Due to a busy week, I wasn't able to watch the first two episodes that aired last week. However, I taped them so that I will be able to watch them when I have some extra-free time. I'm not sure what will motivate the public to want to watch this show. I know that for me it is to see what the jury understands about the burden of proof; how seriously they take their role; and if they truly understand that each and every element of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is a constant struggle, especially in state courts, to define "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is caselaw that gives the definition for civil cases where you use the preponderance of the evidence standard or the higher "clear and convincing" burden. However, criminal law jurisprudence has often been reluctant to give a definition for what you need for beyond a reasonable doubt. What is a "reasonable doubt"? I don't know. I do know that prosecutors fight to lower that burden during their voir dire. Meanwhile, when the defense attorney gets up, he or she wants to raise that burden to the appropriate level. However, in state courts there is not usually a set definition that you can use.
What do we do to get them to understand the burden? We let them define it. "Mrs. Walters, it says here that you have a child? Is that correct?" Yes. "A second ago I was saying that in civil cases the government can come to a mother's house, take her child, and then make her fight for that child in court. How much evidence do you think the government would need to have to take your child"?
Inevitably that answer is always, "A whole hell of a lot" or some variation on that. Then the defense attorney will nod in agreement and point out, "And in criminal cases the government has to bring more to the table. This isn't just clear and convincing which Mrs. Walters points out should require a whole hell of a lot. This is beyond ALL reasonable doubt. That means it'll be more than just a whole hell of a lot."
Through out an entire trial there is struggling over the standard. Has the government really proved their case. Does the jury care about the beyond all reasonable doubt standard? That's the reason I want to watch this series. It appears that this reviewer notes something else that I haven't thought much about.
More than any legal show I've seen, this one gets at the physical unpleasantness of the whole trial experience: the fluorescent-lit rooms, the hastily consumed bad food and warm soft drinks, the unremitting ugliness of both the surroundings and what happens in them. Not a single person on-screen is attractive; the closest we come is one juror who looks a little like a puffy Martha Plimpton with bad skin.
Trial is unpleasant. There is no other way to put it. It is unpleasant for the jury pool at the beginning, it is unpleasant for those who are picked to serve, it is unpleasant for the attorneys. However, there is a rush that comes with going to trial that is unlike any I've felt. I've been lucky enough to be in a clinic where we can try misdemeanor cases and sit second chair on state felony cases. We have an attorney by our side when we try the cases, but it's ours to try. The theory, the witnesses, the voir dire, the opening and closing are all up to us. Being in a courtroom as an attorney is one of the best feelings I've experienced.
Also, just as a sidenote, many of the female DAs and many of the female judges appear to be quite attractive. It is odd that not a single person on the In the Jury Room series was attractive.
