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: 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: 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: Why Academics Make Lousy Jurors
Review: I've been a trial lawyer for more than 30 years. I've tried both civil and criminal cases. Currently I am a prosecutor. So I was interested in Burnett's book because it promised to give me a glimpse of how a jury conducts itself in deliberations. If the jury Burnett served on in Manhattan is any indication, it's like the saying that it's better not to see how sausage is made.
I don't fault all the members of this jury... A more alert prosecutor would have struck him at the outset when he observed him segregating himself from the rest of the jury panel, nibbling his fruits and nuts and reading his newspaper in the corner.
It is not the verdict the jury ultimately reached that is offensive. If the jury wanted to entertain a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant acted in self defense, that was its prerogative. But to sit around and debate justice vs. the law for four days was simply a jury out of control, led by an academic who apparently operates on such a high intellectual plane that common sense is alien to him.
I'd be interested in what his fellow jurors make of Burnett's account of their common experience. My surmise is that they would not recognize his account. He was so off base that in the end, this is simply one man's subjective and distorted view of how the legal system functions.
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: 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: Could have been better
Review: It is easy to pick on people that are less educated than you, and, if you are very well educated like this author, to do it in a way that seems less than mean spirited, however real people are difficult to understand and this is what the book unfortunately missed. The author approaches his subject "critically" rather than with curiosity. Because of his intelligance, his education, his experiance, etc., he obviously feels that he "knows" what he is talking about. And, about many things, some of which are in this flawed book, this is true. But, he could have learned many things and this is the problem with the book. While as a trial lawyer I found the book useful, I would hesitate to say that I also found it to be good.
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: "Have You Reached A Verdict, Mr. Foreman?"
Review: Kudos to this insightful portrait of the trial by jury. Very few books have revealed the inner workings of a jury's deliberations with such clarity and detail. The author sat as the foreman of the jury in the criminal trial of the People vs. Monte Milcray for murder in the second degree held in New York City. In just 183 pages, the author takes the reader through the jurors and their backgrounds, the trial and the evidence and then reveals how all of this plays together for four days during the jury's deliberations and sequestration. You cannot come away from this text and not better appreciate the power of a jury and the valuable service it performs in our system of "justice." For this alone, you will be glad you read this book. This book, however, is not without its flaws. Early on in the text, the author refers to Ockham's metaphorical razor as the philosopher's tool used to excise all but the most essential to arrive at the truth. This book's editor obviously misunderstood this concept, and allowed what is a good book to be lessened with the author's ruminations that do nothing to illuminate what this book is about except to reveal the author's intellectual prowess and his penchant for affected behaviors. Maybe that's the way the Princeton University history department likes its assistant professors (the book's jacket identifies the author as one) to appear in print, but since other reviewers on this site have also complained about how the author's smugness gets in the way, I cannot help but think that this book could have been so much better if a stronger editor had been assigned. If you live in Manhattan or work in its court system, you will particularly appreciate this book. If you're a lawyer, you'd better listen to what the jury actually thinks is important. And if you're a casual reader who appreciates a book about trials and the legal process, I predict you'll like this book, but you probably won't invite its author to your next party.
| 
