Threat to justice?

I have just completed my second and final week of jury duty. Last week I wrote about my experience, well this week I can’t resist but do the same. Firstly, because it was so different, and secondly because I have spoken to a number of people about jury duty, so this time I can write more about this very important topic. My feeling is that we must start talking about this a lot more so that we can do something about it. I can see a big, nation-wide campaign happening. This is a big issue and people are anything but indifferent, even those who wish they were not called for the duty.

Few years back I organised a small event for ‘Justice Matters’ campaign to mark 17^th July. I remember how easy it was to get people involved. I wasn’t surprised, after all, you don’t need to be a genius to realise that justice is really important. Now, I would go as far as to say that justice is to most if not all people top of the list of priorities. It seems people can imagine injustice very easily and that thought frightens them.

I was, of course, a lot more prepared for my second week of the duty. In fact, I found myself more than once telling new-comers what they can expect and answering their questions. I also found myself talking to other, random jurors a lot more; the question ‘how are you finding jury duty’ turned out to be a great icebreaker. I was surprised to find a number of people who said that that was not their first time as a member of jury, some have experienced it decades ago. When I asked them if they think deliberation has changed, I was surprised to learn that they think it has not. “Even though information technology was very different back then?” I said. They didn’t reply but appeared deep in thought. It was more than evident that people were not asked what they think of the jury duty ever before and that they really wanted to talk about it. One juror said “I don’t know. We’re just told that this is the best way.” I replied that the law of evolution dictates that there is always better, and the law of change means if we are not improving we are going back. The juror smiled and asked what do I suggest. I said I think we need to start talking about it.

Another juror said that in their country there was a very serious case and the plaintiff played the jury and managed to get away with it, so the whole system was changed removing citizens from this duty. I said that I am from Bosnia and I know about corruption and how easily it can spread, so I do see some merit in the jury, but that I can’t help and see the flaws as well.

Everyone I spoke to agreed that something should be done. We spoke about the likelihood that this is a job anyone can do. “I’ve seen people who can’t clean, smart people. And cleaning is a ‘remove the dirt’ job. So you see dirt, and you remove it. Cleaning. When you see someone who can’t do it, you don’t even know what to say to them because there is nothing more to say” I said a number of times, speaking to different groups of jurors. Large majority nodded, smiled, agreed and spoke about some event in their lives. But there were some who looked puzzled as if they had no idea what were we talking about.  

During the second case, which was a much smaller crime so the emotions didn’t get in the way quite so much (I will say more about this later on), the defence lawyer made a big deal out of ‘four people watched the CCTV before deciding which parts are suspicious and took those to the police’. The persecution lawyer asked ‘did anyone else ask to see the rest of the footage’. I kept thinking ‘any of those four people could have been on a jury in a similar case, would we question them then?’ As it turned out, out of twelve of us, two jurors had similar job to that of the witness. I found it fascinating how many jurors thought that this meant we should trust the opinion of those two jurors more than others. For me, I feared those two jurors may jump to conclusions. In fact, at one point, I found myself raising my voice saying “Procedures are not worth the paper they are printed on unless they are followed, and it is not the job of the court to ensure (plaintiff’s) procedures are followed. They mentioned nothing of the sort during the hearing so I can’t say if they do what you have just said they must do.”

Also, during the hearing there was a witness who struggled to understand the questions. I thought back to the previous case and realised we had a similar witness there also. I couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if those witnesses were in a jury.

Generally speaking, people are honoured to take part in this duty even though it is hard and they have to readjust their whole life to fit it in. I’d say most people wanted to do the right thing, go down the honest and just path, but how much they were able to leave their views behind is a big question. Another question is whether they were meant to leave it behind. We are told that our own experience is what is needed ‘at the table’ to reach a true a just verdict, but what if due to our experience we are unable to view the evidence with ‘fresh eyes’, clear mind and not jump to conclusions? On the other hand, there are some who do not care. They had to show up for the duty and they really just want to go home. One juror told me that they were once on a jury and two other jurors told a third ‘however you vote we will vote, we just want to leave’. And then there are some jurors, despite their best intentions, feel they have to get back to their lives. We had one such juror on our ‘team’. While I understood what they meant, deep down I really couldn’t rush the decision as I considered it too important. But then, surely, this juror’s life is also very important. I was surprised to hear how many jurors had calls from their managers telling them they have to get back, that there is some problem or another. It was as if they thought of jury duty, the justice and everything else involved as big nuisance.

Our deliberation for this second case was a chaos. This time the ‘selection’ of foreman was laughable. We came into the deliberating room, two people were suggested, in the chaos one just took it, no one complained. In short, it is not that we agreed, or that we were even asked, we just didn’t put an objection and that was that. The juror clearly had no idea about moderation and they didn’t even think to attempt to bring some order. I stepped in a number of times asking for one conversation at a time, asking everyone to stick to the topic, asking those who were chatting among themselves to repeat to the whole group what they had said, asking if we can let a quite juror who raise their hand to have their say – it reminded me of a lunch break in high school. Luckily most of the evidence was CCTV footage and I spotted some things that I thought were very ‘telling’. Other jurors didn’t see those things but agreed that that would be something that would help them make up their mind. So we went back to the court, watched the footage again, other jurors saw what they saw, we went back and a decision was made despite the chaotic deliberation. In fact, before we even started deliberating some members of the jury were previously on a case that involved a lot of CCTV footage and they got the footage in the deliberating room so they could play it as they wished. They thought we would have the same in this case. We agreed to send a message to the judge. The message was quickly scribbled, unchecked, sent to the court. Short time later we were called up to the court. Confusion commenced. So much confusion, that the jurors were stuck in the door, literally. I was one of the first to walk into the deliberating room, so of course I took one of the chairs further from the door; let everyone else in. As a result I was in the room telling them that we have to go to court, that we’ve now been called, that they are waiting for us. However, my words didn’t mean much until I repeated them about three or four times, getting more and more serious each time. By the time I made it out into the hall, it seemed other jurors explained to the usher what we wanted and we were preparing to write another note. This time I was not going to let it go unchecked. Others also took a far more serious position making sure we say the right thing, telling the judge what it is, exactly, that we want. Hence, another note was sent on the same issue. We made it to the court to be told that we can’t have access to the footage, I believe both lawyers wouldn’t permit this, however, I do remember that on more than one occasion defence lawyer was more reluctant to let us see all the footage. I felt that in both cases where I took part, everyone was extremely stingy with information. Anyhow, that day we didn’t have much time left, the next day we had a day off, and when we returned we managed to agree very quickly that we will see the CCTV footage only if after deliberating we feel the need to see it. As I said earlier, we did have a need to see at least some parts of the footage, ironically it wasn’t the parts that either the defence or the persecution highlighted in their questioning, but it was there so we had the right to use it. And the questioning did help to clarify and reaffirm what was going on.

Not being emotionally invested made me feel like my decision was purely rational. Voting guilty or not guilty felt the same. It was then down to the evidence to see how I would vote. I also felt that I could observe the evidence and ask questions as I am observing it; there wasn’t so much empathy, I didn’t wonder so much about ‘what if that happened to me’. In fact, I didn’t wonder only about the evidence, I had many other questions and I noticed many other things that were going on. I found the court an unnerving place. Naturally I assumed that that was because it is a court of law and that is very serious. However, that might be only part of the reason.

There was a point where the persecution lawyer was helping the defence lawyer. I thought that was very nice and civil, and surprising. Why would I find it surprising that one side is helping the other side show evidence? Did I expect that they will do all they can to make sure the other side doesn’t win? The simple answer is, yes, yes I did. Which basically means that I didn’t expect lawyers to fight for justice, I expected them to fight for their side. I thought the lawyers only care about winning, as if the court was some kind of battlefield. It was at that point that I wondered: Is the defence lawyer’s wisdom and motives the first point for potential failure in the justice system? The second point would then be the wisdom and motives of the persecution lawyer. If they knew they were defending or presenting the side that did a crime, it is then down to their abilities to persuade. What does that mean for justice?

I mentioned it earlier but I don’t think I can repeat this too many times: Both sides were extremely stingy with information. Unanswered question lead to doubt. Doubt leads to inability to reach a verdict. Lawyers seem to consider what is important to a case and they present that, I assume bearing in mind how much time it will take. So even if we assume that the lawyers are presenting the truth as they truly believe it, there is a second point: Which bits of information will they present to court? I think if they find themselves removing a piece of information on the grounds of ‘this may make the jury think (whatever)’, then they have removed the information for the wrong reason. They cannot possibly know how members of the jury will understand something.

So there I was seeing the court more like a battlefield for lawyers than a place to seek justice, a point that played in my mind for quite some time, when the judge spoke and then we were asked to leave because the defence lawyer said there was a legal issue to deal with. We left the court for a moment, came back, the judge repeated what he said and then added a paragraph. At that point I thought ‘Is the judge a threat to our justice and must be kept on a leash, and a very short leash at that?’ The person with most experience and knowledge in the room suddenly became the biggest threat? I do understand that people value judges (in our first case we sent a question to the judge, once he answered it, we realised we knew it all along, but just him saying it gave us a peace of mind), and I also understand that knowledge is power. However, I also know that power is not always bad. Assuming that the judge must be a threat goes against the core of our justice system: Innocent till proven guilty. And wasting the potential of a judge is not reasonable. We have great wealth in judges. Why are we throwing that away? It seems the world has taken one extreme side or the other, and extreme is never good. We see that everywhere. This world is built on moderation. Too much rain equal flood. Too much sun equal fire. Both destructive. Finding the right balance and the right method of balance is wisdom and the way to go. Think of Lady Justice herself. And I have thought a lot about her lately. She’s become like a real person to me.

So to sum up, I do not believe that jury can be trusted to moderate their own deliberation. And I do believe this is very important. Perhaps a point to think about.

I believe more needs to be done to inform the public about the jury duty, highlighting the importance of justice so that no employer thinks their business is over and above and no member of public comes completely unprepared of what the duty is, what it means, what their role is etc.

We must rethink the role of judges. Wasting the wealth must be some kind of ‘crime against society’. Keeping them on a leash is a thought that makes me feel ashamed.

Different crime, different rules. I believe it is unreasonable to assume that everyone can do jury duty, let alone that anyone can make decisions on any case. This ‘whatever’ approach is frightening.

The role of everyone involved is so important. I did not realise how important the role of the usher is. In our first case our usher was friendly but professional. We took her for granted.

The police, as the first point of reference, the information gatherers, vital. I thought the typed transcripts of the interviews was extremely important in both cases. We could not have done it without them. Perhaps the ‘…anything you might not say and later rely on in court…” needs to be underlined a lot more. I don’t think many people understand that part and it is one of the most important parts.

And last, but not least, I hope others will openly talk about their experience. No need to say anything about the case or reveal anything about some juror. I believe we can figure out the weak points from just genderless information. And figuring out the weak points, is the first step.

THE END