Wasn't familar with the "Reid Technique" so I had to look it up. One of the opening wikipedia paragraphs is just perfect.
>In 1955 in Lincoln, Nebraska, John E. Reid helped gain a confession from a suspect, Darrel Parker, for Parker's wife's murder. This case established Reid's reputation and popularized his technique.[3] Parker recanted his confession the next day, but it was admitted to evidence at his trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was later determined to be innocent, after another man confessed and was found to have been the perpetrator. Parker sued the state for wrongful conviction; it paid him $500,000 in compensation.[4]
It's the same story with: bite mark analysis, police dogs, hair comparison analysis, firearm toolmark analysis, many arson analysis techniques, bloodstain patterns. Discredited or unproven, yet still used in court.
Having served on a jury I implore you: Stay as far away from the criminal justice system as you can. Once you're in that courtroom your life is a coin toss away from effectively ending.
footnote: and regardless of innocence, you will be running from the arrest the rest of your life.
I will add this: serving on a jury is - IMO - a very valuable experience. Or, that is, IF you think you might ever find yourself on trial, I think it would be very valuable to have served on a jury yourself. You'll understand a lot about jury dynamics, and how juries make decisions (hint: it's not always as cut and dried as the facts and evidence presented). You may have insights that even your lawyer won't have, depending on whether of not they themselves have ever served on a live jury.
Will this information be useful to you? I believe it well could be. It's hard to explain exactly how/why without actually going through the experience though. And the verdict will still depend on many factors, many of which will be out of your control. But a few insights into the deep inner details of the process might be enough to tip the odds in your favor if things are close to begin with.
Another thing I'll add: a good lawyer really helps. The case I was on, the defense attorney was just totally on-point and absolutely "nailed it". Every single time - EVERY time - a witness for the prosecution said something questionable, or contradictory, or that in any way exposed a possible hole in the prosecution's story, he was all over it. By halfway through the trial I was rooting for the guy because watching him work was like watching a maestro in action. Hell, in the jury room during deliberations, we were all joking about how "If I'm ever on trial for a serious crime, I want this guy defending me."
That said, there's always an element of luck involved. In this case, I'm pretty sure the defendant was guilty. But I mean "pretty sure" in the sense that my subjective Bayesian posterior for "guilty" would be more than 50%... but the prosecution definitely did not prove he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". And aside from the skillful performance of the defense attorney pointing out holes in the story being told by the prosecution, was the simple fact that there were holes. And part of that was because the investigators were bumbling and incompetent, borderline "Barney Fife" or "Officer Barbrady" types. To the point that in the jury room during deliberations, we were joking about how "If I'm ever under investigation for a serious crime, I hope this guy is leading the investigation." A better investigation might well has resulted in a guilty verdict, but as it was we acquitted the guy.
Another observation: the defendant took the stand to testify. Usually not recommended for criminal defendants, but it worked for him. Why? Well, not so much because of what he said or didn't say, but because the prosecutor acted like a dick towards the guy, belittling him and demeaning him, talking down to him, and just generally being a prick. Now strictly speaking, none of that had anything to do with whether the defendant was guilty or not. But it created sympathy for the defendant, and the prosecutor basically turned himself into the villain. Did if affect the outcome? TBH, yeah, I think it kinda did. Things were close as it was, and that little bit of extra sympathy might easily have been the deciding factor. But the thing is, this is one of those "things that are outside of your control" if you're ever on trial. Maybe your prosecutor will be more professional and under control. Not much you can do about that. But just seeing how emotional aspects like "sympathy for the defendant" CAN play into a decision can be valuable, I believe.
Anyway... sorry for the long rant. I'll just say that if you ever get invited to jury selection, I'd encourage you to NOT try to "get out of it".
Now I’m curious if anyone has studied criminal activity by jury pools.
Are jurists more likely to commit crimes that they’ve presided over? Do they absorb any knowledge from the cases they decide that enables them to live a life of crime?
Stealing a flashlight and a radio from a cop car, basically. The funny part is, that's the bit that I'm "fairly sure" the guy was really guilty of. But they also threw in some hinky claim about him stealing a chainsaw and a shotgun and some other stuff from a truck that was parked nearby (this was all at the officer's house). And for the most part, none of us on the jury believed he stole the chainsaw and the shotgun... in fact, we mostly think there never was a chainsaw or a shotgun. Because this guy was on foot, drunk, in the middle of winter, and was somehow able to carry a flashlight, a radio, a shotgun, and a chainsaw off to some safe hiding spot? From which they were never recovered? But he was found wandering on the side of the road later that morning with the radio and the flashlight? Hmm... so yeah, where did the gun and the chainsaw go???
Anyway, basically we thought they tried to "pile on" this guy with some made up bullshit, and that also probably helped us make the decision to acquit him, even if he was guilty of the radio and flashlight bit. And that played in with the prosecutor acting like such an ass to the guy and made the defendant seem like the victim.
Funny thing: after the case was over, they asked the jurors to hang around for a while (voluntarily) and talk to both the defense attorney and the prosecutor about how we reached our decision. And I actually told the prosecutor "dude, you were a total dick to that guy and made yourself look really bad by doing so". He said it was kind of personal with him and that guy, because the guy is a repeat offender and he's tried him like a dozen times. Now whether or not that supports a belief that they tried to set him up on some extra bogus charges I'm not sure, and I didn't ask about that. But man, oh man, did I learn that weird shit goes on that most people never see or hear about.
And of course there was the mysteriously malfunctioning dash-cam that didn't record any audio when the first officer approached the guy when he saw him on the side of the road, and the mysteriously missing 911 audio recordings of the guy supposedly keying up the radio and talking into it, etc., etc. And the fact that the cop car that the stuff was stolen from was left unlocked, and was un-monitored for like 11 hours from the time the officer got home from work until he got up to leave for work the next morning and found the radio and flashlight missing. And the absolute lack of physical evidence (fingerprints, footprints, eyewitnesses, anything) outside of him being seen carrying the missing radio and flashlight (he claimed he found both lying on the side of the road).
Like I said, there were serious holes in their case to leave room for "reasonable doubt" even though the guy was "probably" guilty.
> they asked the jurors to hang around for a while (voluntarily) and talk to both the defense attorney and the prosecutor about how we reached our decision
My jaw is on the floor.
Here in Blighty, a jury deliberates in absolute secrecy. Revealing jury deliberations, even after the verdict, is a serious offence.
Here in the US that kind of thing generally varies from state to state. But as I understand it, in most states, once the verdict is rendered and the jury has been discharged, the jurors are free to discuss the case with anyone.
>In 1955 in Lincoln, Nebraska, John E. Reid helped gain a confession from a suspect, Darrel Parker, for Parker's wife's murder. This case established Reid's reputation and popularized his technique.[3] Parker recanted his confession the next day, but it was admitted to evidence at his trial. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. He was later determined to be innocent, after another man confessed and was found to have been the perpetrator. Parker sued the state for wrongful conviction; it paid him $500,000 in compensation.[4]