QUOTE
I don't know if it could be called good or bad. A couple of things come immediately to mind:
- You really don't want to be a poor person in the grips of our criminal justice system
- No way in hell does all the evidence get presented (much of it is suppressed beforehand)
The case that I was a jurer for, the defendant was charged with 12 counts of armed bank robbery. The jury consisted of two men, the forman and myself, and ten women. After hearing the "evidence", we took an informal poll to see how people felt; 2 not guilty [us guys] and 10 guilty [the women]. We each expressed why we voted as we did. Now this gets scary. Image you are the defendant, and people deciding your fate think you are guilty because:
The police don't arrest innocent people
You had $400 in you pocket when stopped by the police
You look quilty
Sick and tired of people getting away with crimes. Someone has to pay and it might as well be you.
The police found a pair of Hush Puppy shoes in your closet, it doesn't matter that they do not match those in the picture from the bank's survelliance cameras.
It took the two of us fthree days to convince these women that the evidence was crap. A photo of the "suspect' was taken in January, in Wisconsin, shows someone wearing a down hooded parka, a ski mask and gloves. All you could see were lips and eyeballs. Piss poor evidence.
One more point. The defendant was in fact an FBI informant who actually called the FBI and local police to stake out the bank in question. The other robbers cut a deal with the DA saying that he was the brains behind the robberies.
Based on this experience, I would ask for a jugde to hear my case if I was ever taken to trial. At least he/she would have some intelligence.