Are Jurors Still Deliberating After the Trial is Over?
Most of our knowledge about jurors, juries, how they function, effectiveness, and deliberation comes from jurors who answer our questions after the trial is over. Although jurors are usually instructed not to discuss the case with the media after the trial has commenced, jurors' opinions, ideas, and information are the only way we can study how to be better attorneys, provide better evidence, and be more persuasive in future cases. In short, I will discuss how "unusual" it is for jurors to stay involved in the case they served on and the associated dangers.
It is not a secret that jurors are generally uninterested in being a juror, regardless of the type of case. Although certain cases - such as those involving serious crimes, celebrities, or political scandals - cause jurors to be more entertained and "tuned-in", the thought of jury service bores most. However, a unique juror's take sheds light on her experience as a juror in a murder case - for a man she believes was completely innocent.
The Marshall Project published an entire piece by Audrey Pischl's where she explains her role as a juror in a murder trial and her experience after her juror responsibilities ended but the case continued through the legal process. An important thing to note is that this specific individual grew up in Paris, France and then traveled between Europe and from the United States for many years as the employee of a high-profile entertainer. When she was summoned for jury duty, she did not imagine that she would actually be chosen, since most summoned are dismissed. After going through the entire process and being chosen, Audrey's life completely changed.
The case involved 5 men that were drinking beers in one's driveway when one or more individuals came running towards them, shooting guns. One man was shot and killed instantly. She described her initial impressions of the defendant as follows:
My first impressions of the two defendants were neutral: James, the taller one, sat up straight and seemed confident but not overly so, while Robert* was hunched down and, to me, looked like a “deer in headlights,” as the expression goes.
She further explained that she had immediate feelings for Robert, as if she could hear his thoughts. "How did I end up here? How did this all happen to me?" And Audrey explained how Robert was constantly pulling his sleeves to cover his tattooed hands and arms. Furthermore, she said:
My opinion was clear: Robert was not guilty, under the law as it was read to us at the end of the trial. If you have reasonable doubt, you have to vote not guilty.
The case ended in a mistrial: 7-5 guilty for James and 7-5 not-guilty for Robert. After the trial, Audrey found out that at the re-trial, the district attorney was seeking life-without-parole for both defendants. Feeling devastated, Audrey kept in touch with the attorneys. Although James took a plea deal, Robert did not and trusted his attorney's opinion that the new jury would find him not-guilty. Audrey along with another juror attended the re-trial which lasted only one day, and jury deliberation lasting less than 24 hours. The jury returned a verdict of guilty... one murder and four counts of attempted murder.
Audrey witnessed his family's cries, screams, and devastation. Unable to let go and wanting to help, Audrey called the court clerk to ask if she could submit a letter for the sentencing hearing, hopeful that Robert could at least get parole at some point in his life. She called every attorney she could find to get information about how sentencing goes and also gave her number to Robert's family in case he ever wanted to call her. He called her less than a week later and thanked her for her support and belief in his innocence.
The sentencing came back: life-without-parole - "a death sentence with a different sticker on it." Audrey mentioned that "Robert's has made me engage with the world in ways I never thought I would. I kept in touch with four of my fellow jurors and we meet up once in a while."
Lastly, Audrey expressed her heartbrokenness by saying: I have been told how unusual it is for a juror to become so involved in the case after-the-fact. But I find it sad that it could ever be unusual to know about what happens to people like Robert and care.
In conclusion, this whole story was such an interesting and hopeful read. Although the contents were heartbreaking, sad, and concerning, the hope that jurors may care about the people they judge is still alive. That maybe jurors will keep up with the cases they serve and feel some responsibility to express their opinion even when their duties are complete. Essentially, this juror wanted to ensure that justice was served, even if she was not the one serving it.
No comments:
Post a Comment