The Jury

A man was charged with perpetrating an illegal act. There was enough evidence for the public prosecutor to consider that it should be tested in a court. He is alleged to have committed a crime. His actions are alleged to have caused injury to another person. There are alternative explanations for his actions. Is he guilty?

We, the jury, are empanelled after passing through three rounds of random selection. First a large number from the electoral roll, then 40 of us are selected by lottery to proceed to a particular court where there is a case that requires a jury. In the court room consecutive names are drawn from a box, with both the defense and the prosecution being able to reject six each without reason. Twelve are finally empanelled in the jury box.

The prosecution and defense lay out their respective cases and call witnesses. They all address themselves to us. We, the jury, a completely random cross section of society, find ourselves scribbling notes, listening carefully, assessing demeanor and credibility. Ours is a solemn responsibility. From our various comfort zones we come, together, to weigh and to judge. We are to make inferences and to draw conclusions from the balances of probabilities. We are to undertake an exacting intellectual analysis.

And then it gets interesting. We find ourselves both liking and disliking the barristers and solicitors, we are in turns impressed and disappointed. We are surprised at opportunities lost. We begin to ask our own questions. We write them down on pieces of paper and are delighted at the respect accorded to us. The judge calls witnesses back and puts our questions to them. We glean essential new facts. Facts that will prove to be critical.

Day after day we grind our way through complex testimony, medical, legal and circumstantial. We begin a long process of each bringing to bear our respective experiences of life, and of challenging each other. We approach issues from many angles, we feel our way to what appears to be the natural fit. Sometimes it is the seemingly inconsequential and tiny details that raise our suspicion. Why would she say that? Why would he do that?

Then comes the two great difficulties: reasonable doubt and unanimity. There is doubt, but is it reasonable? We begin to put the pieces together but various members get stuck at different stages along the way. Then begins a process of friendly and respectful cross examination. In some cases many attempts at explanation from various members are followed by a return to the bigger picture, a rehashing of facts and pieces of evidence that may bear on the degree of doubt.

We come to a verdict exhausted and chastised, sure that we played our role and decided as best we could, but philosophical and affected by the human tragedy that lay at the heart of the matter. We were reassured however, of the efficacy of a great institution, and the overriding need to TELL IT TO THE JURY.