The 13th Juror

Critics of the court decision to allow “Frontline” to record jury deliberations in the Cedric Harrison case say they are concerned about the sanctity of the jury room in a death penalty trial. They argue that allowing cameras inside the jury room would turn the most serious of decisions into a form of reality television in which jurors will “grandstand” for the cameras. But experience proves otherwise.

Judge Ted Poe’s decision has been sensationalized and mischaracterized and was not capricious. As a former prosecutor, he tried eight death cases. He has presided over 15 capital cases. Poe understands and respects the power of the state, the severity of the penalty and the absolute requirement for the integrity of the process. Neither is there any reason to believe that the defendant’s rights are being compromised. The defendant, his mother and defense counsel all consented to the filming and agreed not to use it as a basis for any appeal. The defense lawyer explained it this way: “If the state of Texas wants to attempt to execute a 17-year-old, I think the whole world should be watching.”

Nevertheless, the district attorney appealed Poe’s decision, arguing that “the desire to appear on a ‘Survivor’-style reality television series should not be an added qualification for jury service.” His alarmist tone was soon echoed by the media nationwide, which argued that that the film had only “superficial appeal” and repeatedly compared the case to reality television.

“Reality” television places people in contrived or trivial situations for the entertainment of the public. At a time when the death penalty is under nationwide review, nothing could be more important or less trivial than understanding how 12 people decide whether a fellow citizen should live or die.

Editorials across the country have claimed that cameras have “never been allowed in a jury room.” Not true. PBS, CBS and ABC have all filmed jury deliberations in criminal trials, including murder trials. And last week, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed to allow ABC to film jury deliberations in upcoming criminal trials, saying: “We believe that we do have a responsibility to educate the public about what really goes on in the courts and criminal trials specifically.”

Critics have also suggested that having a camera in the jury room will affect the decision the jurors reach, either making them more (or, others argue, less) likely to convict: “Jurors, especially less educated and articulate ones, may be wary of speaking out if they know they are being judged,” one editorial claimed. But interviews with jurors who have been filmed deliberating indicate that the filming had no discernable effect on their deliberations or verdicts.

“Frontline” had filmed for three days before proceedings were halted to decide the camera issue. Only 14 of 110 potential jurors expressed reservations about being filmed and were excused without objection by either side. The remaining 90% told the court that the cameras would not affect their deliberations.

Our criminal justice system functions on the premise that jurors will follow the law. We trust jurors when they tell us that they will be fair and impartial and that they will ignore inadmissible evidence. Why are jurors discounted in this instance?

When asked by a juror why he was allowing the trial to be filmed, Poe said: The “more the public can know about the truth, the way things really are, the better we are as a people. And the system benefits from this.”

Poe’s decision has forced us to weigh the tension between the assumption that “secret” jury deliberations are necessary for a fair trial versus the idea that our democracy will be better served -- especially in matters of life and death -- if we know, every so often and under scrupulous judicial supervision, what is happening behind closed doors, even in the jury room.