"The jury consist of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer." Robert Frost
The Adnan Case
Adnan's case was a difficult one when it came down to coming up with an opinion on him being guilty or otherwise. Throughout the serial podcast we are given very in depth detailed analysis before the murder all the way to after the trial. Adnan is tired guilty and sentenced to life in prison. The jury that convicted Adnan did not have the information we did. They were given limited information in support of Adnan. Most of of it was Jay's testimony and an assortment of phone call records. There was a strong case for against Adnan but not a strong one for him. Being one of the twelve jurors I would have most likley voted guilty because of the evidence I was given at this time. There is only so much information a jury can be given. The only witness was Jay and he was against Adnan in this case. Here we have the perfect example of limited evidence. This case brings to light some of the flaws in our justice system; Money fueled justice, favorable jurors, and bias opinions.
The Case of Lawyers
Lawyers play a large part into the justice system. Their job is to defense whatever side they are supposed to. Adnans defense lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, was a contributor to the lawyer problem. The had kept asking the family for more money. A good lawyer doesn't come cheap. The more money you have to spend the more likely you'll have a better outcome in the trial. Adnan had a good lawyer but she wasn't operating at her best as she had done before in other cases. The constant begging for more money contributes to the fact that a some lawyers don't care about what happens to you but the amount of money they are getting. One side could be at a big disadvantage without a good lawyer. One side might have a lawyer that works for you while the other one might not care as much swaying the outcome of the case. Take the O.J Simpson case for example. There was many different forms of evidence pointed against him from DNA and the victims blood on his clothes. Being a famous athlete brings lots of money which brings a damn good lawyer. The defense was able to find some flaws in forensics and found footage o a racist cop on scene leading to bias. While there may have been some inconsistency in the case there was a lot of evidence still pointing towards him and he was innocent in this trial.
A Random Jury of not so Random Jurors
There is more to acquiring a jury for a trial than just a letter in the mail. For larger cases the prosecutor and defense try and weed out the group into what will work best for them. This could mean trying to find jurors that will most likely agree with your side. This goes against the justice is blind concept. Potential jurors are taken through what is called Voir Dire, which is an examination if that person will be benificial to the group. A lawyer has the right to challenge another judgement to see if they're choosing that person for a bias reason but that happens next to never. Before the trial there are already problems developing. During the whole court case there are many obsatacles that can get in the way of a just descion to be made. No matter what you say, you'll always have bias to all things. This is impossible to completely negate because we human. Besides our own opinions we as human undergo things like social conformity everyday. In 1958 Solomon Asch performed an experiment to see if people would go against the obvious. He put one subject in a room with others that were in on it. He told the subject he was testing visual perception and gave an image of a stick with one that was smaller, same size, and larger. He had some people choose the wrong one on purpose to see if the subject would choose the one that was obviously wrong. 37 of 50 subject chose the wrong size to his surprise. This same mentality can be seen in other works such as 12 Angry Men. Though fiction, it is a good representation on some people having weak opinions and going with the flow.