A Trial by Jury

by D. Graham Burnett

When Princeton historian D. Graham Burnett answered his jury duty summons, he expected to spend a few days catching up on his reading in the court waiting room. Instead, he finds himself thrust into a high-pressure role as the jury foreman in a Manhattan trial. There he comes face to face with a stunning act of violence, a maze of conflicting evidence, and a parade of bizarre witnesses. But it is later, behind the closed door of the jury room, that he encounters the essence of the jury experience — he and eleven citizens from radically different backgrounds must hammer consensus out of confusion and strong disagreement. By the time he hands over the jury’s verdict, Burnett has undergone real transformation, not just in his attitude toward the legal system, but in his understanding of himself and his peers.

Offering a compelling courtroom drama and an intimate and sometimes humorous portrait of a fractious jury, A Trial by Jury is also a finely nuanced examination of law and justice, personal responsibility and civic duty, and the dynamics of power and authority between twelve equal people.

Genres: Nonfiction, Law, True Crime, Mystery, Crime, Memoir, Social Science

208 pages, Paperback

First published September 11, 2001

Reviews

[Khris Sellin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating book

A short but fascinating read about one man's experience with jury service on a murder case in the NYC judicial system. I work in federal court so I can say he would've had a much more comfortable experience in our court, but this gives a different perspective to those of us who work within the system.

[Karthik Chalumuri · Rating 3 out of 5]

A trail by Jury is a really interesting book. It starts off right away in the story without any rising details. It does give a little explanation of the author and what his experience in the area, but it wasn't much at all. This book deals with a controversial court case that has you wonder what really, can affect a court. Then, it ends with an ending that I personally, was not expecting.
One thing that I really liked about this book was how the author, gave his thoughts on everything. He always put in the thoughts of everyone else there and wouldn't leave out any "extra" information. This was really fundamental in understanding the whole situation and, seeing everything through different people's version.
Another thing I liked was how this book really how this book chose to be written about a case that is actually really different. Normally when you read about a court case it tends to be a more general one but this book, was about a court case that really can get controversial real fast. It deals with a transgender and, gets really "interesting" real fast.
One thing I do not like about this book was how lengthy it was. The author really exaggerated simple things and I, didn't like it personally. I tend to like books where it gets to the point really quickly and it does not take forever.
In addition, another thing I do not like about the book is the ending. I personally believe that the defendant is guilty but the court decides that he isn't guilty. I really disagree and do not back up their decision, I wish they would take a revoke their vote and realize that the guy is guilty.
Overall, I do though like the book and I feel that it is an interesting read. I like the writing style and I feel that I could really recommend this book to anyone who is interested in this area. I feel like those who are interested in the field of law should read this book to help get an idea of how a court case works.

[Avree Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

A GREAT GLIMPSE INTO THE AGONIZING DECISION THAT IS A VERDICT!

(AND, OH, THAT OCTAGONAL LOTTERY-ROLLER)

“True justice, final justice, absolute justice, belongs to God; human justice can only be cautious, not perfect. For this reason the burden is so heavy. And those of us with doubts must continue to vote not guilty.”

This book really helps you to ponder the very serious nature that is deliberating and reaching a verdict which most of us have not done but very well may be selected to do, at least once, in our lives…

I was summoned to jury selection on May 22 and Jun 5. Neither of which I was selected to sit as juror. (Well, I was for one case but was eliminated by defense counsel because I knew a police officer on the witness list for the prosecution.)

As much as I was nervous about the “unknown” I was also very curious to experience a part of the justice system that is not always seen…the deliberation process. But, I’ve always been very uneasy about the idea of having it in my hands to pronounce guilt or innocence on a defendant. Which is why I really love the concepts of “innocent until proven guilty”,“beyond a reasonable doubt” and that the prosecution is taxed with “the burden of proof.” It’s so vital that the prosecution in the case has the “unfortunate” task of coming up with “proof” to ensure that there is no doubt in the jurors’ minds about guilt. It’s not the defenders who are tasked with “proof” of innocence. And it’s a crazy notion to think how it’s strange that the jurors, whose “opinion(s)” matters most, aren’t able to ask the questions or seek out further information other than what is entered as evidence and testimony. So that’s why it is the counsels’ job to make sure to ask the right questions (or not ask) to ensure that the jurors have the proper information to deliberate on.

This book does a really good job explaining, and painting a picture for you, the intense pressure it is to reach a verdict and pass judgment based on what is laid before you. It must be so frustrating when you feel that not enough information was offered and that is when you have to consider…“Did the prosecution’s case convince me ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ of the defendant’s guilt?”, “Did the prosecution provide enough “proof” that they’re guilty of the crime convicted of?” If you’re answer is “no” then you must reach a not-guilty verdict. This book really drove that point home and has left me reeling over it since I completed the book. You can’t just say “oh I believe they did it” you have to be able to then state what part of the testimony or evidence convinced you…there’s no getting by with “oh I just don’t like the way they look” you have to examine the FACTS and they’re “stubborn things” (says John Adams).

Though the aspects surrounding the case in this story were a bit disturbing I think this book is important for anyone eligible to be selected as a juror to read. It’s very thought-provoking and I think, too, it will help people who are jittery about being responsible with a person’s life in their hands to understand that “look, you don’t have to be the one to prove that a person is guilty or innocent you can only interpret the facts and let that be your guide.”

I will say that the judges that I encountered were very considerate and very cognizant of our “sacrifice” and even expressed apologies when we were detained for over an hour while awaiting to learn if one case was going to settle out that day. They were nothing like the judge described in this story, though I can imagine a judge in the Big Apple is not quite so unhurried as a small-town judge in relatively quiet N.E. may have the luxury. I was very impressed by all the courthouse staff…well except for one very disgruntled female bailiff that was, I suppose, understandably irritated that when potential jurors were filing in they were electing to sit wherever they wanted rather than filing in in orderly fashion for an accurate headcount to be made. I really don’t think I could say enough good things about the judges. They were very understanding and rather lenient when it came to jurors needing to be excused for time constraints or vacations. I was very pleased with my jury selection experience.

The following highlights were ones that I found so powerful and thought-provoking.
None of these are technically “spoilers” as the first page of the book tells you the verdict that was reached in this case and then takes you through the process of how they arrived at that conclusion.

HIGHLIGHTS:

It is my intention to tell this story as best as I can. I am doing so for several reasons, among them two in particular: first, because there are things to be learned from the way events unfolded (about people, about the law, about justice, about truth and how we know it), and, second, because the jury room is a most remarkable—and largely inaccessible—space in our society, a space where ideas, memories, virtues, and prejudices clash with the messy stuff of the big, bad world. We expect much of this room, and we think about it less often than we probably should. (page 13)

At the start, I decided to treat the unwelcome interruption of jury duty as something like a vacation, a brief visit to a foreign country of bureaucratic languor and vast waiting rooms, a linoleum land inhabited by a genuine demographic cross section of the Big Apple. Plus, I could get some reading done. There was a certain irony to this. My job, in fact, was a one-year fellowship in a well-appointed humanities center at a large New York institution of learning—books everywhere, a silent and bright office without a phone, distinguished colleagues, catered lunches. My only formal responsibilities were to read and write. But things piled up on the desk—student evaluations, article proofs needing attention, endless e-mail—so the New York State Criminal Court began to look like an opportunity to hide in plain view. (page 17)

In the twice-exhaled air of the jury waiting room, about two hundred disgruntled New Yorkers had arranged themselves like a tray of magnetic monopoles: maximum space between each particle and its neighbors. Some read newspapers, others books; a few students had staked out desks in the corner and had begun to study, wearing Walkmans. Most simply stated into space. As seems to happen oddly often in New York crowds, I recognized someone (or thought I did): a guy I had played pickup basketball with several times at an uptown gym on the West Side. The city, finally, is finite; it takes several years to notice this. (page 18)

Combining precise measures of camp-counselor patience and “fuhgedaboudit” irascibility, he [the senior court clerk] got the headphones off everyone, got the newspapers put away, and took people through the drill, demonstrating the use of the octagonal lottery-roller that would determine who got called up for which panel. (page 19)

“In other words, the stiffness of the law is the product of a very serious idea: that the law should be exactly the same for everyone, regardless of who they are—that our ‘rule of law’ can never bend, because if it did it could be used to reach and get a particular person, be used to satisfy particular desires. Instead, the idea is that it will be totally rigid, and what it can catch it will catch, and what it cannot must be let go. What I’m saying is that our legal system didn’t end up this way by mistake; there have been decisions made to sacrifice the virtues of flexibility in exchange for absolute equality before the law.” (page 131)

Now, in an effort to re-establish harmony, I offered this story: those among us who were arguing that we could not let ourselves become slaves to the law were not necessarily arguing against the rule of law itself. The ancient Greek judicial system was proof: one could establish a functioning system of punishment, and a “lawful” society, by charging juries to come up with punishments that fit the individual criminal and the specific nature of the case and the people involved. The odd rigidity of our particular legal system—our obligation to find a verdict within the narrow strictures of law, as described by the judge; our obligation to put aside any consideration of punishment, or of who this defendant was and what appeared to deserve for what he had done; our obligation to put aside what we wanted to see happen—this was not the only alternative to chaos and barbarism, but simply the system we had inherited. It worked, mostly, and it was ours, but it was not the only way. (page 137)

“I’ve been listening,” he [Dean] began, “to these things people are saying, and I have tried to pray about all this. Now I’ve decided what I have to do. I believe Monte Milcray did something very, very wrong in that room. But I also believe that nobody has asked me to play God. I’ve been asked to apply the law. Justice belongs to God; men only have the law. Justice is perfect, but the law can only be careful.”
The statement centered the room. Here was an expression of despair that was a vow of faithfulness; a repudiation of sophistication that suddenly seemed overwhelmingly sage. No one spoke for several moments. He did not try to explain, or to say more. He sat down. (page 138)

All of us probably would have agreed in the abstract, before the trial even started, that the state was powerful. But after four days of sequestration, we had developed a new and immediate appreciation of just what this power meant: the state could take control of your person, it could refuse to let you go home, it could send men with guns to watch you take a piss, it could deny you access to a lawyer, it could embarrass you in public and force you to reply meekly, it could, ultimately, send you to jail—all this, apparently, without even accusing you of a crime.
For (mostly) law-abiding citizens with no experience of the criminal-justice system, with no experience of what it feels like to be made wholly impotent by force of legal strictures and the threat of legal violence, this discovery had been shocking. One could see the shock in Paige’s face as she emerged from her scolding in the court. One could hear it in Jim’s angry muttering before the bench. I knew the feeling all too well myself, from sitting in front of the judge as he insulted me and silenced me and sent me from the room when I had done absolutely nothing wrong. At times the encounter felt like the belittling and arbitrary tyranny of primary school: “Who are these people,” the child asks, “and how come they can make me do what they say?” Here, in the justice system, your mother couldn’t write you a note. It was a giant difference: before the state, there was no higher worldly power. (page 160/161)

“Think with me for a moment. Knowing what we know now, imagine that we had a chance to set up our own state, to make a government, the twelve of us. What kind of protections would we try to offer to the citizens? I think, after what we’ve learned over the last few days, we would put the heaviest possible burden on the state before we would let it take away a person’s liberty, and we would do that because we’ve learned the secret of government: that the state, any state, is, in the end, like a monster, more powerful than everything else. For this reason the burden is so heavy.
“Yesterday, in a moment I will never forget, Dean and Felipe reminded us of a transcendental idea: that true justice, final justice, absolute justice, belongs to God; human justice can only be cautious, not perfect. For this reason the burden is so heavy. And those of us with doubts must continue to vote not guilty. (page 164)

[Papaphilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Trial by Jury is one tour de force of a read. D. Graham Burnett has written one of the best inside looks at a jury and the ramifications of trying to reach a verdict in a murder trial. This is not Perry Mason or Law and Order. It is much worse, it is the ultimate reality.

Given a confusing set of circumstances in a murder trial, a diverse group must come up with a verdict. What comes out is not about the trial per se, but the personalities in the room and the different ideas of what "Justice" is to each. The reader finds that the jury has a rough judge and that they do not have much direction.

D. Graham Burnett does an amazing job of explaining what he sees as the idea of both the "law" and "justice" and how they both are related, interrelated, and most importantly, separate from each other. Much of what he writes about is self discovery of his hypothesis during the verdict process and how this affects his decision.

Ultimately, A Trial by Jury shows the frustrations of the system, its limitations and why the process is so important. It also shows the human cost inside the jury room and how hard it is on the participants trying to come to an answer. It is a hard and depressing read, but ultimately, shows why the system works.

[Caroline Mann · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted nonfiction, narrative, and the world of law. After some searching, I found a list of recommendations from a political science professor at the University of Iowa. You just don’t know where your next great read will come from.

A Trial By Jury is expertly written and organized. Burnett, surprisingly maybe for an academic, has a talent for holding interest, building tension, and illustrating personality. I not only cared about the case at hand, I cared about the jurors and their abilities ( / lack thereof) to work together.

Burnett doesn’t try to hide himself from the story. He’s no detached narrator. So, yes, at times, I didn’t like him, his attitude, or his habit of reading modernist poetry during breaks from the trial (just obnoxious). However, I appreciate that he didn’t try to make himself either invisible or more likable. The appeal of nonfiction should be this commitment to reality.

This would work well as an unexpected book club pick. I so wish I had a group to discuss this story with!

[Doug Branscombe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Was given this book by a friend. A relatively short book giving an inside look at the minds of a jury asked to determine innocence or guilt in a murder trial. A very interesting look into the physical and logistical demands of being on a sequestered jury, but more so into the psychological demands of the same. You came away thinking that the jury deliberations are a very inexact science, that personality differences can certainly play a role, that sometimes jury instructions aren't very helpful. Bottom line, our justice system isn't perfect, but it's probably better than any other country's. Near the end it gets into talking about why they feel the burden of proof is so strong, and their feeling that it is set up this way to prevent the "state" from abusing its power, using their own feeling of helplessness over being sequestered as an example of how much power the "state" possesses.

[Clint · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author recounts his experiences as the foreman of a jury in a murder trial, from being called for jury selection to post-trial discussion. Even in his own words, he seemed like a self-possessed jerk during jury selection. But he and the rest of the jury warm up to each other as their thoughts about the guilt or innocence of the accused evolve as they consider their verdict. My audio book was missing a disc, so I didn’t hear all the deliberations on guilt or innocence.

[Patrick O’Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really interesting book on both the shortcomings and necessities of the legal system, asking great questions on the meaning of justice and the necessity for a high burden of proof in a fair republic

[Amanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting take on the rigors of jury duty. If you have never served on a jury and would like a first person perspective, this is a book you need to read.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

I remember enjoying this book during my first year working as a lawyer. Nearly twenty years later--having just completed my own week as the foreman of a jury in a murder trial--I find myself reflecting on this interesting memoir and wondering whether I can find my copy and read it again.

Oddly, what I remember most about reading A TRIAL BY JURY is not the trial or the deliberations, but the peculiar way the author ate lunch each day. Obviously, that was hardly the point of the book. But when a man reports stopping by an open-air market to buy a potato and an onion--or was it a bell pepper?--then biting into each as though it were a Granny Smith apple, well, that sort of sticks with you.

Frankly, I remember being impressed that he ate entirely from the 'produce section,' nothing processed, nothing artificial, nothing cooked. Whether he ate all his meals that way or not, I do not know, but his lunches-in-the-raw sort of shocked me, and eventually began to influence, if only slightly, my own eating habits.

[Shanya · Rating 5 out of 5]

A phenomenal and well-written read. Through well-thought out characterizations coupled with intricately detailed writing, Barnett provides a thrilling and complex insight into the jury room. The readers are provided with all of the information provided to Barnett and his fellow jurors and are left to make their own determination on Monte Milcray's guilt. Barnett presents the stark realities of the criminal justice system, but also shows how different and unique individuals can come together (or not!) to make the final decision on the fate of a suspect.

[Chandra Allard · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of our book club selections, A Trial By Jury gives insight into what it’s like serving on a jury in New York City. What this solidified for me is that the American Judicial System and a trial by a jury of your peers is the most frightening and frustrating thing. People are selfish and silly and can be uninformed… and then they’re on your jury?! This is a real case and I often felt for the family of the victim having to read the back and forth among jurors about the fate of the potential killer.

[Martyna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first half is just boring. Burnett uses completely unnecessary imagery and metaphors to describe something that is already complicated, what with all the names and small details. But once we get to the deliberations, that’s where it gets interesting. It almost seens like Burnett’s writing and approach to his readers improves as you read further on. Not my favorite book in the world but definitely not a bad one.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book by a historian, telling about his experience as a NYC jury foreman. The most interesting idea is one he says after the experience: Perhaps the reason juries are sequestered for murder cases, is so the jurors get the bad experience of having every daily decision forced on them by the State. They viscerally experience the jail-punishment they would be giving to the defendant, if they decide that person is guilty. So, the jurors don't make that decision too lightly!

[Allison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Experience being on a jury through an intellectual's eyes. This book humanizes a complex and difficult experience that most of us will never have. Full of lots of fancy words and unnecessarily complicated sentences because of the author's nature. Very thought-provoking, interesting, and informative on so many different facets. The vocabulary building is a bonus.

[Faith Hirschi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for my trial advocacy class hence why it’s the only book in the last two months without an enemies to lovers situation. I was horrified about the reverse jury nullification and wanted to punch those people. Also the author insinuating that his time as a juror was a deprivation of rights like that of someone in jail like bruh get off your high horse.

[Scott Rafferty · Rating 1 out of 5]

Being trapped on a jury with D. Graham [pick a first name, would you?] would redefine misery. In his own mind, he's the Einstein of the courtroom—brilliant beyond the jurors, a cut above the judge, leagues ahead of the prosecutors, and light-years smarter than the legal system itself. His self-importance isn't just palpable; it's suffocating. An insufferable know-it-all in every sense.

[Marian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unique book, down to earth and well written. Got bogged down once or twice in his labyrinth of thinking process, but I actually enjoyed the process. He does a great job of describing the people he meets.

[CherylR · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting

The book started a little slow, but once the jury got into their deliberations it was very interesting. I have never been chosen for a jury so this was as close to being there as I will get.

[Deb Noack · Rating 3 out of 5]

A jury foreman on a murder trial tells the story of a three-week trial that included four days of intense deliberations while sequestered. For someone who should have gin’s to law school, I found it fascinating,

[jackie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The writer is super arrogant, but this was an interesting read. I really hope I get the chance to be on a jury someday.

[Phyllis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a quick read, very enjoyable, especially if you have served on a jury. His narrative expressed how difficult and inconvenient jury duty can be, but also how rewarding.

[Rowel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Personally, I find the writing style hard to follow. It's a little all over the place. Pity- considering the fascinating topic choice.

[Tara Engel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Author seemed arrogant at times and judgemental of his fellow jurors. Didn't care for his over use of intelligent wording. Otherwise okay.

[Becky S · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this in 2002 after reading the NYT Magazine article it was based on. It's a well written and riveting account of a very messy case.
No spoiler alert here...... just read it!

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

recommended by a former professor on the legal system and man this book hit

v good

[Lori Ann · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very useful in understanding what goes on during jury deliberations, and why we use “proven beyond a reasonable doubt” as a measure.

[Peyton · Rating 4 out of 5]

read for school!!

[Nikolas · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.75

[Matthew · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oddly inefficient