Showing posts with label juries. Show all posts
Showing posts with label juries. Show all posts

28 January 2023

We, The Jury


It's Derringer time, and that's prompted me to think about the whole literary jury process.  I've been on several, and this guest post below, by my good friend and author Jayne Barnard, really speaks to me.  How about you?  Have you ever been on a literary jury?  Please tell us your experience in the comments below.

We, the Jury...

by J.E. Barnard

When a crime writer hears the 'J' word, they can be forgiven for thinking Twelve Angry Men, A Jury of Her Peers, or any book, movie, or news article about a trial.  Maybe our minds veer to Grisham novels about juries or the Richard Jury mysteries by Martha Grimes.  Rarely do we consider the other kind of jury:  the one that decides on a writers' award.  Whether it's the National Book award, the Giller Prize, the Governor General's Award, the CBC or Writers Trust, or--particular favourites of crime writers--the Edgars, Agathas, Daggers. Derringers, Theakston's Old Peculiar, and Canada's own Crime-writing Awards of Excellence (formerly the Arthur Ellis Awards,) there's a jury behind it.

After two decades of serving on writers' juries in the Canada and the USA, for fiction and non-fiction, children and adults, short fiction and long, even for plays and scripts, I've got some thoughts to share about what makes a good juror and why writers would, indeed should, try jury work at least once in their literary career.

Who sits on a writers' award jury?

The fact is, juries are made up mainly of readers and writers like you.  Award-winning authors, multi-series authors, one-book authors, true crime authors, short story authors, journalists, bloggers, reviewers.  Other seats are filled by those working in the publishing industry, or in libraries, or those with subject area experience like lawyers, prosecutors, criminologists, pathologists, cops.  But mainly writers and readers.

What makes a good crime writing juror?

1.  Someone who loves crime writing.  Writing it, reading it, listening to it, watching it.

That juror represents all readers of that crime category.  Ideally, they're aware of what's hot in crime writing and tropes that are past their prime.  The good juror accepts that, as much as they personally may love the Golden Age detective authors like Agatha Christie and Dashell Hammett, the genre has moved on, and the awards moved on with it.  The good juror knows that even though they personally love cozy cat mysteries with recipes or serial killer POV scenes in alternating gory chapters, the genre is far wider than both and they must evaluate all entries in their category not on what they personally prefer but on how well the author has executed a work according to its place on the crime writing spectrum.

2.  Collaboration.  This essential qualification is too often left unstated.  It's rare that a single book or story rises to the top of every jury member's list.  Any category may include several eminently worthy candidates for the top slot.  Jurors need to communicate their shortlist selections clearly to fellow jurors and be able to defend those choices with calm, clear language, while respecting other jurors' alternative perspectives.  Only together can jurors develop a short list that reflects the breadth of excellence in that category of writing.

Other qualifications:  your writing credentials and your relevant life experience.  A working children's librarian or elementary school teacher is better placed to evaluate a Children's and Young Adult category than, say, a retired criminology professor who taught adults and has no regular contact with child and adolescent readers.  It's not that the latter couldn't evaluate the writing and the structure, but that they're unfamiliar with what readers in that category are currently consuming and what those readers value in a book or story.

What other qualities does a good juror bring?

Ideally, they're familiar with:

  • the award's writing language (in Canada, so far, that means English or French) including a solid grasp of grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
  • structural issues of storytelling:  plotting, pacing, tension.
  • elements of a strong opening and a powerful ending.

Good jurors understand enough about characters and their arcs to tell whether they're introduced or developed poorly or well, and can explain those thoughts to their fellow jurors during the consultation process (and to the author if their jury is one that offers comments/feedback.)

Non-fiction jurors ideally have a grasp of language and storytelling as well as some subject-area expertise.  

One reason why juries traditionally have three or more members is to balance overall strengths.  A strong writer with two subject experts, or two writers with a lone subject expert, can turn in the strongest possible shortlist if they respect the knowledge and skills each member brings to the reading and discussion process.

Why serve on a jury?

1.  To give back to the community of writers that breaks trail, nurtures your skills, and has built the publishing industry and awards processes you already are or hope soon to be competing in.

2.  As a master class in what makes some stories, articles or books work better (and win awards) than others.

Trust me on the second one: jury work can revolutionize your writing practice.  There are few more concentrated ways to figure out what makes a good first page than by reading twenty or more of them in quick succession to see which ones hold your attention and figure out what makes them stand out.  Read twenty opening chapters and you'll have a clearer idea what kind of character introductions, settings, or situations work best - or utterly fail - to pull you into stories you might not otherwise read.  Look at twenty endings and some will have a resonance you can feel to your bones while others will be just okay.  Take those new or more in-depth understandings and apply them to your own writing, and your odds of seeing your work on an awards shortlist can increase exponentially.

I hope the next time a crime writing award puts out a public or selective call for award jurors, you'll take a moment to consider whether you have some skills, dedication, and desire to learn and to serve.  And then apply.

 

Alberta author J.E. (Jayne) Barnard has two award-winning series – The Maddie Hatter Adventures and The Falls Mysteries – and numerous short stories involving history, mystery, crime, and punishment. Between writing gigs, she volunteers for Sisters in Crime and Crime Writers of Canada, and regularly serves on fiction juries in Canada and the USA. She lives in a vine-covered cottage between two rivers, keeping cats and secrets. Her most recent winter mystery is Where the Ice Falls (Dundurn Press 2019).  Find her on your favourite platform via Linktree https://linktr.ee/je_barnard


 

 

19 April 2015

Juror 17


Imagine you’re a juror, the lone holdout in an infamous, deadlocked capital murder case. A person’s life is at stake. While not a legal expert, you have some idea of your rights and obligations: You take the job seriously, keep an open mind, don’t discuss the trial outside the jury room, and avoid news coverage of the case. While abiding by the rules, your privacy is respected by the court, your opinion is sacrosanct, you are protected from pressure outside the jury room, and you don’t have to explain yourself.

Now imagine a lawyer not only takes umbrage at your jury vote, he takes you to task. He singles you out, violates your privacy, digs into your past, reveals your facebook page to the press, all with the intent of forcing you to change your mind or forcing you off the jury altogether.

A Deadly Mother

During the Casey Anthony trial, I followed the testimony closely, listened to courtroom arguments not permitted the jurors, looked at the evidence presented in the courtroom, saw items they did not, listened to the news reports, and followed on-line discussions through the eyes of Velma and her friend Sammy.

From my technical background, I knew the computer forensics was dead wrong and my considerably dated chemistry suggested the prosecution probably erred with their chloroform hypothesis: A spectroscopic blip of element chlorine could have come from either chloroform or easily obtained pool chlorine and the latter was in the family’s shed.

It’s highly probable both the prosecution and defense got the case wrong. Once anger toward Casey is set aside, the evidence makes a convincing case Caylee wasn’t murdered at all, but drowned in the family pool and Casey, already accused of carelessness by her mother, panicked. If that’s true, even if the jury reasoned incorrectly, the panel of twelve got the outcome right.

Jodi Arias on facebook
Jodi Arias on facebook
A Deadly Lover

In contrast, I have not followed the Jodi Arias trial. Unlike the Anthony trial, it wasn’t local and no compelling mystery arose about who committed the murder. I have no reason to disbelieve the verdict, although a small but vocal number of ‘burning bed’ male and female supporters argue Arias didn’t kill out of a jealous rage, but– if she killed at all– justifiably rid the world of a pervert, pedophiliac, and domestic abuser, a theory denied by family, friends, and most importantly, other girlfriends.

Instead, another issue troubles me, that of jury intimidation, or rather intimidation toward one juror, a lone holdout, Juror 17. A backlash welled up from a number of sources: the prosecutor and his fans, death penalty supporters, bloggers sympathetic toward the victim, and the other jurors. Indeed, both the prosecutor and the other eleven asked the judge to replace one juror so they could reach a verdict.

Jurisprudence Without the Prudence

Consider that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: a court being asked to ditch a juror to obtain a unanimous verdict, a kind of litigator do-over.

Jodi Arias on trial
Jodi Arias on trial
The state attorney argued because the woman had seen part of a TV movie about Jodi Arias and since her husband had been convicted of a felony, that she was prejudiced “with an agenda.” But the jury candidate had admitted all this at time of selection. Indeed she appeared to have been quite open.

In his frustration, the prosecutor went several steps further, singling out Juror 17 for investigation and presenting the woman’s facebook page in court because she'd 'liked' ABC News. Arguing this hinted at violating the rules, the state attorney petitioned the court to remove the juror. After the judge refused the prosecutor’s demands, an ‘unknown party’ released the woman’s name and facebook page to the press and public, and shortly after her home address and phone number. Following death threats, Phoenix police are protecting her while investigating.

The details of leaked documents suggest a source within the court system. The court clerk's office insisted it wasn’t responsible. The prosecutor also denied releasing documents and instead attempted to blame the defense (which made no sense at all) and admitted they were contemplating filing charges against the juror… once they figured out a legal angle. Such action would likely have a chilling effect upon jurors who might disagree with a prosecuting attorney in the future.

A Dire Decision

Legal scholars say the juror not only had done nothing wrong, she apparently did everything right: She answered the questionnaire and voir dire accurately, she was earnest and honest, and she refused to be intimidated. The lady said she regularly prayed about her decision and felt harassed by angry fellow jurors, furious that she couldn’t be swayed.

Legal reaction has been mixed to negative: Retroactively investigating a juror toward a stated goal of bumping her from the jury technically isn’t illegal, but violating privacy and attempting to intimidate could well be. Experts agree that in threatening her, prosecutors threaten the entire jury system.

You, the Jury

What is your opinion either generally about the Jodi Arias case or more specifically regarding going after a juror who doesn’t fall in line with a lawyer’s expectations? You be the judge.

18 November 2012

Florida News


Florida postcardFlorida madness continues, not merely in the political arena. It's not the heat, it's the humidity. Read on, MacDuff.



Humans: 352 — Roaches: 1


Man wins roach-eating contest. The rest of the news: won contest, lost life. They said he was the life of the party; and then he wasn't.

Usually kids just carry the ring.

Two weeks before her marriage, 32-year old Destiny Witte had it all… dream wedding planned, three wonderful children, handsome fiancĂ©, sparkling engagement ring, sex with a 14-year-old boy in a public toilet… Oops. (Psst, guys. She's available again.)

Just pay the bill, man!

Orlando police arrested Jeremie Calo not for having sex on a restaurant table but refusing to pay the bill. Meanwhile, off-duty Orlando police drove 115mph to arrive at the scene.

Inspector Javert's kin is alive and well in Sarasota

Sergeant Anthony Frangioni arrested a homeless man for theft of services when the out-of-work man charged his cell phone in a public park. The electrical socket is normally used by picnickers and maintenance. Electricity used? 1¢. Bail? $500. Arresting a homeless man in need? Priceless.

Happens in snowstorms, too.

Dumb and Dumber, two dim-witted teen burglars, got lost, circled back to scene of the crime.

Not cool, man. Didn't you watch Jurassic Park III?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Eric Prokopi, "commercial paleontologist", for smuggling dinosaurs into the US.

Mother-in-Law loses gambit, wins title.

Murderous MiL is back in the news again, winning the web site mom.me's Mother-in-Law from Hell award, although her entire family plotted the kill. These four linked videos indicate if her son-in-law had accepted her invitation to step inside her parlor, he probably wouldn't be alive.

With a twin, you're never alone.

[We’ve been asked by one of the parties to remove her name. Although we quoted police sources, we remind readers that parties are considered innocent until proven otherwise and it is not the intent of SleuthSayers to cause needless distress. For more information, see take-down request.]

Florida Governor Scott's hot phone sex line

You would think a man who committed the largest Medicare/Medicaid fraud in history would know the difference between meningitis and men in tight places, but not so. Maybe that's where Benjamin Ashauer went wrong. At least he wasn't like the Seattle perv who told police to wait.

Citizens Grand Jury

In Florida, politics is an ugly blood sport. Larry 'Ku Klux' Klayman (that's spelled with a 'y' and not an 'n' and that's an opinion, not his sobriquet) claims to be a former Justice Department prosecutor. He hit the internet with his "citizens grand jury" (a three-way oxymoron), a "true bill", which seeks to indict President Obama in the alternate universe of Ocala, Florida for bat-shit loony stuff like:
  • treason against the US, Israel, and Arizona
  • treason: nurturing the Arab Spring
  • treason: sending foreign aid to Hamas
  • revealing SEAL Team 6 got bin Laden
  • financing the so-called Ground Zero mosque
  • being financed by Iran's Revolutionary Guard
  • falsifying his birth certificate and place of birth
  • treason: a "black Muslim-in-chief" in "devilish whoredom"
He doesn't much like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts either.

But hey, this is Florida. Come for the sunshine, stay for the madness.

26 September 2012

Five Red Herrings III


by Robert Lopresti

1. What Not To Wear To A Murder Trial
File under too-weird-for-fiction.  You probably heard that former policeman  Drew Peterson was convicted of killing his wife, but did you hear about the odd thing about the jury?  They dressed  alike.  One day all business suits.  Another day sports Jerseys.  Sometimes red, white, and blue.  Apparently they were having a lot of fun, but does this show the proper attitude when judging a man  who is accused of murdering his wife?

Apparently the feeling during the trial was that no one could ask them about it.  "If they came in wearing T-shirts saying 'Drew's Guilty,' it'd be different," said one attorney.

2. Encounter with Number 6.
I recently met a writer named Stephan Michaels.  Naturally I took a peek at his web site and found a terrific piece about his friendship with one of my favorite actors, Patrick McGoohan.  For any fans of Secret Agent or The Prisoner, I highly recommend it.

As we walked back to our cars, Patrick asked if I thought I’d ever have any real money, and - as I had already confessed to being a bachelor - if I thought I’d ever get married. I answered optimistically to the first and shrugged off the latter. The valet pulled up in his silver BMW and Patrick offered that he and his wife had been married for forty years. “And do you know why it works? Because we don’t agree on a thing!”

3.  Satire by the Illiterate

This has nothing to do with mystery fiction, but if you love great writing, oh my, invest a few minutes. After the Civil War ex-slave Jordon Anderson apparently received a letter from his old master inviting him to come back to the plantation and work for wages.  For those who still maintain that slavery was Not So Bad (such people do exist) his response is a cold dose of reality.  Anderson was illiterate; he dictated lis letter to an abolitionist friend.  Be sure to read the last sentence.

4.  Ghost writing

Courtesy of Sandra Seaman's invaluable blog My Little Corner, here is the web's premium dating service for dead people...  Ooh, spooky.


5.  The Rules

Pixar is one of the most successful animation studios in history. Their rules for successful  storytelling are a lesson for us all.