Jury duty was a interesting experience, this case had multiple charges of assault, then there was harassment and rape; in a way I was looking forward to this experience, the U.S. criminal judicial system uses a "jury of one's peers" as a means to help protect folks from a callous bureaucracy and when combined with the presumption of innocence (putting the burdon of proof on the prosecution) it helps ensure folks get a fair trial.
The down-side of all of this is that sometimes, and this was the case this time, a guilty man goes free for the wrong reasons.
In this case, by my count, there was seven key mistakes made by the state:
-
Poor jury selection, there were individuals whose natural biases were so strong the probability of the prosecution getting their man as it were went down considerably, I would have expected the prosecution to do a better job at ferreting these folks out.
-
Information overload, while the prosecution has a obligation to present all the relevant evidence they do not have a obligation to present all evidence, presentation of evidence that has no value to your story wastes everyone's time and costs you credibility with the jury.
-
Information deficiency, if you present a piece of evidence make sure you know why you are doing it, frame the evidence in a narrative or the defense will do it for you helping to create reasonable doubt.
-
Poor questioning of witnesses, when your own witness is on the stand do not ask them questions they do not know the answer too, it makes them look less credible.
-
Don't try to prove your right and your witness is wrong, if in the process of questioning your own witness if they say something inconsistent with what you said previously don't try too hard to prove your right, in the end the case depends on the credability of the witness, not you and proving your own witness was inconsistent doesn't help your case.
-
Poor police work, lost tapes, pictures of the wrong phone, a hair-band with probable value and no back story; these are the sorts of things acquittals are made of.
-
Give them choices, in this case many of the charges were dependent on the jury buying one thing (in this case the use of a weapon), there were other lesser charges that would not have have required this, include these lesser options so you can atleast get him on something.
Another thing this experience got me thinking about was the impact shows like CSI* and Law & Order* have had on the legal system, its clear folks now have un-realistic expectations how the police and prosecution work.
Back to the case I was on, I believe he was guilty (BTW, later we found out he had done this before), I also believe we as the jury could have convicted him, at least on some of the counts, but based on the above "mistakes" the guy got off (one of the charges was hung, so they could re-try).
Now IANAL, but the above just looks good old common sense to me; I wonder if they try to teach that in law school these days.
All I can say at this point is this experience did not sit too well with me, and I am glad to be back at work.