B
Um. Well, I was, I was, uh, originally chosen primarily, I think, because I was a young fellow and they tend to view the younger fellows as more likely to hand down a guilty verdict. I don't know why. Something I picked up in a psychology class some time ago.
A
Oh, really?
B
Yeah, it's that the younger they are, they tend to be more conservative for some statistical oddball reason, and they kind of liked me. I looked conser, and all that stuff and they, I don't know what they saw in me, but they saw it. But, uh, back to the issue, is, uh, I don't know, at times I feel that a unanimous decision is warranted, especially in cases in which there's no smoking gun. But, there, too, there are also cases in which I feel a majority rule might be acceptable, particularly, I think in civil cases. In criminal cases, I'd like to see the unani-, unanimity remain, but in civil cases, I think a majority rule by, by jury would be sufficient.
A
Well, uh, could you give me an example of a case where you think that?
B
Well, in a criminal case, say one in which, you know, there is, like, say assault or some such. I think there ought to be a unanimous, uh, vote because by law and by constitution there must be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the person in question did this. And in civil law there, you know, is such a thing as like, let's say, uh, misappropriations or misuse of financial instruments or something like that. A majority rule, I think, would be more in line as there is no real smoking gun in the civil cases. I don't know if I'm making any sense or not.
A
Well, I mean, I think, are you just trying to say that criminal cases are more, uh, tangible or,