<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Nice job!
Review: Hazel Thornton was an ordinary juror on an extraordinary trial. She doesn't share the bitterness of some of the OJ jurors, probably because she was reasonably well-treated. Her employer continued to pay her full salary. She was free to go home and to work at her job during breaks. In a way this book is a testament to the stress imposed on an ordinary, upbeat juror, because Ms Thornton began keeping a journal to deal with her own pressures. Yet she comes through as a cozy female figure. I was surprised to realize she's only thirty-six as her attitudes suggested someone in their forties or even fifties. What comes through is that Ms Thornton admired Leslie Abramson (who's well worth admiring!) and was swayed by evidence of the brothers' abuse. Her description of the male comments are disheartening and I'm impressed with her ability to keep perspective. Wrightsman's comments, as a legal psychologist, add depth and context to Thornton's account. However, like most researchers, he focuses on juries as instruments in the justice system. We still need research on the jury experience itself. For instance, everyone gets concerned about bias -- but a juror's reasoning process can be altered by mood and social environment. And we could use some research on what jury service does to a juror's life.
Rating: 
Summary: Okay
Review: Its good in the form of detail, but the opinion of the author comes through too much. She dwells to much on her own life during the trial and the other jury members, then the trial itself. If you enjoy learning about criminal law, its a must. If looking for a book on the Menendez case and trial, read 'Blood Brothers'.
<< 1 >>
| 
