Replies

Over the past 20 years I too have tried my share of cases before juries. I've been very successful with juries, and always as a prosecutor. Although I wouldn't do away with the jury system in favor of, say, an inquisitorial system conducted or presided over by a magistrate or panel of magistrates, I believe the jury system has flaws that ought to be remedied in some fashion.

In my opinion the system is designed to eliminate many excellent jurors. For my purposes an excellent juror is one who has good common sense and strives to evaluates evidence analytically without getting emotionally wrapped up in it. Touchy-feely emotional jurors are a headache and a hindrance because you have to spend so much time finding ways to package the evidence so that it appeals to or counters defense appeals to their gut and their biases (which they always deny that they have).

I would rather try my case before, and be judged by, an analytical juror who admits he or she has biases but will strive to set them aside, than by an emotional juror who claims he or she loves or respects all of God's children, has no biases, and just wants to do the right thing.