It's a tough case. I have some reservations about the way things are done, but I'm not sure how a workable system could be better.

My feeling, from hearing some of the jurors talk on the record and off (during the breaks) is that the jury will be critical, intelligent, and sensible. And, the DA claimed to want the right kind of juror: people would presume the defendent innocent, but would vote guilty if she could prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The DA didn't want people who would put an extra burden on the prosecution (e.g. "beyond any doubt") and felt that I would do that.

However, I did note that when the defense got someone to admit to bias, the DA would try to get them to say that was their feeling and that they could be impartial.

For improvements, well for one, decent pay for jurors would really increase the jury pool and be well worth the money (considering how much money California wastes). I also have doubts about the number of pre-emptory challenges (we were up to 12 when I left).

Some people (not just me) were uncomfortable with the rules of evidence -- based on the child center cases, I would have wanted to know things like "Were the witnesses prompted for evidence?" , "Did they have any contact with psychiatrists", "Did they claim a recovered memory", etc that I don't think would have been answered.

I suspect from the few details I know about this case that there does seem to be a basis for the charges, IOW whether or not the charges are true, based on what the accusers told the police, they had to bring the matter to court. Which, by the way, has taken two years.

BTW, I was prepared to serve, but the trial would have been a real sacrifice -- I would've had to work about 60 hours a week (30 trial, 30 at regular work) for at least two months.

Tony
ex-juror