A colleague who recently retired was called in for jury duty in an attempted murder case. She wasn’t chosen or even questioned because the jury had gotten selected long before it was her turn.
“That’s such a shame!” she says. “I should have been on that jury. I’m completely sure the guy isn’t guilty.”
And maybe she doesn’t even know anything about the case, except for what she’s heard from the press…
LikeLike
No, it’s something more important that she knows that gives her the certainty. The defendant is black.
LikeLike
That’s precisely what a prospective juror should be thinking: innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! What one actually gets are jurors who either believe “where there’s smoke there’s fire” or who want to hear both sides before they will opine. That is not the rule! I always asked prospective jurors during individual voir dire “Is my client guilty or not guilty” and few would respond properly, not guilty or innocent.
LikeLike
“few would respond properly, not guilty or innocent.”
That’s because almost nobody REALLY believes that people charged of crimes are actually innocent in the “did they or didn’t they” meaning of the word. (Nobody knows before hearing the evidence.)
The legal phrase “innocent until proven guilty” refers to procedures within the law, which isn’t the same thing as whether they committed the crime.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment