Rating: 
Summary: Pretentious
Review: I wanted to learn more about how juries deliberate. I did learn a little. Unfortunately, the little I learned was buried under TONS AND TONS OF PRETENTIOUS, PEDANTIC GARBAGE!!!! The author obviously has an extremely high opinion of himself that I don't share.I trudged along through the author's self-serving style because I would learn something every now and then. However, it took too much effort, for very little payoff. Even the author's photo on the book jacket was pretentious.
Rating: 
Summary: Important
Review: I'm rating this book 5 stars because of my own recent experience, not as a juror, but as an observer in the court room when a friend was charged with a serious crime. I believe this is an important book and I hope that many will read it to get an inside look at our criminal justice system. I experienced feelings very similar to those of the author.
Rating: 
Summary: Do not waste your money
Review: The concept of the book is appealing--an educated insider reveals the secret world of jury deliberations. The problem is that the author is a pompous academic. The book is written in extremely cumbersome prose that fails to appeal to the average reader. The author goes to great lengths to show us how smart he is but the ivy league vocabulary comes across as pretentiousness. I will not get into to specifics but the author also employs flawed logic in his characterization of the deliberation process. The author had the opportunity to write an insightful and meaningful piece but he let his ego get in the way of good writing.
Rating: 
Summary: The idea is great; the author, case and jury are less so
Review: The idea for this book was certainly a good one. Given how the whole jury system plays such a central role in our judicial system, it is rather surprising that there is so little material on what actually goes in inside the jury room. As Burnett rightly points out, it is a "largely inaccessible space in our society." Thus the book is certainly a step towards filling that void. That said, I found it somewhat unsatisfying for several reasons, some of them within the author's control and some of them not. In various other reviews here, the author has been described variously as "pretentious" (on several occasions), "pompous", "snobbish", "holier-than thou", "smug", and "self-congratulatory". Anyone see a theme here? I don't really disagree with any of these and I would add pedantic, condescending and superior. It really comes through on almost every page. And yet, I have to say that with the possible exception of Adelle, no one else in that jury room seemed like a candidate for MENSA. In fact, a number of them, such as Felipe and Rachel, seemed like true idiots. The overall lack of intelligence of so many jury members had several unfortunate consequences. First, with just a few exceptions, including some comments by Adelle and Dean, it made the deliberations (which take up half of the book) much less interesting than they otherwise might have been. Second, whatever sense of pedantry and superiority which is probably naturally latent in the author anyway were probably brought to the fore when he saw who he was dealing with. Also, again though no fault of the author's, I simply didn't find the case he had to work with all that riveting. A man was lured to or went voluntarily to the apartment of some sort of man/woman/transvestite/cross-dresser/drag queen and either did or did not kill the latter in self-defense when the latter made sexual advances.
All in all, it was not a bad book by any means, but I don't think that it was the book it could have been either.
Rating:
Summary: Stay in school
Review: The first part of the book it interesting, as the author chronicles the details of a murder, from the incident to the court case. However, when he takes over in a first person narrative, it's unbearable. He's a pompous, snobbish, know-it-all who has nothing but disdain for his fellow jurors. I disliked his attitude so much I didn't even want the book in my house. I gave it to the public library as soon as I finished it. A classic full-of-himself academic, I feel sorry for anyone who has to have him as a professor.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Insight-Well Written
Review: Okay, so here is a book about a very real practical subject written by an academic. But it can work. Burnett doesn't have much credibility. He is a holier than thou, pretentious snot. But he has succeeded in capturing an enigma not many people have seen. He has captured the REAL issue of the criminal justice system during his stint as a juror in a murder trial. Flash by Burnett's snide remarks about his peers [remember they ARE peers] and his digs about how he even eats better than the others and listen to his discussion of law vs. justice. It is honest, in depth and well layed out. If you are involved in the criminal justice system in any way or are interested in some of the frustrations of those who are involved in it try reading this book. It is worthwhile. And even if you hate it, it's pretty short so the pain won't last long!
Rating:
Summary: A Professor in the Jury Box
Review: This tells of his experience as a jury member on a little publicized murder case. It is about people, justice, the law, and truth as a jury sees it. The jury decides the facts in the case, as presented by the prosecutor and defense attorney. Chapter 2 tells of his attempt to avoid jury duty: bring along a copy of "The NY Review of Books"; it didn't work. The Senior Court Clerk asked "anybody not understand English?", and those who understood this question were released from jury service! Page 27 tells of the standard of proof: reasonable doubt. As a student of intellectual history he knows how variable was its definition over the ages. But his knowledge seems to come from books, as on page 30 "soy tan macho ...". Chapter 3 starts by questioning the evolution of the justice system into a jury, judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney. What would he say about the alternative: one person as judge, jury, and executioner? The police searched for the attacker among patients treated by hospitals. "It is hard to stab someone many times, in haste and agitation, and avoid a slip or two" (p.38). The police found a suspicious case, searched for the bloodstained clothes, and find the evidence to make an arrest. In Chapter 4 (p.70) he says "defendants in murder trials seldom take the stand". In early 19th Century England they were NOT allowed to speak at all. He also wonders about withholding the prior history of the defendant. This is to prevent prejudice by lazy jurors, and insure they only consider the facts in this case. After the defendant testified, the prosecutor cross-examined him in a badgering and belligerent manner. The defendant answered calmly. The author "felt a deep desire to see the prosecutor lose the case" (p.73). No motive was proven, so the claim of self-defense seemed reasonable. They didn't believe the prosecutor's theory. The unexplained mystery is why this slight book of little importance was published. Read "The Juror and the General", or "The Private Diary of an O.J. Juror" for more important (and educational) cases.
Rating:
Summary: Author does justice to the justice system
Review: The author writes well (you might need your dictionary)and does an admirable job of discussing one trial and one jury decision. The book is a quick read and well worth it. It wouldn't hurt more people to know what it might be like to serve on a jury. According to the National Center for State Courts, only 1% of us has to pull jury duty each year. The book should stimulate some personal thought on the justice system - not a bad thing no matter which side of the "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" debate you might land on.
Rating:
Summary: A Refreshing Insight
Review: Many of us can think the thoughts, but few of us can put into words the experience of sitting on a jury and interacting with our fellow man in order to attain a "just" verdict. D. Graham Burnett has taken this mandatory life experience and shed a new light on it and now shares it with the world. Having been associated with the legal process, as a court reporter, for 30 years, and having, for the most part, taken it for granted, it was very refreshing for me to see, through his eyes, its shortcomings and its strengths. He asks tough questions. What is the law? What is a just verdict? How powerful is the state? Do we need protection from it? And, he demonstrates just how the jury process can and does work, even with all of the personalities, the loss of patience, the bickering of strong-willed people, and how even the quiet and withdrawn have something to say: eventually. Well worth your time.
Rating:
Summary: Astonishingly bad
Review: This is a dreadful story of a horrendous crime and how justice miscarried. Why? Due almost entirely to the silly machinations of the naive and smug author, an Assistant Professor of history at Princeton. He prances through the pages of this shocking story of his jury duty very pleased with himself -- congratulating himself on eating nuts and fruits while others eat meat, enjoying literary chats about Wallace Stevens with a fellow juror who is a kindred soul, and making snide remarks about others, i.e. "I think I figured anyone wearing, apparently without irony, a large cast belt buckle reading 'Rodeo' had to be a law-and-order type, and quite possibly a bigot, too." -- page 91. You can read all that from a belt buckle? And how do you discern that someone is wearing it "apparently without irony"? (Assistant Professor Burnett is no doubt lecturing his students at Princeton about tolerance and diversity as I write).
The most nauseating feature of this book is how the author, chosen as foreman, misleads, confuses, bewilders, divides and harasses the rest of the jury into coming back with a wholly unwarranted acquittal. Of course there are always doubts, especially when someone is killed and the only surviving witness is the defendant, but are they reasonable doubts? The author magnifies every tiny inconsistency into something larger than it really is -- if he sat on every jury in America, no one would ever be convicted. Not to mention his tin ear for street smarts and total lack of common sense.
This is a shameful story of abdication of civic duty and will be read -- if it is read at all -- with repellent horror.
| 
