Serving on a Jury Is a Trial in Itself

“1 Intransigent Woman Doesn’t Do Justice to ’12 Angry Men’ ” (Commentary, March 31) is an excellent example of the juror-bashing that the legal profession, judges and the media have inflicted on potential jurors and those actually serving -- the endless, intrusive questioning of potential jurors, the pretrial questionnaires, hostile judges, etc.

When I came to the end of Jonathan Turley’s commentary and realized that he was a trial lawyer, it all became clear. Trial lawyers don’t want any thoughtful, independent individuals on juries. What have trial lawyers done for us? One thing they have done is made it so difficult to make vaccines that there’s a shortage. The other area is what Turley is arrogantly doing, probably making millions more people reluctant to serve on juries.

Marine R. Warden

Riverside

*

Turley did not mention the obvious solution to the problem of the intransigent juror: allowing non-unanimous verdicts for conviction in a criminal case. Permitting conviction on the vote of 10 or 11 jurors in a 12-person jury who find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would still protect the innocent while preventing justice from being stymied. Conversely, if the prosecution cannot get the votes of a majority of jurors, 7 out of 12, or perhaps a super majority, say 8 or 9, the charges should be dismissed.

Herbert Roth

Indian Wells