Chatter And Banter - Politics In North America

Sometimes I am left stupefied at the ways the law and courts work in the U.S.

In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the jury instructions document is 36 pages long. The judge read out the pages to the jury in a droning voice for over an hour, he stopped himself mid-sentence sometimes and did not complete the sentence which added to the confusion. Further, during that reading, both sides continued to discuss what the instructions exactly meant.

The document contains instructions about the principles of the law that the jury should follow in reaching a verdict. It contains elaborate definitions such as what is self-defense, how a belief held by the defendant can be reasonable even though mistaken, how to decide about intent, how not to confuse intent with motive, description of the charges against the defendant, explanation of how he has plead for each. It contains much more and in mind-numbing depth.

So, here is what I don't get: In a trial of this proportion, the judge gave the jury one printed copy of the 36 page instructions!!! After some hours of deliberation on day one, the jury requested eleven more copies of the first six pages of the instructions so each juror could have their own copy. Later the same day, the jury requested copies of the remaining pages.

Seriously!! Isn't it common sense to provide the jurors individual copies of the jury instructions? Why isn't this a requirement? When twelve ordinary citizens are deliberating a matter that is so involved and important, why doesn't each one have their own copy?!

I watched a snippet of the judge reading the jury instructions. I truly feel sorry for the jurors.

Rittenhouse jury sends 2 more questions to the court, according to pool reporter

 

General ponder on the jury system:

I read most of the instructions to this jury. They are quite complicated. The jurors are ordinary people who might or might not be interested in debates and discussions or elaborate rules. Even with the stringent jury selection criteria, I wonder how a set of random twelve people are entrusted with such big impact decisions.

I was among the eighteen jurors for a really small case and felt overwhelmed at the expectations of me as a juror. More recently, I was following a podcast on cryptocurrency. It was explained in basic terms, I was not looking to invest any money, yet I found parts that I just didn't get. In politics, for a while, I didn't get what woke and cancel culture actually mean.

I am guessing that the average juror will have similar challenges like those listed above. They could be as young as 18! How then? IMO, a juror needs to have a college education or equivalent, some expertise in critical thinking and some knowledge of cognitive biases.

How people with possibly zero knowledge of laws and enforcement are expected to understand intricate definitions and apply that understanding to arrive at a verdict that can change lives and the country's history?

 

With a Koch-owned Supreme court, federal courts stacked with right-wing true-believers and the GOP determined to hold on to power at any cost, we are headed for decades of minority rule. Trials like these will soon become the norm. Fascism isn't even creeping anymore. It's roaring back with cheers and applause.

 

The judge's phone rang during cross-examination and the ringtone was God Bless the USA. . He said the victims can be called only rioters or looters, not even "alleged victims." Lord forgive me for saying this.. but he somehow just looks racist in pictures and videos of the trial.



But going by the opinions of legal experts in almost any news site, looks like the prosecution lost the trial fair and square. The verdict was not a surprise. The jury did their job.