Jurors in Capital Case Caught Practicing without a License

Read Time:7 Minute, 48 Second

O.J. was released, but in all fairness, the jury was not qualified to convict him. Let me tell you a similar story of another trial, one that is less known and more inspirational.

When the trial began, not much was known. Everyone agreed that a murder was committed, and a most heinous one at that, and the plaintiff was certainly deceased and the state filed charges on her behalf, as is the way when prosecuting capital crimes. The details were so horrendous that I hesitate to share them. Suffice it to say that were I to tell you the whole story, you would not sleep well for months to come. Only after you have absorbed a cold familiarity with the horror and knowledge so intimate that it is a part of you, would you be able to resume a normal life.

But you would be changed forever, no longer innocent. Little things, such as the assault of infants and slavery in cellars, would seem trivial then. You would see such things as lesser crimes and not worthy of your compassion, which has limited attention and would only worry about greater sins against humanity, sins like the one of whose details I dare not speak. If you accuse me of being stupid, I will feel a sense of umbrage, but if someone else plucks out one of my eyes, you will be instantly forgiven. It is the nature of forgiveness to weigh wrongs on scales offset by greater wrongs. This particular trial was about an offense that was so evil that no greater wrong could forgive it.

The evidence was often difficult to understand, not because it was obscure, but because it was technical. Facts of forensic wizardry disputed most of the defendant’s testimony. His DNA was found on the scene and there was even a glove there, which was especially damning evidence, as he was known to have worn gloves in the past. Additionally, there was a mangled dead body in close proximity to the defendant, which was very compelling evidence indeed, and hard for the jury to ignore. Though no one explicitly presented the question, it was on every one’s mind: “Why would an innocent man keep a human corpse around?”

The defendant was required to disclose to the court his location and activities at the time of the murder. That he didn’t remember would have been an unacceptable answer, with a possible penalty of execution or a sentence to spend the rest of his days in prison. Who doesn’t remember killing someone? I know I don’t know where I was when he committed the murder. I don’t know if the defendant just reported his best guess or made something up, but witnesses offered testimony that contradicted his stated whereabouts and handily discredited his alibi. The fact that not one witness reported that he was at the scene of the crime didn’t matter to the jury, as he would have had to be there in order to kill the victim, so the question was answered, prima facie. You may find the argument circular, but for the jury, high on emotions and largely ignorant of Latin, it was not a huge leap of faith.

The victim’s sister testified that the defendant was capable of this crime. By the time she was called, the testimony was powerful, because the burden of proof had inexplicably shifted from the prosecution to the defense. The defendant tried to claim that the sister was wrong, but she was crying as she testified and her tears were pretty conclusive. When the defendant tried to tear up himself, the jury saw through the ruse and booed him.

Determined as they may be, a biased jury cannot fake reasonable doubt. A doubtless jury is an unreasonable one.

Humans do not naturally seek faith over reason. We resort to faith where reason fails. In assuming we must provide the answer to all questions laid before us, we compromise our ability to distinguish truth from our best guess. Many Christians will tell you that eternal life can only be purchased with a solid acceptance that Jesus is our lord and savior. Muslims know the truth: salvation lies in the embrace of Allah as the one true God. Scientologists know that we don’t need saving. Salvation is the default scenario and you have many lives to get everything in order. The majority of Americans know what the truth is and they know that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. These are all opinions and guesses, misinterpreted as facts. Reason is rarely used as the sole device for recognizing what is real.

The jurors on this murder trial were especially fortunate. They were spared their natural tendency to resort to faith in the absence of information. They didn’t have to have all the answers, because they had experts for the prosecution and for the defense to explain things. Some of the jurors were not especially capable of sorting through the complex explanations, which seemed a bit daunting, as they told opposite stories. Luckily, they were not without recourse. They resorted to faith in what seemed right.

As the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, the jury must start out with reasonable doubt. It was the prosecution’s job to remove it. To this end, they started with DNA evidence, which was known to be very scientifically accurate. For the laypeople on the jury it was mystical, and tampering by a misguided authority, or a corrupt one, could have happened. There are some statistics that suggest tampering, corruption and DNA mistakes are not very frequent. How these stats are reliably calculated is beyond me and I have a reasonable doubt about the validity of any such statistic. The defense has but to allege tampering or other mistakes, and doubt becomes the only reasonable answer.

The science of forensics today is so sophisticated that the layperson cannot reasonably understand how accurate it is. Jurors are not experts in the subject matter. Having a jury evaluate evidence is tantamount to having the garbage man tune a space shuttle. Would you want your shuttle prepared by a group of your peers? Having a jury decide how much doubt they should have, based largely on forensic evidence and their trust in the integrity of those who gathered it, is a little frightening. Correctly evaluating legal, forensic and psychological data is very technical, as technical as most complex disciplines, and yet those who do it have absolutely no training. If most jurors had to take entry level exams in forensics, psychology, law, and logic and critical thinking, most would fail all four exams. Yet all of these skills are needed to be a capable juror in a murder trial. We recruit twelve men and women to do this job. Knowing that the task is completely beyond them, we ask them to prepare our shuttle and launch us into space. It is only reasonable for any of those selected to doubt their conclusions about our shuttle’s readiness, and only an arrogant love of one’s own faith-based opinion would suggest otherwise.

Without proper training to be a juror, reasonable doubt should have been built into any conclusion this jury drew. The prosecutor knew how cherished their best guesses were to them, how likely they were to see them as truth, and so he used it to his advantage. You do not have to sell a good vacuum cleaner to be a good vacuum cleaner salesman. He did not need a good case. He needed to sell the one he had to this jury of pretenders.

If they had been trained in the discipline, they would have called on their expertise to guide them. In the absence of training, they looked to faith for guidance. These jurors were not trained in the field in which they were working, so it was not the jurors’ reason, but their faith and emotions, which the prosecutor addressed. Despite the evidence the jurors could not understand, and the logic their training would not allow them to follow, the case got settled. By the time the trial ended, there was no “reasonable doubt,” even though doubt was the only reasonable answer. Reason had failed the jury long ago, and was cast aside in favor of other more workable tools. There was a murder committed, and someone committed it. Of all those in court, there was only one who looked guilty. They looked to the evidence to tell them what they already knew.

The defendant may well have committed the crime for which he was accused and much of the evidence suggested he certainly did. Why should the jury have believed the data presented by the defense, which was only doing its job when it represented the criminal it was paid to free? In all their years as cashiers and truck drivers, never had this jury encountered someone so obviously capable of such an awful crime.

The prosecution proved its case. The defense presented questionable evidence supported with weak arguments. Who is innocent, and who is not, should be obvious to anyone who has ever bagged a grocery. Jurors who vote to convict, do so because they have no doubt of the defendant’s guilt. They can feel it in their bones.

About Post Author

John Myste

John Myste is a proud agnostic liberal living in Texas with his loving wife, two loving dogs and a cat. He does not actively seek the truth, and has a firm opinion on nothing. He likes interesting discussions and unique perspectives; and he hopes and believes that if he indulges in these, the truth will follow.
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

8 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oso
13 years ago

John,
This is tremendous, whether viewed as an indictment of the system,a good take on religion or just a very entertaining read, or all of the above.

I’ll opt for “all of the above”.

When my youngest was involved in a trial and the man who threw her to the ground was found not guilty, our Victims Advocate explained that often jurors expect conclusive evidence.CSI type of stuff, beyond a shadow of a doubt type of evidence.If it’s not presented in that manner – then they think it’s a weak case.

Admin
13 years ago

John this is an extraordinary post. You have outdone yourself, and I agree with what you write. I have testified hundreds of times and waited for what seems like millenia for juries to finish deliberating. Although nine times out of ten the juries returned verdicts of guilty (I worked for the good guys), there was that occasional NOT GUILTY that hung in the air. When possible we polled jurors and more often than not it was because the defendant simply had better lawyers with more resources than even the state.

Reply to  Professor Mike
13 years ago

Alas, I can never be a juror because I always end up admitting some hostility to the process. For some reason, neither side likes that. It would seem that those selected are often the less vocal ones. If I were a defense attorney and I thought I was better than the prosecution, I would want those more capable of forming an opinion. However, if I thought I was equal or less, I would go for the jurors that did not have much to say and then try to mold them into thinking what I think.

lazersedge
13 years ago

Basically, John, a jury often consists of twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty or nothing better to do with their lives. That is, at least what many people say. Reality may well be that it is a mix of well meaning citizens and others that would be rubber neckers as they pass a bad traffic accident. There are no qualifications other than they be able to read (minimally) and understand the English language (American style). Education, or the lack thereof, is no barrier, just be voting age not a major felon. In other words you may not be able to get any other job but you could be a juror.

Reply to  lazersedge
13 years ago

If I were to summarize it, I would say this: the task of a jury is a very complicated one that requires professional level skill in multiple areas to do well. No training is given or required and therefore, it would be unreasonable for any jury not to doubt any conclusion they arrive at. It is no different than if I were to advise NASA on which o-ring to put where on a shuttle. I cannot, and would be a fool to try. Not only do the fools try, but they assume they know which o-ring to use! It is astonishing.

Moreover, most juries do not have a passable education needed to form a logical conclusion, and knowing this, attorneys bypass actual logic in favor of speaking to the juror’s emotions, since they know this is the only thing really functioning very well. If I am charged with a crime and convicted, it will be to due to the preponderance of emotion weighted against me.

In conclusion, I cannot summarize anything! My summaries always end up being another article, one that lives in the comments section.

13 years ago

OJ was always going to acquitted in my opinion, because he could afford the best defense attorneys out there, money can buy you an awful lot of justice. The attorneys became as famous as OJ (almost) F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro and not forgetting Johnny Cochran (if the glove don’t fit you must acquit). It was a confusing show trial in which the jurors were overwhelmed. If he been tried by a jury of his true peers, he would have had retired millionaire ex-athletes staring at him and again he would have been freed.

Reply to  Holte Ender
13 years ago

It all goes back to the wallet my friend. I agree completely.

Reply to  Holte Ender
13 years ago

I actually wrote a post last month about money buying justice. I addressed it in the minor case of a traffic violation because something happened in my personal life that inspired the discussion. The reality is that in America justice is dispensed in direct accordance with ones wealth, most of the time.

Fortunately, the more minor the violation, the more true this seems.

Previous post Man killed by his own cock!
Next post Packer vs. Bears – NFL’s most played series
8
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x