Coming full circle

After seeing how drastically jury duty affected me, my husband vowed that if he were called, he would serve to the best of his ability. He thoroughly researched the deliberation process, developing strategies to ensure its fairness and impartiality, should he ever be called. Little did he know that he would need the knowledge so soon. Just two months after I served, he received a summons.

He showed up to selection, and sure enough, he was chosen. The cases we heard were alarmingly similar. A few of the circumstances differed, but the victims were about the same age, the charges were similar, and the evidence was equally lacking. Despite some of the other jurors' doubts, he convinced them to make him foreman and to agree to a few basic procedures, based upon the military court martial system. I believe that these proceedures made the difference between his trial and mine--between a fair trial and a witch hunt. I share them here in hope that someone will use these principles as a guide. Perhaps they will save some mild-mannered juror a lifetime of regret. More importantly, they may prevent an innocent person (from a legal standpoint) from being convicted.

1. Parliamentary procedure for discussion. The jury's discussion proceeded around the table, and each person was allotted five minutes to speak at a time. No one was required to speak for that long--or at all, for that matter. However, the time was available if they wanted it, allowing each juror a fair chance to voice an opinion.
2. Evidence-based instead of verdict-based deliberation. Instead of discussing whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, the jury began by carefully considering all of the evidence presented in the case. Their opinions may have been apparent because of their reactions to the evidence, but this procedure placed the focus where it needed to be--on the facts--instead of on getting justice for the victim.
   
3. Voting by secret ballot. After everyone had been given ample time to share their opinions of the evidence, they submitted their verdicts via paper ballot. Those who wanted to share their vote could, but this method ensured that more timid types did not simply "go along to get along."
   

The procedures worked well. After about an hour and a half of discussion, the jury voted by secret ballot and came to a unanimous decision.

The whole experience reminds me why I fell in love with this man. He has a rare form of integrity, and he stands for what he believes, no matter how unpopular his opinion might be. Largely because of him, liberty won out that day. As a citizen, I am grateful. As a wife, I am proud.