Only in Manhattan can this happen.  The trial of Jack Jordon, the Uma Thurman stalker, caught the attention of many in New York, largely because it was about Uma Thurman.  They say it was one of her best performances.  But what are the chances that a reporter for the Wall Street Journal would happen to be one of the jurors?

Manhattan juries may be a little different from those found in other places.  The jury included “two lawyers, a former editor for the TV show “Wife Swap” and a rock-show caterer.”  I bet Anne Reed could make some hay with that group.  And one reporter named Emily Steel.

The WSJ Law Blog reports that Emily Steel, as it happened, sat on the Jordon jury and, fortuitously, wrote the blow by blow for the front page of the Wall Street Journal.  Steel explains the gist of the jury’s deliberations:

Getting there took us about seven hours of deliberation, spread over two days, starting Monday afternoon. Our debate centered on a surprisingly complex question: Where is the line between obsession and menace?

She then takes readers through the process.  While it lacks depth (it is the WSJ after all), it’s always fascinating to take a peek into the jury room to understand how a bunch of people arrive at a verdict affecting the life of a fellow human being.

One exchange in the jury room is most enlightening:

But I had a question. The charge was for the period from May 1, 2005, until Aug. 17, 2007, but Mr. Jordan’s obsession wasn’t pushed over the edge until August last year. Could we say he was guilty of the stalking charge, if he wasn’t stalking her for that entire period?

One of the lawyers on the jury said that his behavior wasn’t to be interpreted in a vacuum. Each of his actions during that period — from the praying-girl card Mr. Jordan delivered at the movie set to the notes he pushed through her door — was to be interpreted as one criminal act.

If that was the case, then I could say he was guilty.

That’s the problem with putting lawyers on the jury.  They are still lawyers.  So much for getting legal instructions from the judge, with the attorneys capable of objecting and preserving.

The end of Steel’s account is also revealing, not for any insight into jury deliberations but for what we would otherwise learn about them from the media.

As I left the building with a few fellow jurors, we rode in an elevator with reporters grilling us for quotes. Their first question: What did it feel like to be a juror in the trial of Ms. Thurman’s stalker?

What did it feel like?  Now there’s a useful question.