Casey Anthony - wikimedia commons[/caption]Carol Forsloff---In a just and humane system, everyone has a right to equal treatment under the law, which was the reason for the concept of selecting juries from a community of one’s peers to decide on the guilt or innocence of any given person in a civil or criminal case. But will the effect of the George Zimmerman verdict and other high profile cases have a negative impact on jury selection?
Some media outlets speculate that the Zimmerman case will be one that will linger both in the public’s memory as well as in legal analyzes, future trials, and law school curriculum.
It took more than two months to select the jury in the OJ Simpson case, with the trial moved to the Los Angeles area to ensure a racial balance in the composition of those jurors selected. Additionally they were told by Judge Ito that they had to complete a lengthy questionnaire of 79 pages with 295 questions, some of which caused some jurors to protest the personal nature of those questions. This was added to the fact that Marcia Clark had complained to the judge that some of the people in the jury pool had lied in order to get on the jury and demanded a lie detector test be administered to all those anticipated to be selected.
All of this time and controversy became increasingly shrill over the progress of the Simpson case with the result, when Simpson was not convicted of killing his wife Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman , there was an outpouring of sentiment both in favor the verdict and against it, with much of that sentiment fueled by discussions about race and the American system of justice. There were intimations about white people being especially concerned about the verdict of Simpson’s innocence based upon the sentiment of the African American community, represented by those on the jury themselves.
The Casey Antony trial also provoked strong emotions. Casey Anthony was tried in Florida for killing her toddler, Caylee. Again questions were raised about the biases of jury members, the composition of the group and the fairness of the verdict, to the extent that many of the jurors refrained from disclosing their identities. One of those jurors, Dean Eckstadt, was quoted as saying on the Today show “We are upset that so many people think we are incompetent.” He did not think the jurors were afraid for their lives after the verdict, but most of the jurors on the case preferred to remain anonymous. However one of the jurors, referred to as Juror No. 12, quit her job and left town because of the death threats she was reported to have received.
In the case of George Zimmerman, juror B37 maintains the deliberations and the decision was emotionally trying for all members of the jury. She also tearfully explained they had been careful to arrive at a fair verdict. Still most of the jurors have preferred to remain anonymous, and like the verdicts in the Simpson and Anthony cases, people question the juror’s decisions and the framework used to make those decisions. Four of them distanced themselves from the opinions of Juror B37 who had said that Trayvon Martin had played a significant role in his own death. They have requested privacy, issuing this statement: “Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us,” the statement said. “The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do.”
In the aftermath of the Simpson trial there was speculation about the racial divide but not specifically the safety of the jurors themselves, despite the unpopularity of the verdict of not guilty rendered by the jury. In contrast, however, jurors on both the Anthony and Zimmerman cases have expressed concerns about their safety following their decisions.
How many people, of any race, after learning how juries are selected, the time it takes to make the decisions about a jury composition, and the potential personal vindication they might receive following a verdict if it does not follow public opinion will be willing to serve on a jury on a high profile case?
How might that impact the administration of a potential humanitarian and just decision when jurors must fear the aftermath of their decisions?
