Thinking about the public reaction to the Casey Anthony trial: How would you deal with a public backlash if you were on a jury that delivered an unpopular verdict?

In this case, the judge has the sense not to release the identities of the individual jurors. But, that may not always happen.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-...tes-public-rage

Resolute "no comment" responses.

I don't do social media so ..... no issues with that.

Maybe carry concealed weapon (where legal) for a few months - just in case.

No TV cameras in a criminal jury trial and a 3rd outcome of 'Not Proven' in the Scottish criminal justice system is perhaps something that needs to be considered when jury members are themselves put on trial in the face of public news media sensationalism.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110705150725AAWHQ0O

If you need to ask the original question then something is most definitely broken and needs fixed.

Interesting thought AMLF. In the US I think the trials are public, by law. But I think the camera is at the discretion of the judge.

A lot of times most folks will forget about this when the next big news story hits. If I were forced to quit though, I'd be taking that company to town under "hostile workplace" regulations.

Not to hijack the thread, but -

Criminal jury trials are outdated. Jurors are typically those who want to serve, as those with any excuse are let go. Let a panel of three Judges hear all trials. Judges are less swayed by defense BS theories. All testimony is heard - period. The Judges will then decide what is relevant. No longer is anything kept out of the trial.

Time from indictment to trial - 30 days. No more prosecution or defense delays for BS reasons. Defense is not surprised or ambushed, they get a packet with all evidence at indictment. If they can't figure it out in 30 days, time to change your job to something less stressful.

"Not Proven" needs to be imported to the US. But maintain double jeopardy rules. So the onus is on the prosecution where it should be. Either convict them or let them go. No more TV trials.

Reduce appeals to certain time limits, with no provisions for extensions. You snooze, you lose. Appeals are limited to procedural errors made by the Judge(s) or mistakes in rulings on evidence.

I spent 15 years as a military paralegal. The UCMJ is not perfect, but it's a lot quicker, leaner and easier to use than most civilian criminal courts. Average time from indictment to trial, less than a month. Most trials are Judge alone, with a plea deal in place. The average trial takes a day or less. Plea deals often take about 2 hours, from start to sentence. And the Judge does not know the contents of the deal. The convicted gets the better of the two sentences - either the Judge's sentence or the DA's deal.

Other than the venue and increased visceral emotion, is this really any different than how Monday morning quarterbacks treat a player that does something they think cost a team the game?

Having been on the medias wrong side in some business situations, right, wrong or indifferent, you can't stop the tidal wave of stress (actual or implied) that comes from it. The best you can do is sometimes keep your mouth shut and let the anger play out till the next 'big outrage', call it Dug Syndrome. "Squirrel"

Our legal system is designed as an "Innocence Presumed" institution for a very good reason. A person is either proven guilty or their innocence is maintained; notice I did not say "not guilty". The third option you mention still leaves a considerable cloud of legal suspicion. There is nothing that can be done about the public's perception. The legal system does not need to fuel it. Now, the juries should be afforded protection under the law as shown necessary in this situation. If, in fact, someone lost their employment due to a hostile work environment, then the person has legal recourse against the company for them not providing a safe work place. I do agree with the concept of one or two well-scripted interviews.

NightHiker,

I also would most likely not be picked because I am retired Air Force guy. We are typically viewed as too rigid and therefore "undesirable" in the civilian system of jurisprudence.

JBMat,

The UCMJ still has mandatory panel trials under a General Courts-Martial, as you well know. The charges under a General Courts-Martial are severe enough to demand a panel of peers (loosely defined) in order to keep it aligned with the Constitution.

The third option is not necessary under your very statement of "[e]ither convict them or let them go. Two possible outcomes are all that is required.

Spoken from the standpoint of a retired AF guy with 25-plus years of service. I also had the privilege of performing bailiff duty on judge-only Summary Courts-Martial for a DUI and General Courts-Martial with judge and full panel.

Back to the original question. In today's communication arena not much can be kept secret, unfortunately. People do put two-and-two together and come up with five quite frequently. The "fame" will come regardless of the intent of the wishes of the judicial system.

I have watched and participated in a number of civil jury trials, and been on jury panels for a number of criminal matters, including a special grand jury. At least in my area, there are few excuses from jury service based on attitude or life experience so long as the prospective juror agrees to follow the judge's instructions.

Due to the limited number of challenges available to the lawyers neither side ever gets a "perfect" jury. That means police, military, attorneys, etcetera - all the stereotypes - find themselves serving as jurors.

I have listened to potential juror chatter about getting off by saying this or that to the judge, but, I am amazed and I guess a bit proud to say, almost everyone realizes the importance of being a juror, the opportunity to make a difference, and agrees to step up to their duty.

There are of course hardships that do excuse many potential jurors, especially if a trial is expected to take many weeks or months, relationsips with someone involved in the trial, and other automatic exclusions for cause.