The “Trial of The Century” is beginning—but to put on the show, you need an audience. That’s the role of jury selection—a process of making logical decisions about illogical things. It’s a racist, sexist, and biased part of the trial because the lawyers have to anticipate the racism, sexism, and biases of potential jurors. As a lawyer, you want to include jurors who are sympathetic to your narrative, considering factors like their sex, race, and marital status. Episode four of “American Crime Story” fills the 12 front-row seats for the nationwide event.

Jury Selection

The jury analysts contacted in O. J. Simpson’s case give simple advice: listen to the data rather than your own ethics. For someone like Marcia Clark, who strives to be racially fair and unprejudiced in the workplace, this advice may be hard to take to heart. Ordinarily, a woman being told to soften her appearance by dressing more femininely and changing her haircut would reek of workplace sexism. But in this case, it may be the only way Clark can get the jury on her side. As long as sexism and racism exist, the law will have to react to these very real prejudices.

“American Crime Story” paints Marcia Clark’s underestimation of race and its influence on the trail as her biggest mistake. She ignores what the focus group tells her about her poor rapport with black women because she has had great experiences with black-majority juries before. She’s content to allow the defense’s selection of black jurors because she sees them as logical and reasonable individuals. When her colleague accuses defense lawyers of playing the race card, our attention shifts its focus. At that point, the episode’s other central theme comes to a head—just who is in charge of O.J. Simpson’s defense team?

A Dream Team Divided

The dream team that we watched assemble in the previous episode is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. They’re still a supergroup a famous and successful lawyers, but there’s only room for so many big personalities at the defense table. There are many rational reasons to debate whether Johnny Cochran or Robert Shapiro should be the lead attorney. Shapiro started with the case, knows O.J. personally, and has invested significant effort, time, and money into his strategy. He’s also known as a settler, and at one point proposes that O.J. adjust his charges to manslaughter and hope for a lighter sentence.

On the other hand, we have Johnnie Cochran who is the total opposite of a settler. He comes alive in the courtroom, persuading juries and presenting the facts like no one else can. He’s a showboat, but prosecutors are right to be scared of his dedication and savvy. The decision between these two attorneys didn’t exclusively come down consideration of their talent. In large part, Cochran was chosen because he is black and will be able to relate better to the jury.

The police department begins to bend to the same pressure when District Attorney Garcetti suggest that they spice up their lineup with a black attorney as well. Marcia Clark shows both heart and cunning when she chooses this as the opportunity to recognize Christopher Darden, who had previously been overlooked for his effort.

Showing Some Heart

Because so much of this episode, and the show in general, is centered on Marcia Clark’s humanity working against her, it’s easy to miss that the show has some heart. In Murphy’s previous work, such as the early seasons of “Glee,” the show excelled when exploring an emotion plainly and honestly with no sense of bombast or pandering. These moments were rare but touching. In this episode of “American Crime Story,” we explore the tragedy of a double homicide without the lens of irony. Meeting the father of Ronald Lyle Goldman and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

Ronald Lyle Goldman’s father at his funeral and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

The good news is the Kardashian children did not make an appearance in Tuesday’s episode. The bad news is that the material that replaced it was still over-steeped in irony and cheekiness. Episode four chronicles Faye Resnick’s “authorship” of a tell-all Nichole Brown Simpson biography in pure Ryan Murphy fashion. Actress Connie Britton hamming up her chance to play the “bad girl” so much that the scene can’t be deemed kosher. Resnick’s book did play a part in the voir dire process, but there are dense sections of the episode in which Britton’s monologs about Nicole and O. J.’s intimate past. Murphy can’t resist giving you the saucy details and then reminding you over and over how saucy they are.

Episode four of “American Crime Story” walks the fine line between what is ethical and what is effective. Clark’s team of prosecutors are focused on doing what is right while Simpson’s defense team is focused on whatever method will actually work. I suspect we’ll see the prosecutors fall further and further from their position on the moral high ground, as they find themselves unable to compete with their opposition’s cutthroat willingness to do whatever it takes to win. We already know how this ends—the ‘bad guys’ win. And we’re beginning to see the prosecution’s confidence chipping away.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Wants A Good Jury, Not A Fair One appeared first on Law Street.

A judge, a few attorneys, and more than a thousand potential jurors are facing a tricky situation in a Boston court. How do you select jury members to try a crime that caught the whole nation off guard and drew international attention for days on end? Starting Monday, lawyers began to screen 1,200 Bostonians to serve on the jury of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial.

Tsarnaev is the 21-year-old suspect in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three people and injured more than 260. Despite the fact that the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in Massachusetts in 1982, Tsarnaev faces capital punishment if he is convicted, given that the charges against him are federal.

That is what makes the selection process so tricky. Tsarnaev is almost definitely going to be convicted, considering the amount of incriminating evidence authorities have—including footage of him dropping what looks like a bag filled with explosives near the race’s finish line, an inscription he supposedly wrote inside the boat where he was captured, and bomb-making instructions that he allegedly downloaded. His defense is expected to focus on trying to save him from the death penalty by picking the right jury members. For the prosecution, it’s the opposite.

The Associated Press explains that the prosecution will want to look for jurors who see things in black and white (or guilty or not guilty) and are likely to favor the death penalty. Meanwhile, the defense will want to look for people who, despite knowing that Tsarnaev is responsible, want to understand what forces pushed him to kill.

CNN reported that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys have suggested that his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a police chase that ended in a firefight a few days after the marathon, was the mastermind behind the bombing. Dzhokhar, they’ll argue, was influenced and coerced by Tamerlan.

The defense is even trying to bring in the Tsarnaev family history as evidence, citing the psychological impact that Tsarnaev’s father, a refugee from Chechnya, had on him and his brother. The defense has said that the brothers grew up in an environment of “suspicion and fear.” On the other hand, the prosecutors are expected to use the evidence they have to show that Tsarnaev carried out the attack knowingly and willingly.

Tsarnaev is facing 30 federal charges, 17 of which are punishable by death or life in prison. If convicted of any of those, he’ll have a second trial with the same jury to determine sentencing. In the jury selection process, this presents another criterion for which the jurors need to be screened: they have to be willing to impose capital punishment if that is the way that justice is to be legally served.

This is all happening in a state that did away with the death penalty more than three decades ago. In a 2013 Boston Globe poll, 57 percent of respondents said they favored life without parole for Tsarnaev over capital punishment. In contrast, 33 percent said they favored death, and the rest said they didn’t know. Experts told the Globe the results reinforce the notion that most Massachusetts citizens oppose the death penalty. In Boston, a relatively liberal city, the court will have to choose jurors who don’t harbor any strong feelings about it. Anyone who does cannot be a member of the jury. The defense actually tried to move the trial away from Boston several times because of the obvious emotional toll the attacks had on the city, but U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. refused.

The jury selection process is expected to take about three weeks. The trial is set to start in late January and take three to four months.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jury Selection Begins in Boston Marathon Bomber Trial appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.