Rating: 
Summary: The Burnett Show
Review: The entertainment value of this book is greatly blunted, as he states the verdict at the very beginning of the book. Even so, the pace of the book is so slow (in the first half he seems to write everything indiscriminately, from the birds in the trees to his thoughts about the appearances of the jury). Fortunately, he starts to gain relevance in the second half, as he breaks down the crime scene and the sentencing. By this time you should get used to his conscending know-it-all attitude or you will demand a refund. Remember, this is HIS show, and prepare to accept his assumptions of what other people are thinking. Buy this book if your chances of serving a jury is slim to none, and would like to read the diary of an individual juror. Otherwise, this book is nothing new or groundbreaking. Even so, one would wish he'd talked more about the crimes committed and less of himself, now that he's summarized what happened at the very beginning. To be fair, though the jury's (or to be more precise, Burnett's enforced view on the rest of the jurors) arrival at the conclusion is not brilliant, at least he stated a convincing way out.
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: 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: Trapped in the jury room
Review: This book accurately portrays the intensity and emotions which develop during jury deliberations. The author is quite critical of his fellow jurors (they all seem to be a bit strange and not overly bright) but admits his own confusion and frustration. The judge was certainly not very helpful and seemed actually hostile to the jury. I think that I would have voted to acquit also (not giving anything away since the author tells you the verdict in the beginning) based on the evidence presented. The crime itself was lurid, the witnesses a parade of weird characters, and the defendant not the type you'd want in your neighborhood, yet the jury tried to be fair and objective. I'd rate this as realistic in its depiction of a typical jury, a fast read.
Rating: 
Summary: Aargh!! Keep academics off your jury
Review: This book is painfully overwritten and the greatest blessing is its short length. As a trial attorney I give it two stars because it does cover an interesting topic and a murder that is typical in its quirkiness.
But the story could have been told much more compellingly if the author had taken time after the trial (or during deliberations for that matter) to find out his fellow jurors true thoughts on the matter. As it turns out the book portrays the verdict as somewhat a trial by a judge .. with Judge D. Graham Burnette presiding. For those who are fans of the courtroom drama or true crime novels, this is not your flavor. More autobigraphical and introspective than insightful into discovering the truth of the crime or what the other jurors really thought.
Rating:
Summary: A view inside the jury room
Review: This book offers a glimpse into the workings of a jury: something that the public rarely sees. As a law enforcement officer myself, I found this book very interesting. This is a factual account of the author's jury service in a murder trial in New York City. The defendant is accused of murdering a cross-dresser with which he allegedly was having an affair. The defendant, however, claims self-defense. The author's focus in this book is not the trial itself; rather, it is the deliberations of the jury, which drag on for sixty-six hours, before they agree on a verdict of "not guilty." (Now, don't think I've spoiled the book for you by telling you beforehand what the verdict was. The author does that himself in the first few pages.) Overall a good book, especially for anyone who is interested in the workings of the Criminal Justice system. In describing the forensic evidence, Burnett goes into graphic detail; thus, I wouldn't recommend this book for those with aversions to that type of thing.
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.
Rating: 
Summary: A terrific, insightful book by a careful, thoughtful writer
Review: This is a great book by an excellent writer. I read a lot and I consider this one of the best two or three books I have read in the last year or two. It is well written in prose which draws the reader into the scenes and takes us into the dark underside of the machine of justice. In fact, to me this book reaches one of the great goals of all important literature: it allows us to truly sense and understand people and a place where we might never go ourselves, in a way that is memorable and meaningful. I find the writer's comments about his fellow jurors to the carefully constructed, logical and not at all meanspirited. Of course, it is all be inevitible that there will be jerks on almost any jury, but the writer is generally restrained, or tries to be, in exposing his personal judgements. He is taking us on a personal trip into this world and I find him to be a good and steady guide. We might have learned more about these people, but what we do learn seems to be enough to flesh out the story. Having been called for jury duty a couple of times myself (but not having served), it was clear to me from the beginning that it would be a journey of discovery of one's fellow citizens and their abilities behind the mask of everyday life. Even in the jury pool, one could get a sense that there is a lot more, good and bad, to people around you that would be revealed in the crucible of the juryroom. This book brings that experience to life in a gripping and telling way I will never forget. Unlike most writers, Burnet even manages a moment of (unintended) humorous self insight. In talking about his occupation as an academic, he says the jury process led him to understand that in his profession the debate about truth assumes more importance than truth itself. For academics, the purpose of raising questions is to allow more questions to be discussed and written about later. He came to realize that this would not do in the jury room. Would that more writers could share his honesty and ability to see flaws in himself. In discussing the decision to let the defendant go free, Burnet reveals that the juror's disgust with the way they, the jury, were being treated as virtual prisioners of the judicial system could have contributed to the verdict. Listen up, yea people of the courts! Even dogs get their day and if you treat people like dogs, they sometimes insist on bitting back. The wheels of justice might just grind your own hand. The judge in the case comes off as a tired, rancid old man from hell intent on taking a few scalpes back with him. My only complaint, a mild one, is that the writer might have included some history of the jury system, its evolution and some information about countries around the world where juries of citizens do not make key decisions (almost everywhere). Having said that, I would highly recommend this book. The case is not a pretty one (few are). The paritcipants are sometimes ignoble and petty, but, in the end, they deserve our thanks for their seriousness of purpose and the final result. The same can be said of this book. An excellent, short read that can renew your faith in our fellow citizens, warts and all.
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.
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.
|
