We Need Thoughtful Juries, Not Dumb Ones
After reading two separate Timothy McVeigh confessions on the Internet, I remain convinced that I could sit on a jury and make a fair decision whether McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
We’re supposed to think that McVeigh is innocent until he is proven guilty. I think he did it. I thought he did it before I read his purported confessions published by the Dallas Morning News and Playboy magazine. Now I’m more convinced.
Still, I could sit on the McVeigh jury and render a fair verdict. I would admit during the questioning of prospective jurors that based on what I have read that McVeigh appears responsible for the bombing. Someone would have to convince me that what I read was wrong, or out of context, and that McVeigh is not guilty. And that’s possible.
I admire and cherish the wisdom of the nation’s founders who put the burden of proof on the government in criminal proceedings. Civil rights protect citizens from the abuses of a tyrannical government, even citizens who strike out violently against the government, as I think McVeigh did.
In criminal-justice heaven I wouldn’t have these thoughts. But here on Earth I tend to think most criminal defendants are guilty as charged even before the trial begins. Without question, police and prosecutors make mistakes, which is a strong argument against the death penalty. And there’s no doubt that innocent citizens have been framed by police and prosecutors who are lazy, corrupt, racist or possessed by any number of other human flaws.
Still, as a general rule, I think most people who are arrested, indicted and who make it all the way to a courtroom are probably guilty. That wouldn’t make me a bad juror. I would withhold final judgment until I saw whether the government met its burden of proof.
Occasionally, justice is not served even after all the evidence is heard and the final verdict is delivered. Juries also make mistakes and possess human frailties. The Rodney King trial in Simi Valley and the first O.J. Simpson trial come to my mind.
The Simpson trials also revealed that many Americans, unlike myself, believe that police and prosecutors as a general rule frame certain innocent citizens. That doesn’t make them bad jurors, either, as long as they are willing to withhold final judgment until they see if the government has met its burden of proof.
In other words, a fair trial should not require jurors who are totally ignorant and opinionless. To begin with, it’s impossible.
Justice would be best dispensed by jurors who know a lot about the defendant, the circumstances in question and the criminal justice system. Prosecutors and defense lawyers exclude from jury duty people who admit to such knowledge while they try to pick jurors predisposed to their side before the evidence is presented. Lawyers cynically joke that juries are made up of 12 people too stupid to avoid jury duty.
Lawyers want jurors with empty minds because it makes their job easier. Lawyers want those empty minds filled with only what they want the jurors to know, or think they know. Jurors are supposed to be empty, passive receptacles waiting to receive conflicting information.
These empty vessels cannot ask questions, make noises, show emotions, discuss the case, or make any decisions until the lawyers stop talking. Then they retreat in secret where they consider only what they were told, regardless of their understanding, and return with a fair verdict.
The same constitutional guarantees of a fair trial, with the same emphasis on civil liberties and the state’s burden of proof, could be maintained with the selection of informed jurors able to have their questions and doubts answered during the trial. Questions could be screened and asked by judges.
Justice demands informed, active juries.
xxxx