Aug 8, 2019 3 min read

It’s rare to find someone who walks into each day with a completely open mind.

People generally wake up with preconceived notions about what each day will bring.

Perhaps they expect an easy day at work because the boss is on vacation or a rough day with the kids because they went to bed too late.

Those expectations can shape the outcome of the day for the person and for those around them.

Sometimes, however, preconceived notions must be set aside.

It’s a necessity – and what the law mandates – when someone is chosen to sit as a juror in a criminal trial.

On Tuesday, a juror seated on a homicide trial in Fayette County was tossed off the case when she shared her preconceived notions about a defendant’s guilt with others on the panel.

The woman, according to what was revealed in court, complained about missing doctors’ appointments to sit on a case where the defendant killed someone. She rendered her verdict after one partial day of testimony in a case expected to last most of the week.

A judge’s instructions at the outset of each criminal trial are clear: Jurors must listen to all of the testimony presented, all of the lawyers’ arguments and hear the judge explain the law before they can begin considering a verdict.

Until those things happen, they must keep an open mind.

Anyone who’s watched a cop-and-lawyer procedural show has probably heard “innocent until proven guilty” or “burden of proof.” Those aren’t just prettied-up turns of phrase for actors. They’re the foundation of our criminal justice system.

If jurors walk into a courtroom set in a belief that someone is guilty, they’re abandoning the legal principles upon which our system works. To secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove to the 12 who sit in judgment, beyond a reasonable doubt, that someone is guilty of the crime they’re accused of committing.

Lawyers have defined “reasonable doubt” in a myriad of ways.

Some ask jurors to consider the facts of the case like a puzzle or ladder – are there pieces missing that make the picture unclear or are there rungs missing that make the ladder impossible to climb? Others explain the concept by asking jurors to use their life experience and consider their verdict as they would other reasonable decisions they’d make in everyday life.

No matter how the concept is explained, the law remains clear: Any thought about a defendant’s guilt cannot be discussed or considered until jurors hear all of the evidence, arguments and law in a case.

It’s dismaying that anyone chosen to sit in judgment of another would decide the outcome without going through the process. Were it a relative of that juror’s, we are certain she would want a jury to follow the law.

The judge’s reaction to what occurred underscored the importance of what jurors are tasked with.

After re-explaining the law, he did not dismiss the woman from jury duty. Instead, he sent her back to rejoin others waiting to be called for cases that may be tried during the rest of the week.

The judgment of someone on trial for a crime is not something to be taken lightly, and while we understand that jury duty, for some, is a burden, we are hopeful that this serves as reminder to any called that they must keep an open mind until their deliberations begin.