Recently, I served on jury duty in a trial involving alleged assault, malicious wounding and intent to rob. After almost two and a half day of intense deliberations, the outcome was a hung jury. In reality, the outcome was always going to be either a guilty verdict or a hung jury as at least one juror never wavered from his initial position in favor of a guilty verdict.
Although the jury experience has reinforced my faith in the judicial system, I came away with mixed feelings about the jury system itself. What happened was that a couple of jurors basically made the decision for the vast majority of the jurors. These dominant jurors were vocal, confrontational and forceful, at one point reducing a dissenting gentle old lady to tears.
One of the vocal jurors had recently finished law school but not been admitted to bar yet. The juror clearly thought the law degree gave a license to ride roughshod over the rest of the jurors, often playing what I considered to be vain intellectual games. The juror would support one side of the argument and suddenly switch to the other as if to dazzle the jury with the rhetorical skills picked up at the law school.
For most of the deliberations, the jury was split almost 50-50. Towards the end of the day two of the deliberations, there was a dramatic shift to 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict but still not a unanimous decision as required by law. When informed of the deadlock, the Judge instructed the jurors to spend some more time to try to reach a unanimous verdict.
Next morning, after another intense session of deliberations during which the law graduate argued for a not-guilty verdict, a snap poll was taken. By this time, nothing should have surprised me but I was still surprised when the law graduate voted for a guilty verdict after arguing for a not-guilty verdict throughout the morning session. The snap poll result was 8-4 in favor of a guilty verdict.
Clearly, the deadlock had worsened. When informed again, the Judge instructed the jury to try to see if an 11-1 verdict was possible. Another session of deliberations began, and, of the four who had voted in favor of a not-guilty verdict, two quickly fell in line. When it became clear that the remaining two would not budge from their position, something startling happened.
Throughout the deliberations, there was this feeling that returning a hung jury was somehow a betrayal of the trust the Crown Prosecutor and the Judge had placed in the jury. So, when it became clear that a guilty verdict was not possible, the law graduate asked everyone how many could vote for a not-guilty verdict without feeling ‘morally compromised’. Ten hands went up. This meant the accused was just one vote shy of acquittal.
If so many jurors felt that they could vote for a not-guilty verdict without feeling morally compromised, perhaps the Crown had not done enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty. In fact, many jurors would complain that the Crown Prosecutor could have done a better job and then go on to vote in favor of a guilty verdict.
In the end, the Judge decided that the impasse was beyond resolution and dismissed the jury. Before dismissal, the jury was informed that the Crown would try the accused again at an unspecified date.
At various times, I felt that some jury members struggled with the fundamental concept of the presumption of innocence. They gave the impression that the mere fact of being charged is a sufficient reason for conviction.
One jury member - the same one who from the start never once wavered in his belief in the guilt of the accused - at one point argued that the accused had proven his guilt by exercising the right to silence when interviewed by the police. This was despite the Judge's instruction not to hold this fact against the accused.
The defense case largely rested on an alibi, which was shown to be very shaky by the Crown Prosecutor. However, the demolition of the alibi did not automatically establish the guilt of the accused, another fact reminded by the Judge to the jury members a few times. However, some jury members did not seem to grasp this fact either.
The trial by jury may be one of the crown jewels of the human civilization but it clearly has its flaws. But, then, what does not?
No comments:
Post a Comment