Now, I don’t believe I am at liberty to discuss the case itself. I will say that I could tell (prejudicially?) that this was a bad, bad man. As President Bush used to say, “This man was an evil-doer.” And to quote him once again, “We were the deciders.” We were fortunate enough to learn early on that this defendant did, in fact, have a criminal record. We just weren’t told all of the details. The prosecution presented their case. We even got to hear testimony of the CSI variety. When I later asked the prosecutor why they had a fingerprint expert testify, I was told that it was for exactly that reason; everyone is watching CSI these days and wants to know about all of the forensic evidence. I was sold. I wanted to convict immediately. I felt that my fellow jurors must surely feel the same.

Next came the defense…seemingly court-appointed. (I say that because the defense attorney mispronounced the defendant’s name a few times…and it is my belief that if this man was paying the attorney a handsome sum to defend him, the lawyer would have remembered the defendant’s name as it appeared on his checks!) He was polite, nice, quiet, precise. There was not much fanfare as he called a few “interesting” witnesses. I didn’t feel he had much of a defense, although defense lawyers don’t have a great challenge sometimes. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the job of the prosecutor.

Finally we heard the closing arguments. I couldn’t wait to get back to the jury room to convict this guy! The moment we entered the jury room was the exact moment that the fun ended. It had been all Perry Mason, Boston Legal and CSI up until now. The sound of the door to the jury room closing as we surrendered our cell phones to a guard was the last moment of fun to be associated with the trial.

We appointed a foreperson with ease. I believe that one of our members resented not being chosen as foreperson, and therefore was going to be arbitrary no matter which way we would swing. Then I suggested that we take a vote on the case. I have a knack for efficiency – and why hash or rehash the facts if we are all already on the same side. I was so sure we would have a swift conviction. So did the girls that sat to either side of me.

Our foreperson insisted on reviewing all of the testimony before any such vote. So it was nearly two hours before we found out where everyone stood: those of us who were so certain that the U.S. had proven their case were completely STUNNED to learn that the jury was quite split – in fact it was about 7-5. We were knee-deep in laymen arguing over the letter of the law and the definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Several of the men on the jury believed there was, indeed, reasonable doubt. The women, not surprisingly, were a lot more eager to get a bad man off the streets.

Somewhere within the definition of “reasonable doubt,” we are literally asked to use our common sense. So, even if some events fall into the REALM of possibility, though NOT the realm of probability, the men on our jury were willing to accept the possibilities as likely. It was exasperating!

The last detail to know when you serve on jury duty is that the majority of men will put themselves into the shoes of a male defendant. No one should do this. Yes, we would all like a “fair” trial by our peers and yes, we would all like the same consideration. But these men on our jury were, in my opinion, way too sympathetic toward a proven career criminal. One juror had lost his license to drive and was in recovery for alcoholism. Another two of them had family members who had been convicted for crimes. One had a father who was “innocently” in a biker gang in the ‘70’s and apparently never hurt anyone, did any drugs or carried a gun. But the biggest hurdle we could not overcome, as probability gave way to possibility and the vote became 11-1, was the ego of the juror who wanted to be the foreperson. He was retired and loved having 11 people listen to him all day. He enjoyed being there. When I called him on it, he vehemently denied that he wanted to be there….but there were many other jurors who agreed with me that he did seem to love the scene.

So there you have it; we were ultimately a hung jury because of one man. Perhaps he had watched “12 Angry Men” one too many times…perhaps he really felt in his heart that this defendant should go free. Maybe, in his mind, the prosecution didn’t really make their case “beyond a reasonable doubt.” He quoted from “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and also boasted that he would rather set 100 guilty men free than convict one innocent man. I reminded him that O.J. Simpson has not done much lately to find Nicole’s killer, as promised. I ran into the prosecutor after the trial. He confirmed that the defendant was, in fact, a very bad man. I wish I could contact this man so that I could share the news I learned from the attorney about our evil defendant who was, in fact, quite the career criminal.

I spoke with my neighbor lady about it a few days later. She said that when she was a juror, she had been the hold out ~ and that the other 11 members finally brow-beat her until she caved. She held out for three days! I can’t imagine trying to argue with her – or anyone who believes they are right. People will literally DIE to be right! When her case was over, she came home and did some research on the internet and found out that her defendant did, in fact, deserve to be put away. He had already been sentenced for the attempted murder of several people. I asked her how she felt about resisting a conviction, finally succumbing and then learning the truth about her defendant. Of course she said she wished she had known more during the deliberations. Then I asked her how she would have felt if she had let a guilty man go free. She didn’t have an answer other than to say that she was glad her co-jurors persisted. She had been so sure she was right.

I wish the system was different and I believe that if the founding fathers who created it originally were alive today, they would surely make amends. It seems to me that the criminals do, indeed, have most of the rights. I think we should concern ourselves more with the victims and their rights.

Just as sportscasters finally began to use the technology available to actually view instant replays before making a call, (many years after the technology became available), I believe that jurors should be able to do their due diligence and research their cases before rendering a verdict. Maybe it should even be legal for us to talk to the attorneys – for BOTH sides – before we have to decide. I’m sure we’d have a much safer world to live in if the truth wasn’t so darned inadmissible.

Being chosen for jury duty is always an interesting experience. If you sit in on one of many mesothelioma law suits going on now in the country, you're actually in luck. Mesothelioma attorneys usually make great cases for their clients which result in interesting trials. Mesothelioma is an awful condition, so trials are particularly intense.