Here in Wisconsin we are watching the Steven Avery trial. For almost five years, Avery has been a local symbol -- first of justice triumphant, then of the possibility of unquenchable evil. In 2003, the Wisconsin Innocence Project freed Avery after he had spent 18 years in prison for a rape that, DNA evidence proved, he did not commit. Afterward he filed a civil lawsuit against Wisconsin's Manitowoc County, and appeared headed for a life of quiet affluence. Then on Halloween 2005, a beautiful photographer, Teresa Halbach, went to Avery's family's property to photograph a car he was selling. Her charred bones were found in a fire pit on the property. Avery's teenage nephew eventually said that he and Avery had raped, tortured, and killed her; later he recanted that confession. The Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel confidently proclaimed in an article this month that people here experience a fight-or-flight reaction at the sight of Avery’s picture alone.
In court, Avery’s lawyers are asserting an O.J.-like defense, arguing that Avery was framed, and that the Manitowoc sheriff’s department was more than ready to accept the framed evidence because they resented Avery's $36 million lawsuit against the county.
Yesterday, lawyers in the murder trial completed jury selection, and today's Journal/Sentinel article gives us a profile of the 16-person jury they got. Even from the small amount here, two things are striking.
No News
First is the number of jurors who have no use for, and even actively distrust, the news media that have so thoroughly covered Avery’s case. “I have a mute button on my TV that’s getting a real healthy workout,” said a 59-year-old juror. “I don’t really care for news,” said a 41-year-old “retiree/band member.” Another, asked where she gets her news, answered “Not much of anywhere.”
Others went further: “I’ve learned not to always believe what the media says,” said one. Another called the Avery news coverage unfair, saying it was “giving the public the presumption that [Avery is] already guilty.” “I believe the media has found him guilty,” said yet another. “They’re not going to tell me what to think.” Apparently asked what he himself had said to others about the case (a great voir dire question), one juror said he has maintained in conversations with family members that Avery might be not guilty.
Police Distrust
It’s striking too, from the few juror quotes in the article, that at least a few jurors were willing to say they distrust the police. One said of Avery’s early wrongful conviction, “Honestly I thought the Sheriff’s Department bungled the job.” Another, asked whether police would lie under oath, said, “Yeah, because they could get away with it.” Only one is quoted as sticking up for the police in what must have been extensive questioning, saying he thought it was unlikely the police would frame someone because “I really don’t know what they would gain from it.”
Looking at some of these answers, it would be interesting to know more about the jurors the prosecutors struck. It sounds like they weren’t able to strike everyone they would have liked to.