Knowing too much about jurors not always the best
 Utah is so keen for Warren Jeffs to have a fair trial that extraordinary measures have been taken
 
By Daphne Bramham
Vancouver Sun
 
ST. GEORGE, Utah - The trial of Warren Jeffs, leader of the largest polygamist group in North America, will start this afternoon.

It has taken four days to whittle the jury pool from 300 to 28. Prospective jurors have answered 75 written questions and been interviewed for an average of 15 minutes each to weed out any with strong opinions about polygamy, Jeffs, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, arranged marriages and even the government.

This morning, lawyers will reduce the 28 to eight jurors and four alternates and clean up some pre-trial motions before the real work begins.

Even though polygamy is illegal in Utah and against the state's constitution, Jeffs is not charged with that. He has pleaded not guilty to two counts of being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl by her 19-year-old first cousin.

Jeffs married the pair in a religious ceremony and allegedly counselled the husband to impregnate the girl.

The extensive questioning of prospective jurors is unheard of in Canada. Even individual interviews are unusual in the United States. But Utah is so keen for Jeffs to have a fair trial that extraordinary measures have been taken.

Judge James Shumate, the prosecutors, defence lawyers and Jeffs himself all know a great deal about the jurors. Not only have they quizzed people about their biases, religious or moral qualms and media-instilled ideas about Jeffs and the FLDS, they have also pummelled them with questions about whether they truly believe Jeffs is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

One prospect was asked to look Jeffs in the eye and say that.

It would never happen in Canada. But does it ensure a fairer trial?

The Canadian system literally depends on a random sample. Police, lawyers and some government officials are excused. Anyone convicted of a crime within five years is excluded.

People are deemed ineligible if they know anyone involved in the trial -- judge, lawyers, witness or accused and they can be excused for personal reasons such as financial hardship, employment reasons, even a pre-paid vacation.

But beyond knowing a potential juror's name, address and occupation, there's little more for Canadian lawyers and judge to go on. They either can keep you or excuse you. In trials where the penalty is up to life in prison -- as it is in Jeffs's case -- the lawyers can reject up to 12 people without cause. Then they're stuck with who's left.

The Canadian notion is that that randomness guarantees a jury that represents the community with all its warts, colours, religions, even its biases.

Here in Utah, it seems what the judge and lawyers are looking for are jurors who know little or nothing about Jeffs, the FLDS and have no firm opinions about a broad range of issues from the age of sexual consent (14 in Utah) to polygamy to assigned marriages.

Surprisingly few claimed any knowledge of the FLDS even though there are about 6,000 of them living less than an hour's drive away in Hildale, Ut. and Colorado City, Ariz.

One has to assume that they are telling the truth, but do people so disinterested in their neighbours make good jurors?

The lawyers seem to be favouring people who don't read newspapers, watch TV news or documentaries. And there are, sadly, many of them who said they're not interested in news.

A few admitted that what little they know of the justice system comes from watching the television drama Law & Order or one of its spinoffs. That was a concern to Jeffs's lawyers, Wally Bugden and Tara Isaacson, who noted that the accused is rarely found not guilty on the show.

Would any of us want to be tried by people so lacking in curiosity about the world around them?

A good number of people said they wanted to serve on the jury. Some said in interviews that they just wanted to serve their country. Maybe that's true.]

But this is also one of the biggest cases that's likely to be heard in this county for a long time and jurors can talk to the media once it's over. Nobody asked the potential jurors whether the attraction to serving was 15 minutes of fame.

The 1992 conviction of Rodney King by an all-white jury that sparked some of the worst racial riots in Los Angeles history is the reason Americans are so concerned about juries.

While colour isn't an issue in this case, religion is at the heart of this. But if it's wrong for an all-white jury to judge a black man, is it not also wrong for the prophet of a church to be judged by people who do not share his beliefs or have no firm religious beliefs at all?

It is not that the Canadian system is better. We wouldn't know if the jurors were Jeffs's followers or hated his guts.

What our system depends on is ordinary people committed to doing the best they can, knowing that a person's future lies in the balance.

dbramham@png.canwest.com

ONLINE EXTRA

To listen to an audio file related to this story visit: www.vancouversun.com
 
VancouverSun.com
Originally published Thursday, September 13, 2007
 
Back