I appeared with Maryann Petri on “Slam the Gavel” earlier this week.
We talked about some of the wrongful conviction cases I have covered including: Randall Raar, Kevin Tower, Robert Miller, and Robert Reynolds.
As every registered voter is a potential juror, here is some advice for all potential jurors.
Don’t be afraid to play devil’s advocate- I have been on two juries. Both times everyone decided very quickly. This can be dangerous so if everyone is quick to go in one direction, don’t be afraid to go the opposite way. Most times everyone is leaning on one direction because that is where the evidence is leaning but not always. Challenge people and don’t back down. Strong cases stand up to scrutiny. Taking a few hours to challenge assumptions doesn’t hurt and it ensures that a verdict was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and not merely an initial impression of the case.
Take your time- Jury duty can be burdensome and boring. Once you are on the verge of reaching a verdict your duty is almost done, but this is important. Even though every urge will tell you to wrap it up quickly, you must fight those urges demand all the evidence is examined before a verdict is reached.
The burden in a criminal case is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt- I think too often jurors go back in the jury room for a criminal case and try and figure out if a defendant did it. That’s not your job. Your job is to examine the evidence and determine if the prosecution met its burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What is “reasonable doubt”, that is a standard which each juror gets to decide.
Testimony given as part of a deal is bribed- Robert Reynolds was convicted based on the testimony of three witnesses all caught with drugs. He had no evidence against him besides the testimony of these three, all of whom got a deal. If someone is testifying because they will face less jail time because of that testimony, that is a bribe. It’s no different than getting $50,000 and often more valuable. In my opinion, testimony made as part of a deal should be dismissed.
Sometimes evidence seems strong but it’s not- When I interviewed Jeff Deskovic, he noted that eyewitness testimony was the weakest form of testimony. The innocence project has determined that one in four wrongful convictions is due to faulty eyewitness testimony. When I interviewed Fletcher Long, he talked about the wooded rapist case. His client was convicted entirely due to DNA. This may seem strong but how does someone avoid being caught, leaving witnesses, but only leaves DNA? This was the argument that Fletcher made.
Both sides use tricks and cheating- Don’t fall for it.
It was very interesting on eyewitnesses as well.