It’s clear that the jury system is failing us

By Anne Deam 8:48 PM Friday, July 8, 2011

Another American tragedy. Another American travesty. Not at the hands of someone with a gun or a bomb or an anti-American agenda. No, this travesty occurred at the hands of 12 well-meaning, if not manipulated, citizens. An American jury.

The question begs to be asked: Have juries become putty in the hands of clever, skilled defense attorneys? Our jury system protects and guarantees the right of citizens to a fair and speedy trial. That is the theory.

In reality, high-profile trials have become circuses, emblematic of a chess game between formidable opponents not always seeking truth that results in the proclamation of innocence or guilt, but rather winning versus losing. The ultimate goal is to beat your opponent through loopholes, distortions and even lies — and, of course, through the cloak-and-dagger element of reasonable doubt.

However, what is lost in this process is the right of the victim, or the victim’s survivors, to achieve some semblance of justice.

Reasonable doubt has become the mantra of juries that, for whatever reason, are incapable of punishing individuals for crimes they have committed. Some crimes are so heinous that they offend the collective conscience of the nation.

Case in point is the recent not-guilty verdict in the Casey Anthony trial. One of the alternate jurors suggested that the verdict was appropriate because there was reasonable doubt.

If we were to take another vantage point that future jurors might want to consider, it would be that of “unreasonable belief.” It is an unreasonable belief that a mother would wait more than a month to report her 2-year-old daughter missing.

It is also unreasonable to believe a mother would lie about the whereabouts of her daughter and create an imaginary nanny. And it is unreasonable to believe that, if her daughter accidentally drowned, a mother would not call 911 in a state of panic.

Duct tape, burial in a swamp, partying while a child is missing, and a car trunk that retained the smell of a decomposed body — as stated by the defendant’s mother — all are beyond unreasonable belief that the child was not murdered. The last person to see the child alive was the child’s own mother. It’s unreasonable belief to think that anyone besides Casey Anthony committed the unthinkable, inhuman act.

I do not believe that it is presumptuous to ask jurors to differentiate between plausible explanations by the prosecution and fantasy creations proffered by the defense. Nor do I believe that is unreasonable to ask jurors to connect the dots of circumstantial evidence. And lastly, I do not believe that it is asking too much of jurors to do the right thing and convict criminals. Regardless of tears. Regardless of emotional outbursts. Regardless of defense antics.

After all, the purpose of a trial is not only to seek out truth and punish or acquit the defendant, but also to deter others from similar heinous acts. If jurors are unable to set aside their emotions and provide the valuable service that is required of citizens, then perhaps we need to explore how to examine jurors to see if they are qualified to perform this critical task.

Anne Deam is a retired teacher.

Share this article