In the summer of 1986, at the age of twenty-four, I convicted two young men of felony assault against a female prostitute. I passed judgment during jury selection, or voir dire.
I am leaving in three minutes to take my eldest to summer camp and it hurts my whole body not to read this in full, given the title. I can't wait to get home from New Hampshire!!
In my experience on 6 person NYC juries, there are two who really understand the case, two who are smart enough to follow the first two, and two who barely know what’s going on, including one in the arts who might look for any opportunity to sing in the jury room. But having met my wife on jury duty I feel good about the whole process.
I really enjoyed reading this,not sure why,but maybe crime tales have an inherent drama in them. I think you chose the right verdict but possibly (as you suspect) for the wrong reasons. You obviously had an innate air of authority and and an ability to marshal people. Born Leader. I feel for that schoolteacher. Another sexy guy out of the running,lol! Ive got to admit - of I was ever on a jury which I don't think will ever happen now I would have made my mind up after the first glance at the defendant which is totally wrong and unjust - but maybe if I hear enough background... I've been summoned for jury service 3 times but never served. The first time was 30 years ago,time flies. I got the summons a few weeks before I was due to fly to Canada to stay with my cousin in Victoria BC. It was all arranged. Id spent all my little money (my own fault for not knowing how to manage money,it's a skill to be learned,so where are the teachers),on my air ticket. My doctor wrote me a letter
It got me off it. I could not give up that trip. It was a once in a lifetime thing. The second time was 20 years and I'd just moved and I had so much to sort out I didn't fancy going in town everyday for a week and not getting picked anyway. In UK if you are called for Jury service you got to a big hall and then the lawyers for both sides check you over and decide if you will suit their case ie do you look as though you'll find guilty (the prosecution ) or do you look sympathetic (the defence) so if your client is a dreadlocked tattooed personage up for over sharing (drug supplies) his lawyer might look on your favourably if you too are tatted and maybe with a nose ring. My Mum had to waste a week attending every day and she never got picked. It sounds bizarre to me. So I just ticked the box that said "I have mental health issues" and that was it. Never heard from them again until 2 years ago I had a jury summons and this time I thought " I must do my duty this time" so I confirmed I would attend. Then 3 days before the date I got a letter saying,"don't turn up,it's ok,we don't need you after all". And I felt SO OFFENDED,LOL, it's lol really. They rejected ME. They must have found that old letter my doctor wrote !
Lightening. Thunder . On our harbor. Just finished . This might be my favorite story you’ve penned. Arrogance? Nah! You? No surprise. Partial ? No disguise.
David! You had me nodding along with 24-year-old you. I’m about three times that age and would do the same thing tomorrow. Those schmucks were guilty as hell. Some have called me judgmental. They’re the ones who know me best. I’ve never been called for jury duty, which is just as well.
Love this ! I’m so glad you stood up to the people who thought a sex worker didn’t deserve justice. Did your brother unsubscribe? He and Debbie are definitely my favorite characters in your stories. Have a great weekend!
Felony rape case. Latino perpetrator. The Hebrew-speaking victim needed an English translator—rape took place in the stairwell of the Empire State Building. Defense was consensual. Judge Edwin Torres (yes, him) asked if any of us spoke/understood Hebrew. I did not raise my hand. Sequestered in Rye. Jury convicted. Good memory.
I appreciate your honesty. Great essay including the stock chart paralleling your self esteem. Haha.
I work hard at not judging. I once judged an Orthodox Jewish HS as being “too Jewy (insular) for my kids.” In retrospect I wish I had at least explored the option. There are other similar examples. Self awareness is key.
Please post the transcript of your NYC mayor race discussion tomorrow. I’m terrified of the Jihadi winning. Am I judging? Based on his verbal support for Hamas, Iran, genociding the Jews… I think my fear is reasonable.
I will send it around. I do not like Cuomo and wish there was a better alternative but I ranked Cuomo and did not rank Mamdani so essentially a vote for Cuomo.
I haven't yet unsubscribed, Brother! (Btw, I'm surprised that both co-defendants were repped by the same Attorney). If Im defense counsel, and my client is a finance guy, I probably reject you out of hand. We paint our prospective jurors with the broadest of brushes but: there's a school of thought that a juror will seek to distance himself from a facially similar defendant with a guilty vote. For example, all else being equal, in a rape case with a consent defense, and a young male client, Im very wary of including young(ish) males, whose mindset might be: "I WOULD NEVER do that.... Im not like him....and I'll show em by convicting...." Same thinking can apply to racial and ethnic groups. Again: broadest of strokes!
That's really an interesting insight about similarity. There were two lawyers but I only remember that one and he did all, or most of the work as I recall.
How can one not warm to a man who refers to his former self as "an arrogant prick"!
I loved this piece for its harsh self-criticism. I can't comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue.
I was only once a jury member and it was for a very memorable murder trial. It affected me hugely – not because of the very horrible murder that the guy admitted to doing (bashing a young woman with a rolling pin until she died (the headlines always referred to him as "rolling pin murderer"). But because I sat very close to him over the two weeks of the trial and he had absolutely no emotions at all. Cold, cold, cold. He was said to have "schizoid personality disorder". He was a PhD student and research assistant - he handed out a survey related to his PhD to other students the day before the murder and then went out to the local department store to buy the rolling pin! It was very very disturbing. The jury wasn't asked whether he was guilty - he admitted to that - but whether he was mentally ill and therefore not responsible. An odd question to ask a jury. Sorry to go on so long, but it was 25 years ago and still very memorable.
Thanks Ann. My brother Samuel had a similar case defending a guy who chopped up his boss and made no attempt to hide his crime. The insanity plea here, if successful, is not a get out free situation. You're locked away in a mental institution instead of a prison. It must have been frightening to see someone w/o any emotion.
I told Ray about the 'arrogant prick' remark and he said something like "Weren't we all!'.
And you are right about the insanity plea. But it became even more bizarre because the jury decided he was mentally ill and then the judge decided he should go to an ordinary prison! So there was no point to the trial at all. He was one of those very hard working-no social life sort of people and I wondered whether he finished his PhD in prison. I happened to be doing some work with a psychiatrist at the time and said how difficult I found someone 'without affect' and he said even psychiatrists found that difficult.
I was just telling someone over lunch yesterday that I'm 53 and I've never been called to jury duty. There's injustice in that. I would be a GREAT juror. ;)
Great story, David. Good on you for leading that jury to the right decision. My brother (an attorney) tells me that you just never know what might happen once a case is in the hands of a jury. He says that jurors are very good at following the judge's directions, and they "want" to make the "right" decision. But like you experienced, people are complicated and they come at issues with their own biases, and sometimes they hear something completely different.
I went through a phase where I studied true crime and called it research for the thrillers I write. I even had a podcast called Kentucky Fried Homicide for a time. For many reasons, I gave up that hobby, but I'm still drawn to interesting cases, and I love interpreting facts and circumstances as it pertains to law.
True crime is popular for a reason. When we see or read about a case it's like we're the jury. In hindsight I believe we reached the right decision. So, as I wrote, I feel lucky that my hasty certainty didn't result in something unjust.
I understand your regret with regard to having been a prick and perhaps the fact that you let your emotions guide your judgment. But I also believe it's important to read the vibe from people, and it sounds like that what you did with regard to the defendants and their attorney. I am confused as to why, in retrospect, you think the guilty verdict was problematic. They brutally beat the woman. Why did this not warrant conviction?
I have no problem with the verdict but at the same time I think it's an illustration of what could happen to arrive at a wrong verdict within group dynamics. The loudest and mostconfident voice may be the least wise!
I would not b so quick to denigrate instinct. Following instinct often turns out to be a more effective problem solving tool than slow, deliberate weighing of facts, which can often lead to paths that blur the distinction between right and wrong. In this case, even if the coffee had been hot...and it had to be less than scalding or there would have been evidence on skin or clothes...it was not sufficient to justify two bullies beating up someone who could not effectively fight back. In terms of slow, deliberate weighing of facts, look at some of the more egregious Supreme Court decisions...Dred Scott, Korematsu, or any variety of recent ones from the current panel. Alito and Thomas particularly, after a slow, deliberate weighing of the facts, will come to the conclusion, for instance, that the Constitution protects the right of someone to openly carry a loaded firearm in, say, a shopping mall. The Second Amendment wasn't about that at all. (If you want to know what it WAS about, see, https://lawandhistoryreview.org/article/lawrence-goldstone-arms-and-the-common-man-standing-army-militia-and-the-second-amendment-in-the-united-states/ ). Bottom line, David, is that, no, you were not an arrogant prick, at least not in the way you thought, but you were someone whose instincts pointed you to the truth and you had the determination to make certain that truth was not lost.
Thanks Larry. A compliment AND a disagreement wrapped up in one. Seriously, you make a good point about some of the SC opinions. I've read some of Thomas's and he makes no sense. I have to assume he knows his vote well in advance and then tries, poorly, to justify it.
Yes, in the guise of a slow, deliberate weighing of facts. We do tend to be more critical of people whose instincts turn out to be wrong than those whose reasoning turns out to be wrong. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Neither is foolproof, of course, and both can be relied on by fools, but I don't think that either approach is intrinsically superior to the other.
I am leaving in three minutes to take my eldest to summer camp and it hurts my whole body not to read this in full, given the title. I can't wait to get home from New Hampshire!!
My kids went to camp in NH. Enjoy the drive. Parent’s weekend was always fun.
Have a wonderful trip, Isabel.
Please drive carefully.
This is wonderful, David. I'm very glad you stood up for the victim, and had the courage of your convictions.
Loved this, David. What drama is the image above from (assuming it’s not you in there)?
Thanks Ann. It's from a movie called Juror #2.
In my experience on 6 person NYC juries, there are two who really understand the case, two who are smart enough to follow the first two, and two who barely know what’s going on, including one in the arts who might look for any opportunity to sing in the jury room. But having met my wife on jury duty I feel good about the whole process.
Sing in the jury room. Haha. That would have been me in the 80s. Only I’d perform a comedic monologue from my one woman show. Haha.
This was my sole time being on a jury. Maybe raise the age for felony juries to 25?
Your comment was worth the read of this post and the comments!
I really enjoyed reading this,not sure why,but maybe crime tales have an inherent drama in them. I think you chose the right verdict but possibly (as you suspect) for the wrong reasons. You obviously had an innate air of authority and and an ability to marshal people. Born Leader. I feel for that schoolteacher. Another sexy guy out of the running,lol! Ive got to admit - of I was ever on a jury which I don't think will ever happen now I would have made my mind up after the first glance at the defendant which is totally wrong and unjust - but maybe if I hear enough background... I've been summoned for jury service 3 times but never served. The first time was 30 years ago,time flies. I got the summons a few weeks before I was due to fly to Canada to stay with my cousin in Victoria BC. It was all arranged. Id spent all my little money (my own fault for not knowing how to manage money,it's a skill to be learned,so where are the teachers),on my air ticket. My doctor wrote me a letter
It got me off it. I could not give up that trip. It was a once in a lifetime thing. The second time was 20 years and I'd just moved and I had so much to sort out I didn't fancy going in town everyday for a week and not getting picked anyway. In UK if you are called for Jury service you got to a big hall and then the lawyers for both sides check you over and decide if you will suit their case ie do you look as though you'll find guilty (the prosecution ) or do you look sympathetic (the defence) so if your client is a dreadlocked tattooed personage up for over sharing (drug supplies) his lawyer might look on your favourably if you too are tatted and maybe with a nose ring. My Mum had to waste a week attending every day and she never got picked. It sounds bizarre to me. So I just ticked the box that said "I have mental health issues" and that was it. Never heard from them again until 2 years ago I had a jury summons and this time I thought " I must do my duty this time" so I confirmed I would attend. Then 3 days before the date I got a letter saying,"don't turn up,it's ok,we don't need you after all". And I felt SO OFFENDED,LOL, it's lol really. They rejected ME. They must have found that old letter my doctor wrote !
Jane, that's vey funny about the last notice. Human nature at work!
Lightening. Thunder . On our harbor. Just finished . This might be my favorite story you’ve penned. Arrogance? Nah! You? No surprise. Partial ? No disguise.
Thanks Jennifer.
David! You had me nodding along with 24-year-old you. I’m about three times that age and would do the same thing tomorrow. Those schmucks were guilty as hell. Some have called me judgmental. They’re the ones who know me best. I’ve never been called for jury duty, which is just as well.
Rona, perhaps I can use this essay as a way to stay off a future jury.
Love this ! I’m so glad you stood up to the people who thought a sex worker didn’t deserve justice. Did your brother unsubscribe? He and Debbie are definitely my favorite characters in your stories. Have a great weekend!
Samuel is still here. He wrote a comment below.
Felony rape case. Latino perpetrator. The Hebrew-speaking victim needed an English translator—rape took place in the stairwell of the Empire State Building. Defense was consensual. Judge Edwin Torres (yes, him) asked if any of us spoke/understood Hebrew. I did not raise my hand. Sequestered in Rye. Jury convicted. Good memory.
I appreciate your honesty. Great essay including the stock chart paralleling your self esteem. Haha.
I work hard at not judging. I once judged an Orthodox Jewish HS as being “too Jewy (insular) for my kids.” In retrospect I wish I had at least explored the option. There are other similar examples. Self awareness is key.
Please post the transcript of your NYC mayor race discussion tomorrow. I’m terrified of the Jihadi winning. Am I judging? Based on his verbal support for Hamas, Iran, genociding the Jews… I think my fear is reasonable.
I will send it around. I do not like Cuomo and wish there was a better alternative but I ranked Cuomo and did not rank Mamdani so essentially a vote for Cuomo.
Lately I’ve been voting for “the lesser of two evils.” Sigh.
I haven't yet unsubscribed, Brother! (Btw, I'm surprised that both co-defendants were repped by the same Attorney). If Im defense counsel, and my client is a finance guy, I probably reject you out of hand. We paint our prospective jurors with the broadest of brushes but: there's a school of thought that a juror will seek to distance himself from a facially similar defendant with a guilty vote. For example, all else being equal, in a rape case with a consent defense, and a young male client, Im very wary of including young(ish) males, whose mindset might be: "I WOULD NEVER do that.... Im not like him....and I'll show em by convicting...." Same thinking can apply to racial and ethnic groups. Again: broadest of strokes!
That's really an interesting insight about similarity. There were two lawyers but I only remember that one and he did all, or most of the work as I recall.
How can one not warm to a man who refers to his former self as "an arrogant prick"!
I loved this piece for its harsh self-criticism. I can't comment on the rights and wrongs of the issue.
I was only once a jury member and it was for a very memorable murder trial. It affected me hugely – not because of the very horrible murder that the guy admitted to doing (bashing a young woman with a rolling pin until she died (the headlines always referred to him as "rolling pin murderer"). But because I sat very close to him over the two weeks of the trial and he had absolutely no emotions at all. Cold, cold, cold. He was said to have "schizoid personality disorder". He was a PhD student and research assistant - he handed out a survey related to his PhD to other students the day before the murder and then went out to the local department store to buy the rolling pin! It was very very disturbing. The jury wasn't asked whether he was guilty - he admitted to that - but whether he was mentally ill and therefore not responsible. An odd question to ask a jury. Sorry to go on so long, but it was 25 years ago and still very memorable.
Thanks Ann. My brother Samuel had a similar case defending a guy who chopped up his boss and made no attempt to hide his crime. The insanity plea here, if successful, is not a get out free situation. You're locked away in a mental institution instead of a prison. It must have been frightening to see someone w/o any emotion.
I told Ray about the 'arrogant prick' remark and he said something like "Weren't we all!'.
And you are right about the insanity plea. But it became even more bizarre because the jury decided he was mentally ill and then the judge decided he should go to an ordinary prison! So there was no point to the trial at all. He was one of those very hard working-no social life sort of people and I wondered whether he finished his PhD in prison. I happened to be doing some work with a psychiatrist at the time and said how difficult I found someone 'without affect' and he said even psychiatrists found that difficult.
Your latest made me think about the importance of self-awareness. Many thanks.
I was just telling someone over lunch yesterday that I'm 53 and I've never been called to jury duty. There's injustice in that. I would be a GREAT juror. ;)
Great story, David. Good on you for leading that jury to the right decision. My brother (an attorney) tells me that you just never know what might happen once a case is in the hands of a jury. He says that jurors are very good at following the judge's directions, and they "want" to make the "right" decision. But like you experienced, people are complicated and they come at issues with their own biases, and sometimes they hear something completely different.
I went through a phase where I studied true crime and called it research for the thrillers I write. I even had a podcast called Kentucky Fried Homicide for a time. For many reasons, I gave up that hobby, but I'm still drawn to interesting cases, and I love interpreting facts and circumstances as it pertains to law.
True crime is popular for a reason. When we see or read about a case it's like we're the jury. In hindsight I believe we reached the right decision. So, as I wrote, I feel lucky that my hasty certainty didn't result in something unjust.
I understand your regret with regard to having been a prick and perhaps the fact that you let your emotions guide your judgment. But I also believe it's important to read the vibe from people, and it sounds like that what you did with regard to the defendants and their attorney. I am confused as to why, in retrospect, you think the guilty verdict was problematic. They brutally beat the woman. Why did this not warrant conviction?
BTW have you ever seen the movie Twelve Angry Men with Henry Fonda? Great stuff. I used to teach it in my high school English class.
I have, but not for a long time. Due for a rewatch.
I have no problem with the verdict but at the same time I think it's an illustration of what could happen to arrive at a wrong verdict within group dynamics. The loudest and mostconfident voice may be the least wise!
12 Angry Men highlights that potential.
I would not b so quick to denigrate instinct. Following instinct often turns out to be a more effective problem solving tool than slow, deliberate weighing of facts, which can often lead to paths that blur the distinction between right and wrong. In this case, even if the coffee had been hot...and it had to be less than scalding or there would have been evidence on skin or clothes...it was not sufficient to justify two bullies beating up someone who could not effectively fight back. In terms of slow, deliberate weighing of facts, look at some of the more egregious Supreme Court decisions...Dred Scott, Korematsu, or any variety of recent ones from the current panel. Alito and Thomas particularly, after a slow, deliberate weighing of the facts, will come to the conclusion, for instance, that the Constitution protects the right of someone to openly carry a loaded firearm in, say, a shopping mall. The Second Amendment wasn't about that at all. (If you want to know what it WAS about, see, https://lawandhistoryreview.org/article/lawrence-goldstone-arms-and-the-common-man-standing-army-militia-and-the-second-amendment-in-the-united-states/ ). Bottom line, David, is that, no, you were not an arrogant prick, at least not in the way you thought, but you were someone whose instincts pointed you to the truth and you had the determination to make certain that truth was not lost.
Thanks Larry. A compliment AND a disagreement wrapped up in one. Seriously, you make a good point about some of the SC opinions. I've read some of Thomas's and he makes no sense. I have to assume he knows his vote well in advance and then tries, poorly, to justify it.
Yes, in the guise of a slow, deliberate weighing of facts. We do tend to be more critical of people whose instincts turn out to be wrong than those whose reasoning turns out to be wrong. I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Neither is foolproof, of course, and both can be relied on by fools, but I don't think that either approach is intrinsically superior to the other.