I would like to have faith in fair trials.
I would like to trust that every person who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I am lacking in this faith and trust, but serving jury duty helped.
I wasn’t allowed to use my cell phone in the courtroom so here is an image from The Good Wife. The NYC courtroom actually looked a lot like this except the walls were white marble and the furniture was shabbier and the lighting was florescent. “IN GOD WE TRUST” was front and center.
I once took it for granted that American defendants are innocent until proven guilty. Then I spent about six hours in a courtroom with a young man accused of strangling a woman.
He looked guilty to me.
I know I am not supposed to say that, but when he was introduced to the pool of potential jurors, he gave us a small wave and a smile that was awkwardly casual, uncomfortably close to a smirk.
I didn’t trust him, and that was before I even knew what the charges against him were.
Then I learned that the charges were second degree assault and second degree strangulation.
Then I learned that the alleged victim was his grandmother.
Sometimes judgment is good
I know better than to believe every judge is as competent and careful as Hon. Thomas Farber, but I still pray he is closer to the norm than the exception. Because defendants in his courtroom are getting fair trials.
He very clearly explained how the law worked, and he made sure we all understood:
(1) The defendant is presumed innocent. Proving otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, is the sole burden of the prosecution.
(2) The defendant’s choice not to testify does not in any way indicate guilt. (See #1.)
(3) In the state of New York, evidence is judged by quality, not quantity, which means that a single witness, if deemed credible, can be sufficient grounds for conviction or acquittal.
People had problems with these rules. Several potential jurors said they could not fairly assess the situation if the defendant did not testify. Several more said they didn’t think a sole witness (the alleged victim, in this case) could give them enough to go on.
The judge noted that these feelings and opinions contradicted the law. He asked if the potential jurors could adhere to the law as he’d explained it.
Some said they could not. They were dismissed.
The benefits of doubting
Out of the sixty-plus number of us collected in the courtroom, the twelve that were selected (plus alternates) claimed one hundred percent understanding of the law, and a one hundred percent ability to adhere to it.
The jurors agreed to presume the defendant was innocent until the prosecution solidly proved otherwise, even if he chose not to speak.
They also agreed to question the credibility of all evidence presented—in this case, testimony of the alleged victim, and possibly of police officers or medical technicians.
Presume innocence, and scrutinize evidence.
These cornerstones of the criminal justice system do allow for fair trials. And they rely on the integrity of judges and jurors.
Fair trials are a miraculous possibility
Judges and jurors are humans. We are full of biases and assumptions, and without proper guidance, our judgments can be unfairly applied.
With proper guidance, fair trials can abound.
I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt, but the truth is, sitting in that courtroom, I had a feeling the defendant was guilty.
I’m not proud that I had to be pushed to presume innocence, but I am grateful that once I did, my perspective widely expanded: What if the grandmother was lying? What if the defendant was framed? How much information was missing?
Because of the way our laws are structured—and in good part because the judge explained them so well—I am confident I could have set aside my initial feelings and assessed the facts as they were offered.
I suspect that plenty of judges overlook the kinds of details Hon. Farber repeatedly emphasized, which means that plenty of jurors are misguided, which means that plenty of defendants do not get fair trials.
But what I witnessed still gave me hope. Because as horrifyingly flawed as our criminal justice system is in practice, on principle it is effective.
On principle, a person cannot be punished for their facial expressions. On principle, innocence is presumed, and judgments are guided only by the facts.
On principle, if Americans have good principles, we can also have fair trials.
Love > fear,
p.s. Speaking of criminal justice, I recently joined a discussion group in which we are reading The New Jim Crow. If you’d like to attend with me or learn more about it, please let me know.