They arrived at no expense to themselves, a sort of thank you from the citizens of Oklahoma.  The state's governor is even there.  The media who have of course flocked to this unusual congregation are portraying it as something heart warming and touching: a genuine expression of thanks from the victims of a terrible crime.  Personally, it seems to me an altogether bad thing.

Jury duty is one of those things that no one likes to do.  But when called upon, most people do take it very seriously.  And, for the most part, juries do a good job of finding facts.  Based on all the news reports and punditry that came out of the McVeigh trial, this jury did a good job.  They should be thanked for their service.  But it should end there.

Victims of crime extending thanks to juries is just a bad idea.  It sends the wrong kinds of messages to all parties involved.  First, it brings into question the foundation of any verdict.  I saw one juror who described the almost familial relationship she had with the victims, many of whom were witnesses for the prosecution.  Now, that may be honest emotion born of long days of gut wrenching testimony.  But if I'm McVeigh's lawyer, I'm thinking about how much that juror was swayed by pro prosecution emotion and whether she ignored any facts favorable to his client in the process.

The other message this little gathering sends is that there are verdicts which are "good" or "bad" independent of the evidence.  The other defendant in this case, Terry Nichols, was not convicted of first degree murder (as McVeigh was), but rather of manslaughter.  Because of that, he will not be executed (save for a conviction in Oklahoma state court).  Does anyone out there think that the Nichols jury is going to be invited to commiserate with the victims?  

There is already a great deal of pressure on juries to bow to public pressure.  Even sequestered juries know when the public is out for blood instead of justice.  In a perfect world, jurors would ignore that pressure and come to a verdict based on the evidence and the law.  However, the world is not perfect.  If jurors think that there may be some extra judicial reward out there for a guilty verdict, even if it is only the thanks of the victims, that blinding passion may override logic and law.

A knee jerk reaction is "hey, that's what appeals are for."  The fact is, however, that most appellate issues are legal ones, and appellate courts are loathe to go against the factual findings of a jury.  Besides, it ain't cheap to go through that process, and no one can give back to a person wrongly convicted what he has lost by being in prison.

I don't really doubt that the motives behind this weekend's gathering in Oklahoma City are genuine and don't mean to undermine the justice system.  But, it does raise some interesting questions.  Questions which should have been thought of before the invitations went out.