Rating: 
Summary: We the jury
Review: Judges have become too powerful; they tell juries what evidence is admissible and which pieces of evidence must be discarded; judges instruct juries on the meaning and intepretation of the law; juries attempt to appease the judges by closely following the instructions and intrepretations in finding a verdict, their civic duty; the more constrainted the rules of law and admissible evidence the more influence the judge has over the outcome of the verdict; juries don't receive great threatment or financial compensation for their time and can be forced to remain silent, feed mediocre food, forced too appear in court with little regard too their personal considerations, and sequestered by confinement too a hotel. I praise the author's courage in pointing out that juries have a responsibility to Justice and law secondary. Justice is the responsibility of the people. People's law guarantees liberty, justice, and truth. A jury is the people's last defense against a tyrancal government. If rules and evidence can be controlled, the final verdict of the jury can become predictable. I say, a jury should have the power too decided what evidence is admissible, a jury should have the power too decide, if a law is unconstitutional and have the right to dismiss the law according to their conscience. A jury represents the finest power given too the people to administer Justice. Expediency is a power oriented goal for the law. Should a computer be given the power too decide guilt or innocence? The goal of law must always be too seek Justice. Objectivity and impartiality does not necessary guarantee justice. In any serious charge the defendant should always have the right to a jury. The power of Judges too administer Justice needs too be contracted and constrainted and the jury power expanded - maintaining the power too see Justice is served. Therefore, it seems the Judge and Jury are at odds with each other; the judge seeking more control over the jury by increasing his power and capability and the jury reliquishing its discernment power and confining itself too the boundaries of the law as explained by the judge. Can a judge rule on verdicts more wisely than a jury? Historically, for serious crime the English common law brought the King as a party in the criminal case? How did the crime hurt the king? Why did the king entangle himself into the criminal case? Is prosecuting crime really about forced collection of money? An eye for an eye mean compensation for injury not revenge. The parties have the right to work out a negotiation for compensation. An eye for an eye did not mean two people walked around blind. Does the law sometimes attempt to be so objective that both parties walk around blind? Where is the discernment power? Should juries be given the power too discern guilt or innocence? Has law become too much like a business negotiation between a big company and the small business? The power migration to the Judges must swing back towards the Jury. The defendant is entitled too defense counsel, a speedy trial, and an impartial jury for an serious charge. The state uses tax money to pay for courts and attorneys to represent the state's interest. It is in the best interest of the state to prosecute crime because crime is big business. When the defendants rights are forfeited, Justice is not served; Justice can not be fair if the power is removed from the people too decide what is Just. The fact that the State becomes entangled in serious crimes where party one wrongs party two seems unconstitutional. The case should be between the parties involved in the crime. A fee should be paid to the court for usage of the facility. A jury should be selected from among individuals the parties know. A jury member should be able to bring insight and information to other jury members about the circumstances of the case. The law should not be revengeful, instead it should only offer compensation for damage. In the Milcray case, the law measured "intent" equivalent with "depravation of human life"; so, if the defendant demonstrated by a reasonable doubt - heinous disreguard for human life, he could be charged with 2nd degree murder. The test for mental intent did not necessary have to be proven.
Rating: 
Summary: Honest portrayal of jury life, but lacks courtroom tension.
Review: D. Graham Burnett, an assistant Princeton history professor, brings us a lively, honest look at the inner world of juries in the slim volume entitled, A Trial by Jury. Burnett's writing style is casual and easily accessible in describing the jury he joyfully found himself leading.
The Manhattan murder trial has the defendant claiming self-defense. The burden of proof lies on the state to prove Monte Milcray did not act in self-defense after stabbing Randolph Cuffee twenty-odd times. Milcray's story about the hot August night changes several times. Erroneous facts spring forth as key elements begin to slowly seep into the story: a rendezvous encounter with a transvestite via the dating phone service. Unfortunately, the author decides to reveal the verdict in the opening pages of the book. Burnett then back peddles to the beginning: a week of jury selection, two weeks of evidence and then the four days of closed deliberations.
Clearly those who need instant gratification will love the author's choice for the up-front verdict. This reader would have preferred more tension in the vein of 12 Angry Men; the movie magnificently portrays the inherent conflict of twelve disparate people dissecting evidence to reach a conclusion. That balled-up tense feeling one gets in the gut is sadly absent here since we know the outcome early on.
However, there are many keen insights and fine discussions about law and justice. The juror Adelle says,
I realized that what I keep wanting here is for us
to figure out some way to do justice, but I am
starting to realize that the law itself may be a
different thing. What is my real responsibility?
The law? Or the just thing? I'm not sure what the
answer is? We've been told that we have to uphold
the law. But I don't understand what allegiance I
should have to the law itself. Doesn't the whole
authority of the law rest on its claim to be our
system of justice? So, if the law isn't just, how
can it have any force?
Burnett effectively brings us the emotions felt within the sealed jury room. The writing is palpable and quickly sparks one's imagination. The reader is privileged to the endemic shortcomings of the court. A Trial by Jury enables you to be the proverbial fly on the wall, listening and watching twelve individuals from various backgrounds decide a man's fate.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: In a word, disappointing. Overall, A Trial by Jury was a trial to read. It was slow moving and over written. The author spent too much time patting himself on the back. If he spent more time getting to know his fellow jurors instead of judging them, the book would have had some added dimension. This reader walked away thinking that Mr. Burnett thinks quite a bit about him and not much about those he feels are beneath him. Not worth the read.
Rating:
Summary: Must Read for Lawyers - laymen, watch the movie
Review: The concept of this book is wonderful. Unfortunately, the vantage of the author isn't all that much different than the views of attorneys whose egos arrive long before they do. The condesending tone throughout the book leads me to suspect that the viewpoint may also be biased and tainted. I've worked with just enough lawyers to know which ones should read this book! However, if you truly want a good look at the jury during dilberations, run out and get your paws on "12 Angry Men", a movie from 1997 starting John Lennon, Tony Danza, Will Patterson, and George C. Scott, among others.
Rating:
Summary: A Trial to Read
Review: I understand the impact that serving on a jury has on an individual. My experience as a juror on a homicide trial led to my desire to go to law school. However, you can rely on all of the other negative reviews on this book; Mr. Burnett is a self-important, self-involved bore who fancies himself to be superior to his fellow jurors, when in reality he has no clue as to how to approach the legal decision-making process. Many of my fellow jurors came from humble backgrounds and had more common sense and intelligence by accident than Mr. Burnett has accumulated from his years of living in academia. Skip this book! You have better things to do with your time.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent!
Review: This is a great book. If anyone wonders what really goes on in jury deliberations, this puts you right there. You really feel the frustration of dealing with this group of people, who vary in different degrees from complete idiots to petty and childish. It may be our best example of democracy in action. The writing is great...it reads like a novel, and the final conclusions about the power of the state are a suprise and an insight I don't think you expect to get. You also get a sense that the system is so callous it treats jurors very poorly and inhumanely.
| 
