THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, October 7, 1995 TAG: 9510070239
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY LYNN WALTZ, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 94 lines
White America is acting like the O.J. Simpson jury and its verdict were an aberration, says local jury expert Donald H. Smith. But they're wrong, he says.
Actually, the Simpson jury reached its verdict in the same way most juries do, said Smith, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Old Dominion University. His research has included interviews with more than 4,000 jurors. The only difference this time, Smith said, was that the jurors brought to the job their African-American perspective - rather than a mainstream, white mentality.
Regardless of color, Smith said, juries base their verdicts on a myriad of circumstances that sometimes has little to do with the evidence or rules of law.
``The white population is responding to this whole thing like it's from another planet,'' said Smith, who avidly followed the Simpson trial. ``It's also the same behavior we all engage in. When someone does something that doesn't conform to our perceptions, we're incredulous, even if the behavioral process that gets them to their conclusion is the same one we would use.''
Jurors, Smith said, have difficulty applying legal concepts like ``beyond a reasonable doubt'' and tend to set aside complicated technical evidence like DNA.
``If we're asked to do something we don't understand, we go on to something we do understand - that's human nature,'' Smith said. ``I doubt that any of the jurors understood the implications of the blood evidence. What happens when someone gives you something you have to accept at face value? You tend to be skeptical.''
That makes juries susceptible to cliched and simplified arguments by attorneys, Smith said.
Juries tend to vote along moral lines - what they perceive as right and wrong - and then justify those decisions with rules of law or evidence, he said.
The moral judgments stem from a combination of individual experience, and the culture from which the juror comes.
``We are programmed to perceive things in a certain way, by gender, race, nationality, sometimes age, religion,'' Smith said. ``Jurors walk into the courtroom with baggage, predisposed to perceive things through their own cultural experience. . . .
``No one walks into a jury room neutral. Even when we're being honorable and trying to make the best judgment, we have prejudices we're not even aware of.
``The jury was made up of people who were raised in the social context of distrusting the police,'' said Smith. He compared the situation to elderly white jurors he has interviewed who were predisposed to convict ``anyone for not being from the suburbs.''
``I've interviewed those little blue-haired ladies in Philadelphia juries who were so appalled at the neighborhoods they had to go (through) just to get to the courthouse - and had such a horrific experience just going into the courthouse and seeing the people in halls - they were ready to convict before they were even seated.''
The one aspect of the Simpson verdict that did surprise Smith was its speed. He said it stemmed from the sole aberration in the jury process - the psychological fallout from the long sequestration.
``They become family and become more homogeneous. For instance, it took them about three minutes to pick a foreperson. The long sequestration minimized the likelihood that someone would hold out, would have the courage suddenly to hold out against their fellow prisoners of war. It would have been the equivalent of finking.''
If the jurors had spent more time deliberating, Smith said, they would have run across prosecution evidence they couldn't explain, confronted issues they couldn't resolve.
They didn't want to confront the evidence, Smith said.
``What happens to information that you find uncomfortable? You tend to ignore it and forget about it,'' Smith said.
The idea that jurors don't communicate before deliberation defies common sense, Smith said. They know very well where each member stands, even if they don't say a word.
``It doesn't take much to clearly communicate. We do it every day. You're sitting with a colleague and your boss comes in and says something that is absolute B.S. He leaves and you look at each other and roll your eyes. You know what you both think.''
The long sequestration may have had another unintended result, Smith said. It may have caused jurors to identify with Simpson.
``They were basically serving time while O.J. was serving time,'' Smith said. ``They were either going to hate him and blame him for that, or feel sympathy for him. All the other characteristics of the jury would sway them toward feeling sympathy.'' ILLUSTRATION: PAUL AIKEN/Staff
``No one walks into a jury room neutral,'' says Donald H. Smith.
by CNB