[PLUG-TALK] Jury duty: read before pondering

[Keith Lofstrom]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:30:12PM -0700, Rich Shepard wrote:
>   For those interested in comparative languages, in this case lawyer-speak
> and English, this week's column by Johnson (The Economist's language
> columnist) is well worth reading. This is especially true if you're
> empaneled on a jury. <https://tinyurl.com/y768cp54>.

So, what are Oregon's (or Washington's) jury instructions
like? 

I've only been on one jury trial, for a young man who
drove drunk and against traffic.  His doting parents
hired an expensive lawyer who could talk rings around 
the inarticulate cops. 

I forget the jury instructions; we were there to decide
the facts, not follow a formula.

We had an engineer (me) and a nurse on the jury.  We also
had a dithering fool jury who obsessed about "doubt". 
After we asked for (and read) the relevant portions of the
operation manual for the breathalyzer, we decided that the
lawyer was lying (a first?) and that the kid and his
parents were, too.  The nurse explained to the ditherer
the results in the ER after a head-on collision.

We convicted the kid.  Half his "trial" occured in the jury
room, away from lawyers and ritual talk.  He was sentenced
to diversion classes.  His insurance rates increased.

We may have saved his life, and the lives of others.
That was our main purpose, not punishment or revenge.

I think about this when I read about traffic deaths caused
by wrong-way drunks, and more recently, distracted drivers.
Juries should not be mere rituals, but informed citizens
contributing skills and knowledge for the safety of their
community and the reform of miscreants.  Six (or twelve)
people working together can accomplish remarkable things.

Keith

-- 
Keith Lofstrom          keithl at keithl.com