesses.”
There seems to be something broken. I am not even touching on the racial and economic disparities that abound. There seems to be something broken, and I think we need to figure out how to fix it.
I must in in a minority, but I have less faith in juries and the jury system than most. My reluctance to serve has more to do with that than anything else. This is not the place to go into it, as it would take a New Yorker-length article to make the case.
About the Netflix series, it is as biased as it claims the justice system is. I always remind myself that documentaries have a POV and are edited. We weren’t there, and should view both prosecutorial evidence and commercial documentaries with a dose of healthy skepticism.