Keep Cameras Out of the Jury Room

Re “The 13th Juror,” Commentary, Dec. 18: I have served on nine juries, some of them as the chair, so I have some basis for my comments. I personally would resent the intrusion of a camera into deliberations, and I have no doubt that cameras would have a chilling effect on most jurors and evoke theatricality from a few others.

The sanctity of a jury room is very important and no one, not even the judge, is privy to these discussions. This process creates an atmosphere where jurors may speak their minds, back up, change their minds, ask questions, conduct straw votes, argue and cooperate in rendering a fair and impartial decision without their every move being subject to second-guessing by outsiders. Cameras would destroy this atmosphere. They’re a bad idea.

Mike Kotzin

Pomona

*

I served as a jury foreman in a criminal matter that went to a verdict. Our jury was instructed as to how to interpret the law, was given the physical evidence and then asked to reach a verdict. What started out as an orderly discussion turned tumultuous, and some jurors were reluctant to vote by raising their hands because of the fear of being browbeaten to vote with the majority. We voted in secret ballots and honesty prevailed.

Cameras at the deliberations would be questionable, at best. Cameras in the deliberations would multiply grounds for appeals and cause even more case overload for the Court of Appeals. Can you imagine an appeal based upon an utterance, facial expression or body motion of a juror during deliberations? Don’t laugh, the “expert” psychologists are lining up.

Dan Mariscal

Montebello