Simpson Verdict, Jury Trials

Re “All Parties Stunned as Simpson Jury Quickly Reaches Verdicts,” Oct. 3:

President Clinton said, “The jury heard the evidence and rendered its verdict. Our system of justice requires respect for their decision.” Why do we have to accept a system that is so obviously flawed?

Now, more than ever, is the time to lobby for reform in the judicial system as we know it, which over the last few months has become the laughingstock of the world. The time has come for professional jurors who are trained to examine evidence in a calm and rational manner. It is obvious from the verdict rendered in the Simpson case that emotions and race played a large part in the decision to acquit. Irrefutable evidence pointing to Simpson’s guilt was simply ignored, and was not even taken into consideration in deliberations.

Oct. 3 was a sad day, not only for the victims’ families, but because the illusion of the “great American justice system” was shattered once and for all in so many people’s minds.

KATE ROBINSON

Van Nuys

*

* Why were people so surprised at the speed of the verdict? What do people think they were doing there all that time? Anyone who has served on a jury can tell you that the right verdict was reached. You must find the defendant guilty without a reasonable doubt. It wasn’t done. I rest my case.

JOHNNY YUTRONICH

Harbor City

*

* I used to naively believe that our jury system worked, but I was proven wrong when the verdict in the Simpson trial came in. A jury member stated that after nine months of being sequestered and having tons of evidence heaped on her, she was tired of having to perform her civic duty and--God forbid!--deliberate for one or two lousy weeks! So much for the validity of a jury system.

They let a guilty man get away with a heinous murder. Shame on them and shame on all of us for putting up with this garbage!

SYLVIA LARSON

Santa Monica

*

* The county pays the jurors $5 a day. We got our money’s worth.

PEGGY ALBRECHT

Westlake Village

*

* What’s the problem with the jury’s verdict in the Simpson trial? I don’t recall any uproar about the hundreds of African American male defendants who have been convicted of crimes in this county by a jury that was predominantly African American.

The power of the state against the resources of the defendant. It’s hardly an equal opportunity, but that’s our system. Can it be that regardless of the game or the rules African Americans remain a disquieting presence in America?

MELVIN L. MUSICK

Culver City

*

* What a disgraceful legacy. First Rodney King, then the Menendez brothers and now O.J. As I interpret the “message”: We need professional jurors.

CINDY COLE

Huntington Beach

*

* Re “Unanimous Juries Work--Let’s Not Change the Rule,” editorial, Sept. 26:

Your editorial correctly points out that “hard data” should drive policy, not unsubstantiated perceptions, no matter how widely held. Ironically, your editorial discussed the results of a “survey” of a recent cases by the Los Angeles public defender’s trial staff. The survey, which was begun in late spring, 1995, but which covered a period beginning back in July, 1994, relied heavily on the memory of public defenders. Is this the “hard data” that should be used to drive policy, or for that matter, the opinions of your readers? Perhaps your readers would be interested in the following “hard data”:

* Unlike California, where between 10% and 15% of the over 10,000 annual jury trials end in a hung jury, less than 1% of felony cases hang in Oregon. If only a small percentage of hung juries are caused by one or two “hardheads,” then why is there such a great disparity between our respective states?

* Criminal defense attorneys throughout California routinely “try” a case to one or two irrational jurors in hopes of a hung jury.

* While the rule of unanimity is a “historical artifact from our English-law roots,” even England has abandoned it in favor of 10-2 verdicts.

By reviewing the facts, it becomes obvious that adopting non-unanimous verdicts in California will go a long way toward improving the fairness and efficiency of our jury trial system and return it to a search for truth instead of an exercise in gamesmanship.

GREGORY D. TOTTEN, Exec. Dir.

California District Attorneys Assn.

Sacramento

*

* Your editorial discusses California’s traditional requirement of unanimous juries in criminal cases and current legislative and initiative proposals to depart from it. After nearly 21 years of jury trials, I honestly do not know how I feel about the subject.

In the hundreds of felony and misdemeanor cases I tried, no more than two or three were 11-1 hung juries. There might have been a handful more at 10-2. Recent social changes have indeed had a major social impact on the prosecution’s difficulty in obtaining unanimous verdicts, but (consistent with the public defender’s study you cited) the great majority of hung juries are more evenly balanced (i.e., 6-6) than any numbers which would be addressed by the proposals--or should be. So, my first conclusion is that very few cases would actually be impacted--perhaps too few to merit tinkering with our constitutional traditions.

On the other hand, the only 11-1 hung jury I can recall in my Superior Court career involved a juror who played solitaire and refused to speak about the case, no matter what the other jurors said to him. I called the jury into the courtroom and discussed jurors’ duties. Each promised to deliberate, but “solitaire” went back in and did the same thing. A mistrial, a retrial and a prompt conviction (it was a very strong case) followed, but at considerable expense to us taxpayers and consternation to the other jurors. To me, this was a once-in-a-career experience, but my second conclusion is that it probably should not happen at all.

Sadly, you demean yourself with a sloppy error: “[a] majority vote is allowed in civil trials.” As many know, California civil trials require a 9-3 vote.

ERIC E. YOUNGER

Superior Court Judge (retired)

Altadena