A Trial by Jury

D. Graham Burnett's "Trial By Jury" is not a "true crime" novel. In fact, it is to "true crime" what Jane Austen is to Harlequin romances. I am not writing this to sound smarmy, but just to let the reader know that while this is a story of a trial and the tensions arising therefrom, the reader should not expect anything resembling Ann Rule or even Truman Capote. [This mis-expectation, I think, accounts for several of the negative reviews.] This is a autobiographical recount of D. Graham Burnett's jury duty on a murder trial. Burnett's rationle for recounting the trial is to give us a view of the machinations of the jury trial and, in so doing, reflect on such things as the difference between law and justice, and the ways in which we try to ascertain the truth of a matter when all we have are disjointed facts and clues. The trial is that of Monte Virginia Millcray, who is charged with stabbing Randolph Cuffee about 20 times. Millcray says the stabbings were in self-defense, after Cuffee (posing as a woman) tried to rape Millcray. The prosecutions account is that Millcray and Cuffee were in a relationship and Millcray snapped. About half of the book is about the courtroom drama and half is about the lengthy (20+ hour) deliberation process and it is clear that the author places much more emphasis on the latter half of the book. Witnesses are gone through rather quickly, summarized as might be done by a story teller quickly laying the obligatory groundwork for the "real" story. By contrast, Burnett's recounting of the jury deliberation is quite lengthy and detailed. To this reader's mind, Burnett really does a good job with describing the jury deliberations and for those of us who've done jury duty before, much of his retelling will seem familiar. Tempers flare, opinions clash and fluctuate. Evidence is combed over again and again, in hopes that each time will reveal something missed the time before. Burnett also reflects on the jury process. Some of his reflections - the mismatch between law and justice - are rather pedestrian and hackneyed. (I confess that I was sometimes annoyed that some of Burnett's more pedestrian reflections were sometimes treated as if he were the first to have thought of them.) Others - jury sequestration as an example of the virtually unlimited power of the state - were quite interesting. Either way, Burnett's retelling of the jury deliberation is as much recount as it is reflection. (If that would bore you, you might get bored with this book.) "Trial by Jury" is not for everyone. As noted, it is not a "true crime" novel, and is not a page-turner. I don't think that was D. Graham Burnett's goal in writing the book. Rather, it is a sometimes entertaining and other-times thought-provoking examination of one man's experience with, and reflections on, a jury trial as a way to try and mete out imperfect justice in an imperfect world.

While reporting jury selection, D. Graham Burnett writes: "For a while there is, among us, a woman reading a book of Camus short stories. Then she stops showing up," (p.33). _A Trial by Jury_ invokes the absurd, but it does not embrace the absurd. It would be absurd to read this text with a closed mind.D. Graham Burnett, a historian of science, delivers a text that I view as an existential autobiography. We explore Burnett's thought processes: "What I am writing is my own story of the deliberations," (p. 14), and he acknowledges that his interpretation of the trial and deliberations differs from interpretations by other jurors. Burnett guides us through the trial and deliberations concerning the killing of a transvestite. While exploring the trial and deliberations, we encounter, process, and (sometimes) abandon many judgments (only a few deal with the defendant). Burnett states about the jury: "We ran the gamut of group dynamics: a clutch of strangers yelled, cursed, rolled on the floor, vomited, whispered, embraced, sobbed, and invoked both God and necromancy," (p. 12). The reader becomes familiar with the jury dynamics and one is led to shudder at the raw power granted to 12 citizens and (an obstinate) judge. The author, at times, is obstinate, but he also appears trustworthy (tremendous memory) and dedicated. I found myself fascinated by this academically well-rounded, successful, youthful Ph.D who obsesses over food (he packed a single shirt and a bag full of food for the sequestered deliberations) and who briefly utilizes Wallace Stevens (the poet; pgs. 148 - 151) to interpret the deliberations. This text kept my mind engaged and it will become an addition to a future syllabus for a course I'll teach.Along with this book, I recommend Kafka's _The Trial_, Albert Camus' _The Stranger_, and any text by Wallace Stevens.

This is a great book. If anyone wonders what really goes on in jury deliberations, this puts you right there. You really feel the frustration of dealing with this group of people, who vary in different degrees from complete idiots to petty and childish. It may be our best example of democracy in action. The writing is great...it reads like a novel, and the final conclusions about the power of the state are a suprise and an insight I don't think you expect to get. You also get a sense that the system is so callous it treats jurors very poorly and inhumanely.

I'm rating this book 5 stars because of my own recent experience, not as a juror, but as an observer in the court room when a friend was charged with a serious crime. I believe this is an important book and I hope that many will read it to get an inside look at our criminal justice system. I experienced feelings very similar to those of the author.

Every lawyer would like to eavesdrop on jury deliberations. This book offers the next best thing-a first hand account of a juror's reactions to a murder trial, complete with a detailed account of the jurors' discussions and argument during the deliberations. The author is more than a little pretentious (he spends his free time "doing" poetry and keeps a fountain pen as "a fetish always to hand") and condescending (he originally assumes that a fellow juror, wearing a rodeo belt buckle "apparently without irony" must be a bigot and likely to push for a guilty verdict "if not a lynching"). The description of daily tedium, nightly sequestering in a cheap hotel, and constant unkindness from the judge ("Juror number eight, you will look at me when I address the court") probably won't inspire people to want to serve on a jury. Nevertheless, the amount of detail presented and the author's insight into the jury's deliberations make this book well worth reading.