Picturing Justice, the On-Line Journal of Law and Popular Culture




Michael Asimow


 

Read other reviews:

Paul Bergman

Official site

Internet Movie Database

Readers' comments 

 

 

Jurors are just about the last bastion of direct democracy in our country. They actually bear the responsibility to apply the law in individual cases, involving long prison terms, the death penalty, or huge amounts of money. For practical purposes, their decision is final. Elites don't make these critical decisions, ordinary folks do.


Feature article

WHEN ORDINARY PEOPLE DECIDE YOUR FATE: FOX'S THE JURY

By Michael Asimow

With few exceptions, the jury gets shortchanged in popular culture. In countless trials in the movies and on TV, the verdict supplies the necessary suspense element in the story. When the judge asks the twelve strangers whether they have reached a verdict, we never know whether the defendant will get a lethal injection or be escorted out the courthouse door to freedom.

But the narrative function of the jury goes far beyond generating suspense. The standard trope in courtroom drama is to treat the viewers as if they themselves are the jurors who are called upon to reach a verdict. They watch the trial (well, the best bits of it anyway) as if they were sitting in the jury box and they reach their own conclusions about which witnesses are telling the truth or lying. Since the consumers of the film or TV show are intended to see themselves as jurors, they never learn much, if anything, about the actual jurors. Such knowledge would only get in the way of feeling like a juror yourself. Thus the focus in courtroom drama is on the defendant, the lawyers, the judge, the victims, the witnesses-but not on those out-of-focus faces in the jury box.

Of course, there have been some important exceptions. By far the most famous is 12 Angry Men, Sidney Lumet's great 1957 drama which is now nearing its 50th birthday. (The Showtime 1997 remake wasn't at all bad). Another big exception is the stunning 2002 BBC miniseries The Jury which focused almost entirely on the jury deliberations in a difficult multiracial murder case. Unlike 12 Angry Men, the BBC's The Jury seriously explored all the personal problems that the jurors brought with them to the courthouse. Runaway Jury was a pretty decent thriller centering on a juror with an agenda. But what else can you think of? Aside from a couple of pretty average jury tampering movies (The Juror, Trial by Jury), and a dumb Paulie Shore comedy (Jury Duty), and occasional snippets of deliberation (as in The Rainmaker), the movies have pretty much stayed out of the jury room.

All of which brings us to the new Fox series, The Jury. Each week, twelve new actors serve as the jury while the same cast members function as lawyers, judge, and bailiff. (This will be a boon to the NY acting community). We'll be sitting in the jury room with the jurors as they sweat out their decision in a difficult criminal case. Occasionally, the action cuts to scenes from the trial so we catch up with what the jury has seen (we also see some plea bargaining which the jury, of course, doesn't get to see). One interesting feature is that viewers out there in TV land are asked to vote on the case (The People's Court uses the same gimmick) which requires us to pay attention and try to commit to one result or the other. Finally, after the verdict is delivered, we see what really went down at the crime scene. In the initial episode, Three Boys and a Gun, we discover that the jury blew it.

You know what? I liked this show. I liked it because it felt like real jurors wrestling with real cases. They all had their own perspectives, their own biases, just like real jurors do. They're people from different ethnic groups, different social classes, who would never find themselves together in the same room under other circumstances. And they didn't always behave very well. Two of them spent the night together and violated the judge's order by watching TV news. One speculated that the defendant must have had a record since he was a juvenile being tried as an adult. Others guessed about what would happen to the kid if he is sent to adult prison. Things got pretty heavy when one of the jurors accused the holdout juror of being a Latina sticking up for a Latino defendant. But they did a fair, responsible job, based on what they had heard. It wasn't pretty, but it worked.

It's amazing, really. Almost everybody does whatever they can to avoid jury duty. Those who actually serve (only a fraction of those who were summoned) may be good citizens or they may just be fearful of the consequences if they flake. They have been conscripted to serve against their will, torn from their jobs or businesses or from their homes, and receive only a pittance for their services. It's the last place they want to be. They must hang around the jury room for hours or days waiting to be called. They are herded around the courthouse like cattle. They are subjected to intrusive questions and are unfairly challenged because lawyers think they won't be fair or because they violate the lawyers' stereotypes. They are bored to tears while sitting through tedious testimony or inaudible sidebars. They have to deal with their fellow jurors who they may think are complete idiots. Yet, both anecdotal evidence and scholarly studies show that jurors are dead serious about their job.

Jurors are just about the last bastion of direct democracy in our country. They actually bear the responsibility to apply the law in individual cases, involving long prison terms, the death penalty, or huge amounts of money. For practical purposes, their decision is final. Elites don't make these critical decisions, ordinary folks do. Most of the time, the individual has almost no voice in how things are run. You can vote, of course, but you're one of millions. Your legislator or your president or governor try to manipulate you but couldn't care less what you actually think. Your life is controlled by powerful officials such as police, tax collectors, or bureaucrats. The jury room is just about the only place where you-just you-get to govern.

So two cheers for Fox's The Jury. OK, the deliberations got a little tedious and some of the jurors (and the bailiff) were annoying. But the show effectively simulates real people struggling hard to do the right thing, arguing passionately with their fellow jurors, handing out justice in tough cases the best that they can. That's the very core of our legal system. Maybe it's not the greatest system in the world, but it's all we've got. The people whose hard work and sacrifice makes the jury system function should be celebrated in pop culture far more often than they have been.

Posted July 8, 2004

Would you like to comment on this article? Please submit your comments here.

 Top of page

 Home | Silver Screen | Small Screen | News & Views