5 ms·

Some people just trust cops. I sat on a jury that included testimony by a police officer. Many months had passed since the incident and the cop said a bunch o

Some people just trust cops. I sat on a jury that included testimony by a police officer. Many months had passed since the incident and the cop said a bunch of things, then the defense said "You just said X, but in your incident report you wrote Y." One of the jurors was stuck on "We should believe the police officer because he is a police officer" for about 60 minutes, before eventually becoming convinced that nothing he said added up.

GavinMcG 9y ago
"Ok. Should we believe the report or the testimony?" > juror picks one "But a police officer produced [the other one]! We should trust it!"
s73v3r_ 9y ago
Thankfully you were on that jury. I know many of us dread jury service, but really, if we don't go, then we're leaving all of these decisions to people like that, who are willing to blindly believe the police.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  I had a bad jury experience. A trial that largely relied on eyewitness testimony (all of which differed from individual to individual in important details) for evidence. I knew from my Psych studies that eyewitness testimony is a smidgen better than bullshit (see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...) but I was unable to hang the jury (the rest of whom wanted to throw the book at this kid, and yes the jury was all white and the kid was black and this was Boston, one of the most subtly-racist places I've ever lived in) because the defense did not present the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony as evidence/argument. You are (paradoxically and incredibly frustratingly) not allowed to use outside knowledge to inform your decision... Only what was actually presented at the trial. I literally left that jury in tears, being consoled by the older women on the jury who applauded my valiant but unsuccessful defense (yeah, I'm a guy, but I give a shit). While I can't go back to that guy and apologize for being a part of the system that let him down, I do now contribute monthly to https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidenti... ... "Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide." There is some effort to reform the system going on based on the evidence that continues to emerge, but it will take years.
  - balfirevic 9y ago
    > You are (paradoxically and incredibly frustratingly) not allowed to use outside knowledge to inform your decision From what I understand (I'm not from US), you are told this by the judge, but in fact you can (and are allowed by law) to use anything you want to form your decision.
    - GavinMcG 9y ago
      You're not allowed by law to disregard the jury instructions. It's a practical effect of keeping jury proceedings secret. People do it anyway, and it's highly unlikely that they'll be found out, but the problem is it's a double-edged sword: in this case, justice might have demanded it; on the other hand, a Klansman could use the same approach to get another member off the hook for an obvious murder conviction.
    - pmarreck 9y ago
      Yes, you are told this by the judge, but I wasn't aware at the time that you can still use whatever you want to form your decision. If I could do it again I would have hung the jury. Let's just say the system in place makes it veeerrryyy difficult to do so... which is of course a perverse incentive. I'm still kicking myself (this is years later) because normally I'm a person who sticks my neck out for my own principles, and that time I succumbed. I won't make the same mistake again.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    Wait, what happened? Did you give in and vote to convict?
    - pmarreck 9y ago
      Yes. :/ Sorry if that was unclear. I still feel bad about it and this is years later. It was a traumatic experience for me, eleven against me... Don't do what I did. Always stick to your principles (and your education, and your wisdom) when they are tested.

GavinMcG 9y ago

"Ok. Should we believe the report or the testimony?" > juror picks one "But a police officer produced [the other one]! We should trust it!"

s73v3r_ 9y ago

Thankfully you were on that jury. I know many of us dread jury service, but really, if we don't go, then we're leaving all of these decisions to people like that, who are willing to blindly believe the police.

pmarreck 9y ago
I had a bad jury experience. A trial that largely relied on eyewitness testimony (all of which differed from individual to individual in important details) for evidence. I knew from my Psych studies that eyewitness testimony is a smidgen better than bullshit (see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-...) but I was unable to hang the jury (the rest of whom wanted to throw the book at this kid, and yes the jury was all white and the kid was black and this was Boston, one of the most subtly-racist places I've ever lived in) because the defense did not present the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony as evidence/argument. You are (paradoxically and incredibly frustratingly) not allowed to use outside knowledge to inform your decision... Only what was actually presented at the trial. I literally left that jury in tears, being consoled by the older women on the jury who applauded my valiant but unsuccessful defense (yeah, I'm a guy, but I give a shit). While I can't go back to that guy and apologize for being a part of the system that let him down, I do now contribute monthly to https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidentification/ https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/eyewitness-misidenti... ... "Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide." There is some effort to reform the system going on based on the evidence that continues to emerge, but it will take years.
- balfirevic 9y ago
  > You are (paradoxically and incredibly frustratingly) not allowed to use outside knowledge to inform your decision From what I understand (I'm not from US), you are told this by the judge, but in fact you can (and are allowed by law) to use anything you want to form your decision.
  - GavinMcG 9y ago
    You're not allowed by law to disregard the jury instructions. It's a practical effect of keeping jury proceedings secret. People do it anyway, and it's highly unlikely that they'll be found out, but the problem is it's a double-edged sword: in this case, justice might have demanded it; on the other hand, a Klansman could use the same approach to get another member off the hook for an obvious murder conviction.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    Yes, you are told this by the judge, but I wasn't aware at the time that you can still use whatever you want to form your decision. If I could do it again I would have hung the jury. Let's just say the system in place makes it veeerrryyy difficult to do so... which is of course a perverse incentive. I'm still kicking myself (this is years later) because normally I'm a person who sticks my neck out for my own principles, and that time I succumbed. I won't make the same mistake again.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  Wait, what happened? Did you give in and vote to convict?
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    Yes. :/ Sorry if that was unclear. I still feel bad about it and this is years later. It was a traumatic experience for me, eleven against me... Don't do what I did. Always stick to your principles (and your education, and your wisdom) when they are tested.