The bigger problem is that other members of the jury pool would look to the law professor to explain the law. And even if I resisted offering any statement of the law, my view would be given undue deference.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That wasn’t my experience. In my case, the other jurors knew from the open court voir dire that I taught criminal law and procedure at U.C. Berkeley (where I was teaching at the time). They knew that I was a former prosecutor who did occasional criminal defense work, too.\u00a0 And the case we had was in my area: Not only was it a criminal case, but it was a case involving offenses that I teach\u2014although I teach the Model Penal Code version rather than the California Penal Code.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the other jurors were independent and made their own judgment calls.\u00a0 I like to think that I made some good arguments about the evidence, and whether the government had proved particular elements of particular offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. (I thought they had proved some offenses but failed to satisfy their burden of proving other offenses.)\u00a0 But I was just one of the twelve jurors, and everyone had their own take on things.\u00a0 I intentionally took a light touch and tried to avoid saying too much.\u00a0 I explained a particularly confusing jury instruction once, and I tried to focus the discussion on the elements of the crime and the evidence.\u00a0 But no one was giving undue deference to me, at least as far as I could tell.<\/p>\n

Anyway, maybe I’ll write more about my time on the jury some day, as it was a fascinating experience.<\/p>\n