Too Much Trifling With Jury System

* I have been following with personal interest the news items in The Times regarding the developments connected to the conviction of Dr. Thomas A. Gionis in the attack on Aissa Wayne and Roger Luby in 1992.

As a member of the jury which convicted Dr. Gionis, I was appalled when I read later of the overthrow of that conviction by the 4th District Court of Appeal. According to the latest report in The Times (March 29), that court’s summary decision is now being questioned by our state attorney general’s staff in an appeal to the California Supreme Court to review that lower court’s decision.

I feel personally troubled that our jury system can be so easily circumvented. I believe in the jury system, and feel that it, when properly conducted, reflects the basic principles of our democratically founded judicial system. What is happening to our judicial system when decisions arrived at by a dedicated jury can be so subverted?

The Times report mentioned the appellate court’s decision as being 3 to 0. That means that only three judges successfully negated the results of a lengthy, (and, I presume, expensive) well-conducted trial presided over by a patient, well-qualified judge, culminating in a conviction by a diverse, intelligent, fair-minded 12-member jury.

Our jury listened carefully to all the evidence presented, considered all salient points of testimony, and gave due consideration to all facets in our deliberations.

Some of the prosecuting attorney’s closing remarks were cited by the appellate court judges as partial grounds for their decision to reverse our jury’s conviction. May I say that, as a jury member, we were not swayed by either of the attorneys capsulated, emotional remarks in their closing speeches. The preponderance of the previous weeks’ evidence was the basis for our decision.

I will be waiting for the results of the state lawyers’ petitioning of our California Supreme Court to review this case.

ROLENA H. BLACK

Tustin