A Trial by Jury

Rating:
Summary: Listen to the recorded version
Review: For those who found (or think they may find) this book pretentious or smug, I strongly suggest you listen to the recorded version. It's recorded by the author himself. I suspect that in the printed version, what Burnett intended to be self-deprecating or self-parodying did indeed come across as self-important. When you hear the author's voice and intonations, though, it's clear that he is aware of his own flaws. In fact, these flaws are part of the story, as much as are the quirks of any of the other characters (jurors). The last lines of the book could not be more clear about the author's awareness of how far he fell short of his duty.

I thought his ruminations on justice, his insight about the difference between literature and law, were perceptive and fascinating -- as were the glimpses into the strange bonding experience of jury duty. Well worth a read -- or a listen.

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: Existential Autobiography
Review: While reporting jury selection, D. Graham Burnett writes: "For a while there is, among us, a woman reading a book of Camus short stories. Then she stops showing up," (p.33). _A Trial by Jury_ invokes the absurd, but it does not embrace the absurd. It would be absurd to read this text with a closed mind.

D. Graham Burnett, a historian of science, delivers a text that I view as an existential autobiography. We explore Burnett's thought processes: "What I am writing is my own story of the deliberations," (p. 14), and he acknowledges that his interpretation of the trial and deliberations differs from interpretations by other jurors. Burnett guides us through the trial and deliberations concerning the killing of a transvestite. While exploring the trial and deliberations, we encounter, process, and (sometimes) abandon many judgments (only a few deal with the defendant). Burnett states about the jury: "We ran the gamut of group dynamics: a clutch of strangers yelled, cursed, rolled on the floor, vomited, whispered, embraced, sobbed, and invoked both God and necromancy," (p. 12). The reader becomes familiar with the jury dynamics and one is led to shudder at the raw power granted to 12 citizens and (an obstinate) judge. The author, at times, is obstinate, but he also appears trustworthy (tremendous memory) and dedicated. I found myself fascinated by this academically well-rounded, successful, youthful Ph.D who obsesses over food (he packed a single shirt and a bag full of food for the sequestered deliberations) and who briefly utilizes Wallace Stevens (the poet; pgs. 148 - 151) to interpret the deliberations. This text kept my mind engaged and it will become an addition to a future syllabus for a course I'll teach.

Along with this book, I recommend Kafka's _The Trial_, Albert Camus' _The Stranger_, and any text by Wallace Stevens.