Interesting news article that discusses the difficulties of being a juror.
Philadelphia Inquirer: Not in Kansas Anymore
“First of all, this is not television.”
With those words, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina ended her orientation for 20 jurors – 9 women and 11 men – who Monday began hearing what could be up to three months of testimony in the trial of a church official and priest involving the clergy sex-abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
Not television? That’s an understatement.
It’s not just a reality check for jurors. Judges don’t bang gavels to open and close court sessions and most people understand that TV, movies and theater alter reality for dramatic effect.
For jurors, the trial is a crash course in logic and philosophy: learning to live according to a new reality that exists only in a courtroom and has its own language and rules of behavior.
Want to learn the philosopher’s trick of holding two opposing thoughts at the same time? Jurors are told repeatedly that they “are the judge of the facts” and that only their individual, and ultimately collective, memory of testimony and evidence establishes those facts.
Yet the courtroom combatants – prosecution and defense lawyers – will argue with passion and rhetoric that the jury should accept their interpretation of the facts. And then the judge will remind the jurors again that nothing the lawyers and the judge say is evidence, that only the jurors may determine the evidence...to continue reading go here.
Comments