Jurors need our protection

If I had served on the Casey Anthony jury, I would be terrified about having my name released to the public. After giving several weeks of my life to the case, and making a decision that one of my fellow jurors, in a statement to the media, made us "sick to our stomachs," I would want to be protected by Judge Belvin Perry.

Watch his comments at this motion where media outlets were arguing to know who the jurors were.

This case created a maelstrom of publicity and public opinion. There is no doubt in my mind that some members of the public might feel as though they need to seek justice for Caylee and feel entitled to impose their own kind of vigilante justice upon the good citizens who did their job. There are people out there who could conceivably stalk, terrorize, or even assault the people who served our community for nearly 2 months, all in the name of "Justice for Caylee."

In spite of all the arguments for "transparency" and "justice," there is no good reason to divulge the jurors names to anyone. If they choose to step forward and do interviews, that's their choice. Not the choice of some media hounds or psychopathic citizens.

Judge Perry is rightly concerned with what previous case law says on the subject. But this issue is important enough to make new case law. It's tough enough to get people to answer their jury summonses. Why hamper the System's ability to seat a jury in high profile cases, or other less publicized but potentially threatening to juror cases?

With the abundance of personal information that's available to anyone with an internet connection, our Courts need to protect jurors from those who might be unhappy with their verdict - whether it's a high profile case or one that never made the news.

See also this interview with the jury foreman, who wishes to remain anonymous.

Jury Duty, part 2

Interestingly enough, the NY Times did a story today about the recession's impact on Jury Duty. It even mentions Orlando, Florida.

My grumbling was directed at those folks who could rearrange their schedules if needed, but choose to claim hardship instead. In reading the comments on the NY Times article, the idea of allowing people to volunteer and/or schedule themselves for a particular week, while presenting logistical issues for the Court, would undoubtedly improve the selection pool.

Jury Duty or Jury Doody?

I watched a portion of jury selection Monday morning for a child abuse / child neglect case. I don't know the details of the case (other than it was expected to be a 2-day trial). What struck me was how many of the panel of 20 prospective jurors made excuses about what a hardship it would be to serve.


I understand that the courts only pay $15/day for jury duty (you do get free parking though). That basically covers your lunch and the gas it took to drive to downtown. And I realize that times are tough economically. If you have a job, you want to be there to earn money to pay your rent and buy food for your family.

I couldn't stop thinking about the victim in this case. How is justice for that child going to be served if the citizens of our community don't see their responsibility to serve as jurors as a privilege rather than a burden? And why do so many employers not consider paying their employees for the time they spend serving our community?

I know that jury duty is an inconvenience to most of us. But serving our country is rarely "convenient." Just think about all the men and women who have died to create and perpetuate our way of life. A strong court system is crucial to our nation's ability to provide justice for all.

Don't tell me you can't be bothered to do your duty. And don't complain the next time a violent offender isn't held accountable by "The System."

Because justice doesn't just happen.