Anne Reed at Deliberations brings us yet another gem from the jury room. This time, the insights of an anonymous law professor who somehow made his way onto a criminal jury in a drunk driving case. It’s one thing to engage in academic speculation about what happens in the minds of a jury, but another to be part of it, and thus an accepted member of that very special club deciding the fate of another.
Of course, we’re talking about a drunk driving case, not a murder or a massive drug conspiracy. But from the comments, which I come as no surprise, they jurors are still as deadly serious about their duty as if it were the most serious case ever.
Of the four points made by the lawprof, 3 stand out.
1. The jury instructions were “utterly useless.”
2. Bizarre logical leaps by some jurors.
3. How deeply formalistic and legalistic most jurors were.
The first point, about jury instructions, come as no surprise at all. While lawyers may argue the words, the nuance, the implications to death, they are pure crap to the normal juror. This is one of the goofiest legal fictions we employ. Indeed, if we wrote them down, spelled it all out and made jurors study them for a week before hand, my guess is they still wouldn’t have a clue what the instructions mean. Bear in mind, nobody has ever come up with a viable instruction for beyond a reasonable doubt.
The second and third are related. Jurors try their absolute best to fulfill their duty. The solemn courtroom, serious lawyers, judge in robe and on bench, contribute to the atmosphere. They shed the frivolity of everyday life for the “formalistic and legalistic” demeanor that they think is expected of them. It’s like a funeral in the sense that they behave as they believe they should, though never quite clear on the expectations.
Part of pretending to be serious is to strive to think harder then the usually do. This is the bizarre logical leaps part, where people who don’t ordinarily think much are forced into unfamiliar turf. Try as they might, logic doesn not come easily or without practice. It may be that they don’t grasp logic. It may be that they are trying too hard, and stretching so far to show their brilliance that the bounds of logic have expanded beyond their breaking point.
This is the lawyer’s worst nightmare, since we cannot anticipate where the minds of jurors may go once they are no longer trapped by fact or reason. We can argue the logical permutations of the facts, but that serves as a mere starting point for those jurors who want to out-think us. You didn’t think they trusted us to argue the case accurately, did you?
What does all this amount to? A system that, for all its safeguards, is beyond the control of either lawyer or judge. If they can’t make us of instructions, pretend to play serious juror to meet some unknown expectations and then leap off the logic train at will, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to bother with a trial since there is no causal connection between what we do and what they decide. Hence, we engage legal fictions (the jurors followed the instructions) to overcome the obvious flaws.
Or, we engage in a system which, at its bottom line, provides rough justice as viewed through the eyes of 11 ordinary people and one lawprof. You pick.
Of course, we’re talking about a drunk driving case, not a murder or a massive drug conspiracy. But from the comments, which I come as no surprise, they jurors are still as deadly serious about their duty as if it were the most serious case ever.
Of the four points made by the lawprof, 3 stand out.
1. The jury instructions were “utterly useless.”
2. Bizarre logical leaps by some jurors.
3. How deeply formalistic and legalistic most jurors were.
The first point, about jury instructions, come as no surprise at all. While lawyers may argue the words, the nuance, the implications to death, they are pure crap to the normal juror. This is one of the goofiest legal fictions we employ. Indeed, if we wrote them down, spelled it all out and made jurors study them for a week before hand, my guess is they still wouldn’t have a clue what the instructions mean. Bear in mind, nobody has ever come up with a viable instruction for beyond a reasonable doubt.
The second and third are related. Jurors try their absolute best to fulfill their duty. The solemn courtroom, serious lawyers, judge in robe and on bench, contribute to the atmosphere. They shed the frivolity of everyday life for the “formalistic and legalistic” demeanor that they think is expected of them. It’s like a funeral in the sense that they behave as they believe they should, though never quite clear on the expectations.
Part of pretending to be serious is to strive to think harder then the usually do. This is the bizarre logical leaps part, where people who don’t ordinarily think much are forced into unfamiliar turf. Try as they might, logic doesn not come easily or without practice. It may be that they don’t grasp logic. It may be that they are trying too hard, and stretching so far to show their brilliance that the bounds of logic have expanded beyond their breaking point.
This is the lawyer’s worst nightmare, since we cannot anticipate where the minds of jurors may go once they are no longer trapped by fact or reason. We can argue the logical permutations of the facts, but that serves as a mere starting point for those jurors who want to out-think us. You didn’t think they trusted us to argue the case accurately, did you?
What does all this amount to? A system that, for all its safeguards, is beyond the control of either lawyer or judge. If they can’t make us of instructions, pretend to play serious juror to meet some unknown expectations and then leap off the logic train at will, there doesn’t seem to be much reason to bother with a trial since there is no causal connection between what we do and what they decide. Hence, we engage legal fictions (the jurors followed the instructions) to overcome the obvious flaws.
Or, we engage in a system which, at its bottom line, provides rough justice as viewed through the eyes of 11 ordinary people and one lawprof. You pick.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s nice to see someone write exactly what I have thought about jury instructions since I first heard them. Although I am fresh out of law school, I spent a summer working for a judge. He was bright, thoughtful, insightful, and utterly impossible to follow once he started reading 20 minutes of jury instructions. I sure couldn’t follow him. I doubt the lawyers could. I am CERTAIN the jurors didn’t have a clue.
Yeah, one of the great legal fictions, that jurors understand and follow instructions. It’s one of those bedrock principles that can’t be challenged because, while everyone knows the truth, we have no alternative.