John White Trial and Color of Rage

[Jury Experiences]

Dear Juryexperiences.org

In an attempt to seek closure from being a dissonant juror on the John White Trial, I have written this poem which I would like to share with others. I describe the dissonant juror as pack-ice floating downstream, weary and worn from the river of the trial, one's opinions are slowly marginalized. Like ice, a jury is seemingly transparent but its also closed and dense and protected from external scrutiny. The dissonant juror becomes one with the river to bring about its end. However, their opinion is never reconciled with the rest of the jury and, in the end, they lose themselves and their lives to the river.

Regards
Francois Larche

--------------


How Does One Survive?

Fallen from soft raindrops and gushed from steep mountainsides,
a secret cocktail is frozen into invisible minds;
Like air and water which creates dense ice-pack,
and forms fine fissure from fire and fact;
Seemingly transparent but never closely inspected,
the pick-axe is left neglected.

Spawned by dark black robes of regulated night,
we become one solid mass of moving white;
Muted ice-packs from a straight and narrow course,
from reality, it has become our divorce;
The watchful river captures our imagination,
oblivious to its coercion, we enter deliberation.

Beyond irrational bias, prejudice and hindrance,
white water gushes full of dissonance;
Smaller and lighter, I fracture with speed
yet, ever more vulnerable, I guide and lead;
Soon we encounter hours of double digits
and, suddenly I’m aware of my own breaking points and limits.

Quickly accused, despised and resented,
the deeper and wider course isn’t easily accepted;
Heavy from caution and thin with patience I have become,
yet, nearer the mouth a dirty charge of salt gets me undone;
Hostile to all reason and, like termite of time,
its conclusive effect is provokingly all mine.

So never lose all comprehension about what to expect,
because what separates the ice-pack, can never reconnect;
Such is the nature of one’s understanding,
that its important to know that we are nothing;
And at the end of our lives,
its all about our struggle to survive.

[dewatobay]

My very first jury experience was waaaaaaaay less than satisfying. The only saving grace is that it was a reckless driving case and, somewhat, borderline as to whether reckless driving, or just speeding. It was not the outcome that concerns me, but, as you described, the process. I thought the verdict was a no-brainer; yikes, was I wrong.

Anywho, i mostly want to say THANK YOU for posting the poem, very, very descriptive of my emotions (yes, I was the single "holdout").

I trust you are doing better.
M. Little

[maybell]

Thanks for the poem--can really appreciate it.

I recently participated as a juror in a civil trial. The vote was 13 to 1 in favor of the plaintiff. I was the 1 dissenting vote. All I can say is that I would not want to entrust my life or fortune to 14 strangers literally off the street. The group dynamic was interesting. We would arrive each morning, exchange pleasantries and proceed to our reading or staring out the windows in silence. This was strange to me since I am more friendly than not. The group as a whole seemed fairly educated beyond high school. However, an elemental understanding about business dealings and finance structures was essential and later I found that lacking. The trial was long and somewhat boring in content but what I found interesting was when we finally got the case for deliberation the usually taciturn group exploded with views and opinions bouncing off the walls of both the case and the parties involved. Also, there was a slight air of anger and indignation at the outset but I could not put my finger on it. The group settled down around the table not knowing each other's views yet. The foreman relished his new leadership role, seated himself in the only leather chair at the head of the table. The deliberation was not pretty. The judge, in his wisdom and with approval from both counsel, crafted a questionnaire for us to answer that would lead us to key pieces of evidence to consider, try to logically argue and answer each question. This in turn would help to arrive at a sound verdict. However, there was tremendous bias toward the defense led by the foreman and four others at the beginning and surprisingly, they all sat together as if they gravitated toward one another when first seating themselves. A sort of straw vote was taken and many were unsure, including myself but 5 of the jurors dug in for the plaintiff. There was a point where we needed clarification from the judge and the foreman almost refused to ask since I think that he thought the question might sway jurors away from his opinion, however, clearer heads prevailed and we were able to ask. When we resumed deliberations, anyone with a dissenting view that might threaten the view of the foreman and his posse of four were not able to fully argue their points and were shut down (sometimes rudely) by the foreman—body language was key too in their disapproval. One time the foreman got up and paced around the room pontificating and gesturing as if to argue the case again according to his very biased view. He was insufferable and pathetic at the same time but he knew he had all the authority. I was not sure that the plaintiff met his burden of proof and implored the group to look more closely at the defense's evidence to answer allegations. Jurors agreed and one woman turned to me and said, "don't let him (the foreman) bully you". Ultimately, the decision came down to timing. It was Friday, the second day of deliberations and now 2:45. We were all exhausted from this long trial and most just wanted to get it over with. Enjoying his role and wanting to extend it, the foreman hoped and asked if we willing to come back on Monday saying it was a small imposition of our time (!!). It was this realization that motivated the jurors to reach a decision and they (except for 3 of us) caved in one by one to the plaintiff's side, I believe, to get it all over with and not to have to deal with this case another day or (gasp!) another week. The other two dissenting opinions took up the burden of trying to get people to look at the defense's evidence but now outnumbered, they gave up too. The damages were now being calculated. One very quiet woman came up with a perfect (and brilliant) calculation method that flowed flawlessly with the verdict questions, even I could have considered and signed off on. All but two of the jurors agreed and were ready to use it but one of the two jurors was the foreman and he nixed it wanting to award it all. I think at this point the jurors did not want to give it all up to the plaintiff for I believe they realized that he was somewhat irresponsible in not fulfilling his obligation under the law. Another juror kicked in and came up with another calculation--not as great since this did not logically coincide with the answers given to the questions on the verdict sheet but it was all we had at this point. Sensing growing hostility toward him, the foreman agreed and the decision was made. There was a final run through the questions and I dissented. I felt that the plaintiff did not meet his burden based on the judge's questions and the evidence and I felt the decision that was reached was rushed and hindered by some members of the jury and I could not in good conscience participate in the award. I think I made people uncomfortable and they in turn made me uncomfortable, especially the foreman and 3 of his posse with glaring looks and a rude comment from the foreman when I dissented. However, six of the jurors came up to me later and said that they were glad that I stuck to my opinion. (??) All I can say is that I pray to God that I never see the inside of a courtroom again and am never a party to a criminal or litigation trial for it is really scary who is out there deciding your fate.