About today's column . . .
Thanks to Sun editor Jeff Landaw for bringing this bit of Alexander Pope to my attention, so appropriate to the subject of today's column (though in a reverse sort of way):
"The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, and wretches hang that jurymen may dine."
On the other hand, many complain that in Baltimore juries are disinclined to convict. This recent e-mail from a frustrated Baltimore judge is representative of other comments I've heard off and on over the last five years: "Have presided over 50 jury trials [in the last six months] with a half-dozen convictions at best. Locking up bad guys is fine, but if the jury acquits, as they almost always do, what’s the point?"
I got Judge Kershaw's middle initial wrong -- it's B. not W. Sorry about that.
Comments
Hey, Dan. Maybe that jury (and maybe all prospective juries) ought to be required to watch "12 Angry Men." They might see at least of hint of how things ought to work in a jury room.
Posted by: Mike Vach | August 30, 2007 9:24 AM
I'm only 30, but I've been on 4 juries. One in Baltimore City, the rest in Arlington County. I've only been on one case where we convicted and I still felt that the sentence was too tough... that was definitely VA. The Baltimore City jury aquitted because the Prosecuting Attorney was pathetic. Seriously pathetic. There was no real case. I looked it up later and realized that it had probably been much stronger at one point, but by the time it got to trial, several parts of it had been stripped. We voted 11 to 1 Not Guilty, and finally returned a verdict with the 12th juror decided he was hungry and wanted to go home.
Posted by: Summer | August 30, 2007 9:40 AM