home

Tyco Juror Criticized Online

by TChris

As jury deliberations in the Tyco trial enter their tenth day (previously discussed here), the public's focus has been less on the outcome than on the conduct of juror number four. Juror four appears to be holding out for a particular verdict, although one note that the jury gave to the judge suggests that the other jurors "do not all have the same views of guilt or innocence." Some courtroom observers believe that juror four flashed an "OK" sign at the defense a few days ago, while others didn't see it. Now the juror can't brush her hair without someone interpreting her curled fingers as another "OK."

The defense continues to move for a mistrial on the theory that the jury has hung. On Tuesday, the defense added that juror four has been subjected to "venomous and just outrageous statements" in online chat rooms. If juror four knew about the online comments, she might feel coerced to change her vote, but there is no indication that she knows her failure to join with the majority has provoked such animosity, so the judge is still waiting to see whether a verdict will be rendered.

The animosity is misplaced. No matter how overwhelming the evidence may appear, it is up to each individual juror to decide whether the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors should listen to each other respectfully and should consider the views of other jurors, but the parties are entitled to the best individual judgment that each juror can provide. If juror four hasn't been persuaded to change her vote after listening to the other jurors, she should apply the law to the facts as she sees them. That's what her oath as a juror requires her to do.

Being a juror isn't easy, and no juror deserves to be attacked simply because members of the public disagree with her view of the evidence. If the jury hangs and another six month trial ensues, that's the way the system works. Attacking a juror for doing what she thinks is right can only discourage other members of the community from serving on juries in the future -- or from bringing their independent judgment to the juries upon which they serve.

< Justice Dept. Defends Right to Wear Hijab | Terrorism Protection v. Privacy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft