[speaker001:] Well, have you ever served on a jury?
[speaker002:] No, I've not. I've been called, but I had to beg off from the duty. And you?
[speaker001:] Well, I was called and then I was not chosen.
[speaker002:] Um. Well, I was, I was, uh, originally chosen primarily, I think, because I was a young fellow and they tend to view the younger fellows as more likely to hand down a guilty verdict. I don't know why. Something I picked up in a psychology class some time ago.
[speaker001:] Oh, really?
[speaker002:] Yeah, it's that the younger they are, they tend to be more conservative for some statistical oddball reason, and [inhaling] they kind of liked me. I looked conser-, [breathing] and all that stuff and they, I don't know what they saw in me, but they saw it. But, uh, back to the issue, is, uh, I don't know, at times I feel that a unanimous decision is warranted, especially in cases in which there's no smoking gun. But, there, too, there are also cases in which I feel a majority rule might be acceptable, particularly, I think in civil cases. In criminal cases, I'd like to see the unani-, unanimity remain, but in civil cases, I think a majority rule by, by jury would be sufficient.
[speaker001:] Well, uh, could you give me an example of a case where you think that?
[speaker002:] Well, in a criminal case, say one in which, you know, there is, like, say assault or some such. I think there ought to be a unanimous, uh, vote because by law and by constitution there must be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the person in question did this. And in civil law there, you know, is such a thing as like, let's say, uh, [breathing] misappropriations or misuse of financial instruments or something like that. A majority rule, I think, would be more in line as there is no real smoking gun in the civil cases. I don't know if I'm making any sense or not.
[speaker001:] Well, I mean, I think, are you just trying to say that criminal cases are more, uh, tangible or,
[speaker002:] Yeah, often there's more incriminating evidence. Like, for instance, say, uh, and also, too, I think I'm, I'm tempering this and the fact that the consequences are much more, uh, serious in a criminal case.
[speaker001:] Well, do you think that, that in a civil case, if there was majority rule, that it would be easy for someone to be set up?
[speaker002:] Um, well, I really can't say for certain, truth be known. Uh, as it stands, there's, there's many ways and means by which a person can be set up, both, uh, in a civil, uh, civil and criminal case. I mean, the, uh, documentary, the THIN BLUE LINE pretty much demonstrated that. You know, I don't know for, if you're familiar with that or not.
[speaker001:] No, I'm not.
[speaker002:] A, uh, fellow [breathing] when he was much younger, uh, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death. Fortunately, in his case, the death penalty was revoked and, uh, so he served out his, his sentence until it was discovered by a fellow who was making a documentary called the THIN BLUE LINE that this guy had basically gotten railroaded through the judicial system. The case was reopened and he was exonerated.
[speaker001:] Well, I mean, I think that there are many cases in our judicial system where justice is not served.
[speaker002:] Yeah, many laws, but little justice.
[speaker001:] Say, but, uh, and I also think, just like you were talking about before, why you were chosen to be on a jury that, uh, the, just, the process of picking jurors is not always objective.
[speaker002:] Oh, certainly not, certainly not. And [breathing], you know, they like to think that they're getting someone who's objective in all this, but they're really looking for someone who will pretty much fulfill the lawyers' desires. You know, the, because you get up and, and [breathing] they ask you a few questions, both sides do, and [breathing] then you, you're either challenged which is, you know, each attorney can use that as much as they like or, I think it's a limit now, they probably have a limit now, but, they pretty much go through that, and then you have to give a reason to the court why you can't serve. For me, it was financial hardship, so. But, onto the thing, uh, I was never aware that juries had any say on recommending sentencing. It was always my impression that the Justice himself, or herself, had the final say.