Juries in High-Profile Cases Like Cosby Trial Face Special Pressure

Cosby's reputation is ruined. The court of public opinion has found him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

He deserves it.

A study done a while ago regarding how a group of people would vote on a controversial topic. It seems that most people don't have a strong opinion one way or another, however there are some who do and it is those people who depending on their power of convincing others will shift the majority of the group in one direction or another. Group thinking also plays a very important role sometimes. Few people want to "rock the boat" and would rather go with the flow. I sometimes wonder if the OJ Simpson jury would still hold on to their not-guilty verdict after all these years. Juries like voters are sometimes hard to predict!

Each and every time I see a photograph of Mr. Cosby I cringe in absolute disgust. His long career secret of rape was not very well hid in certain Hollywood circles. He was and is incorrigible.

The jury system is not perfect, and there could be improvement, but until something truly better is proposed and tried, we must live with it. Of course, a defendant in a criminal case or parties in a civil case may ask for a judge to try it, rather than a jury. It depends on strategy, usually by the parties' attorneys. The indication in the story that some jurisdictions have ended sequestration due to cost shows that the jury system is getting short shrift and we aren't willing to pay the full price for justice. That ultimately affects us all.

I know from experience that being a juror is a stressful and thankless task.

We used to be proud that our legal system went to such great lengths to protect the rights of the accused. One such protection is the burden of proof. High profile criminal defendants obtain talented lawyers skilled at holding jurors to their pledge to respect the law. And in real cases, the actual evidence presented in court by prosecutors is usually far less definitive than what jurors have come to expect from TV and popular lore. In the absence of that dramatic "gotcha" moment, where guilt becomes completely clear, jurors have no choice but to acquit.

Win or lose, how can the name Bill Cosby now return to its former glory? He had his own slice in Americana and that slice is now gone for ever.

Ah yes, the OJ trial. I hesitate to put it in these terms, but the biggest "losers" of that trial, it should NEVER be forgotten, were the Brown and Goldman families, who by the "not guilty" verdict were denied justice for their murdered loved ones. This is not a commentary on whether the OJ jury did its job properly, or even on OJ's guilt or innocence. It is an inescapable result of ANY "not guilty" verdict; any time that a person charged with murder is found "not guilty," it means that the real perpetrator (whether the accused or someone else) has avoided justice.

But the second-biggest loser of that trial was the LAPD. The OJ trial, esp. the Mark Fuhrman fiasco, laid bare its horrendous record as to policing of minorities, and so poisoned the well with the jury that, according to the accounts of many of them, they in effect had no choice but to acquit, so distrustful were they of the LAPD and its (mis-)handling of evidence, not just in that case, but in many, many others.

Having grown up during the "age of Quaaludes", I am repulsed by the behavior of Mr. Cosby.
They were a knock you silly drug that he knew gave him a total advantage over those women he claims to have had "relationships" with.
If he did as he said, he is a sick, vile, disgusting rapist, nothing less.

Since lawyers can hire "jury consultants" why not do away with jurors all together? Jury consultants should be out-lawed.

I was shocked by the news coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial having moved to The States just before from Canada where for high-profile sensational cases there would be a news black-out until the verdict and conclusion of that trial and so sequestration for the jurors. I do think that practice became a problem in Canada during that same period during the sensational Paul Bernardo serial killer trial in Toronto when the Canadian news blackout in Canada could not control the news coverage coming out of nearby Buffalo, NY. I understand that a news blackout compromises the freedom of the press in this instance, but at the same time the O.J. Simpson trial convinced me that nobody should be convicted of anything in the midst of a ravenous media circus.

There seems to be something inherently wrong with a prosecutor on behalf of the citizens putting a person on trial for something he may have done over a decade ago when nobody was there but his accuser and when the criminality of such act is a matter of perception. The issue to me is not whether what Cosby did was appropriate, but whether prosecuting his action at this late date is appropriate.

Time to have paid professional juries. It's a great steady government job with benefits for anyone with a physical disability, a body worn out from decades of physical labor, a desire to work full time in a safe indoor setting, interest in justice and the law and the attention to really give it a fair consideration. Professional jurors can have a strong commitment to confidentiality and avoidance of the news media with the need for sequestering because they are professionals. For those who are stressed by the need to get back to their busy lives, it's hard to give full attention to this rather than just wanting to go along to get it over. My colleague who is an oncologist had to cancel/reschedule 50 patient appointments to go to jury duty. Delay of care can be life-altering for his patients. How is that a benefit to society and to the sick people who need his expertise? I have been dismissed in the past for stating that I had already made up my mind about the case at the time of jury selection as that was my honest belief. We would have much better and fairer outcomes with trained professional jurors.

Fewer people would have excruciating experiences on juries if more of us served.

A dear-departed friend of mine would always show up for jury duty because he felt it was his civic duty to do so. Every time he received the notice, he would show up, but never was selected to serve on a jury. He was smart, fair, objective, open-minded, etc. Finally, after decades of showing up, he decided he did not want to be called to jury duty again. So, when interviewed (on his last call), he said I hate gays (he was gay), I hate women, I hate A race, I hate B race, etc. and, was never called again.

Frankly, I admire and respect any one who ever agrees to be a juror. The toll it takes after serving for a few days, weeks or heaven forbid, a number of months, is must be overwhelming. One of my best friends was a member of a Federal Grand Jury and one of the cases he was on was the Diane Masters case. He also served as a regular juror previously and stated that both responsibilities were huge and honor bound, but he agreed that being a regular juror and having been sequestered for only a few days was tough. He always thought that if people are expected to put their personal and private lives on hold so justice can be served, then they should be treated like royalty, which should include exceptional hotel accommodations and the best food from the best restaurant. Without a jury, how can there be justice? And who ever wins the case should foot the bill for the jurors accommodations. As things are today, I would have a real struggle in deciding if I wanted to serve as a juror should the matter ever present itself. I truly believe jurors are unsung heroes of the American justice system.

I was a juror once in NYC and spent a night sequestered. Very bad experience and I promised myself never, ever be caught again in that position. The judge, after finding out there were two jurors who smoked, he said "you have my habit" and allowed them to smoke in the bathroom (what a joke), This was in the 90's. I had a copy of the NYT with me and was "confiscated". From there it became a comedy of errors. So, in the end, it became a hung jury, thanks in part to the surrealist atmosphere we were in. After that experience I always "escaped" from being a juror, just act dumb.