2 WAYS TO FIX THE CASEY ANTHONY JURY ISSUE

Given the outrage over the Casey Anthony Jury and having heard from several jurors (most notably jurors #14 {alternate} and # 3) it would seem that these jurors were incapable of understanding their task and unable to understand or comprehend the meaning of "Reasonable Doubt" as instructed by Judge Perry.

To see why I believe they GOT IT WRONG – read:

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/reasonable-doubt-vs-shadow-of-1

That being said, I believe there are two methods available to forestall or at least minimize a repeat of the outrage that precipitated upon the reading of the Casey Anthony verdict.

For reasons of cost, complexity, and time these suggestions are to only be applied in Capital/ Felony offenses (State or Federal) where the penalties are Death or Life imprisonment.

1. Overhaul and restructure the method and proceedings of a "Voir Dire"- it generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury.
   
   1. Go beyond a search into bias and background and include intellectual competency.
      
   2. Have professionals devise a test (several different ones) to asses a person's ability to understand compound or complex instructions.
      
   3. Do the "Voir Dire" in sections – 1^st group weeds out bias and background (as it is done now with both prosecuting and defense attorneys approving or dimissing jurors) – 2^nd group is thinned again by independent court appointed personnel that administer the "complex issue testing" – 3^rd group is given a problem to solve as a team. They are put into a conference room, given the problem (A non legal and unrelated to their case problem) of moral, political or financial consequence. The deliberations are watched by both sides and either can exclude jurors based upon their ability or inability to handle the problem or their ability or inability to contribute to the process.
      

   For a 12 member jury – 36 candidates are picked in group 1, 24 candidates are chosen from those tested in group 2, and the final 12 are selected from the team deliberation in group 3.
   

Right now, "Voir Dires" take days to accomplish in high profile cases.

In the scenario above, the first group questioning can be done rather quickly. (Remember – in today's method of voir dire the attorneys ask far more questions because who they pick will actually be on their jury.) In the scenario above the people picked in the first group only move on to group 2 and if they survive group two testing they can still be weeded out in group 3.

Part c above in the "New Voir Dire" can actually be a real time saver. Observing potential jurors in a deliberation setting for 30 to 45 minutes or so can reveal far more than days of questioning can accomplish.

If there is a concern over the ability to find "qualified jurors" in this manner – then just increase the pool in order to double the first number of candidates picked in group 1 to 72 and whittle it down to 48 in the testing phase so that you will have two 24 member panels going through group 3 deliberations.

The group 3 deliberations can be watched live by the selecting attorneys or just videotaped for their joint review.

Group 3 observations by video can be done with the defense watching the first group deliberation while the prosecutors are watching the second group video – or – they can watch the tapes together consecutively.

1. Employ a Professional (non-voting) Jury Foreman
   
   1. Professionally train personnel to act as jury foremen.
      
   2. No criminal law attorneys (prosecuting or defense) can hold the position. Retired trial judges would be able to act as
      

      Professional jury foremen only if they had never held criminal prosecuting or defense attorney positions.
      

   3. They are the 13^th member of a 12 member jury and have no vote in the case outcome.
      
   4. Their job is to organize data, promote discussion, poll members and take ballot counts.
      
   5. They may not speak to case, evidence or trial issues and may only answer questions to or clarify issues regarding trial judge instructions or charge definitions.
      
   6. If a jury is to be sequestered – then the selected jury foreman must be sequestered during the trial and away from the proceedings. He only comes into play if the jury is given the case to deliberate and then leads the jury in cohesive deliberations over issues and evidence that he has no previous awareness of.
      

To all the people that have expressed such outrage over the Casey Anthony verdict and have vilified the jurors as well as proclaiming that our jury system is broken – I say:

Our criminal justice system is the best in the world – BUT – we can make it better, or at least more responsive to and reflective of our society and system of jurisprudence.

That's just my viewpoint – What do you think?