Jury Trials

Cornell Research

(Another one from the old dustbin)

It has always intrigued me, as to the thinking of jurors in any type of trial. This began back in my teens when someone I knew was murdered. The "perp" told a group of us, that he was going to find "that person" and beat him to death. He did.

He was charged with 1st degree murder or whatever it was called back then. Yet, he was acquitted. That puzzled me for a very long time, but after observing a few trials... it became clear. It is not really about the evidence or the crime, but the believability that the defendant could do such a thing and jury bias. Oh, you think because everyone including the jurors say they are not biased... they are telling the truth.

In this case, the defendant came from a fine upstanding family in the community and the victim was a known troublemaker. So, when the victim broke a beer bottle to defend himself, the defendant was able to plead self-defense, even though he had initiated the contact and made the threats.

Similar cases over the years, indicate that jurors place "feelings" and societal norms into the deliberations. 

Another case in point. A few years back, a young woman was charged with 1st degree homicide for the death of her infant. 1st Degree meaning she deliberately and willfully set about to kill her child. That charge, plus others, guaranteed a sentence of no less than 37 years, if convicted.

It is very difficult for society to accept the notion that a mother would deliberately kill their own child, let alone should be punished with such a lengthy sentence... thus the bar for reasonable doubt was so much different than it would be, if the defendant had been an ugly black man. Yes, race plays a part, as society's preconceived notions are in play. Just as in famous people, etc.

If the young woman had been charged with some form of manslaughter, with a 5~10-year sentence... I contend a conviction would have been made. Those options were not on the table. Just as in the original example, I suspect this was the intent.

Whether it be Marin/Zimmerman or any other case at play... the results seem conclusive, regarding where the bar is set for "reasonable" doubt. Jurors might think they are not biased, but deep down that bar gets set differently.

It's just the way it is, imo.