When I get called for jury duty, I always cringe. “I’m way too busy,” I whine to myself. “What if I get nabbed for a lengthy trial?” I moan.
Then I remind myself, “What if I were the accused?” I would certainly want my peers to decide my fate. The American system of jury trials is the fairest in the world and I know I need to play my part in keeping it that way.
It’s not that all juries do a great job. That was clear in the O.J. Simpson trial, where DNA evidence made it unlikely that anyone else could have been the murderer of Simpson’s wife and her friend. Certainly some juries return outrageous damage awards as well. But the flaws of a few juries do not reflect the vast majority that perform thoughtfully and fairly, giving their time generously to ensure justice in America.
Three riveting trials over the last few weeks demonstrate the value and competence of juries. First came the Michael Jackson trial. That jury found Jackson innocent of child molestation charges. I think they did the right thing.
It’s certainly not that I believe this very weird man who loves pornography and young boys in his bed is benign. I wouldn’t want my kids anywhere near him. But if I were one of his jurors, I would have had a hard time believing that a mother who sends her child off to sleep with Michael Jackson in return for quantities of money and a regal lifestyle is credible. I would be wondering why that mother wasn’t on trial herself for child abuse. This jury decided that the prosecution, with its sleazy witnesses, had not proved Jackson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what juries are supposed to decide.
Next was the retrial of Tyco’s former chief executive officer, Dennis Kozlowski, and former chief financial officer, Mark Swartz, who were both found guilty of stealing millions of shareholders’ dollars. With one exception, the defense attorneys rejected all potential jurors with a college education. Apparently, they thought that less-educated people would have difficulty understanding the complexities of the case, so might simply vote for acquittal. Hoping that education level defines a juror’s capabilities proved to be a fatal error. This jury spent 11 days studying complicated documents and testimony before returning guilty verdicts for both men on 22 of 23 counts. They demonstrated how virtually all of us, no matter what our backgrounds, are capable of measuring and weighing evidence to reach a thoughtful and fair decision.
Finally, nine white and three African-American jurors in Philadelphia, Miss., convicted Edgar Ray Killen of manslaughter in the murders of three civil rights workers 41 years ago. While some are criticizing them for not returning murder convictions, one juror said, “The state simply did not provide the evidence for first-degree murder.” But the prosecution did prove to this mixed-race jury, in a former citadel of racial repression, that Killen had set up the murders by luring the young men to town and telling fellow Klansmen these young men “need their butts tore up.” This jury took its responsibility to weigh all the evidence seriously and brought justice, at last, to a shameful episode in our history.
American institutions define and protect our democracy. Our constitutional requirement for jury trials ensures our right to be judged by our peers, the fairest system I can think of. Over the last three weeks, three juries from across the country, from small towns to a large city, from professional to working-class backgrounds, from different races and experiences, listened to long hours of testimony, took their responsibilities seriously, and rendered their judgments on the guilt or innocence of fellow Americans. From my vantage point as a spectator, they certainly affirmed my confidence in our system of justice. From now on, I will forgo the whines and moans when I’m called to be on a jury and just go do my duty.
Gail Schoettler is a former U.S. ambassador, Colorado lieutenant governor and treasurer, Democratic nominee for governor and Douglas County school board member.
