What's it like to be a juror in a high profile trial? Ask Emily Steel.

I've always wanted to serve on a jury. I suppose that wish comes from many different experiences: Twelve Angry Men, my father being a judge, me becoming a trial lawyer. Unfortunately, I won't have that chance anytime in the next 20 years or so - and I might never get that chance.

I must live vicariously, which is why I like this article. Wall Street Journal reporter Emily Steel was a juror on the Jack Jordan trial (otherwise known as the Uma Thurman's stalker trial). The article is an interesting look into the jury's deliberation.

As I read the article I was surprised that the 12-person jury included, along with Ms. Steel, two lawyers. I was also a bit curious about that fact that one of the lawyers seemed to be giving legal instructions to the jury. Ms. Steel wrote:

Then we returned to the stalking charge. Our discussions began to circle again around the same points. We broke the law down into pieces.

The first point was obvious: Were Mr. Jordan's actions clearly directed at Ms. Thurman? Obviously, they were. But did he have a legitimate purpose -- other than to hound or intimidate her -- to come to her movie set, knock on her door and send her note after note?

Eleven jurors agreed that he didn't have any business contacting her. But we had to reach a unanimous decision.

Again, we turned to the law. One juror maintained a dissenting view. He felt that while Mr. Jordan's actions were inappropriate, they didn't seem to cross the line into criminal behavior. However, after reading the judge's instructions again, he finally agreed: Mr. Jordan had no legitimate purpose in his relentless pursuit of Ms. Thurman.

But I had a question. The charge was for the period from May 1, 2005, until Aug. 17, 2007, but Mr. Jordan's obsession wasn't pushed over the edge until August last year. Could we say he was guilty of the stalking charge, if he wasn't stalking her for that entire period?

One of the lawyers on the jury said that his behavior wasn't to be interpreted in a vacuum. Each of his actions during that period -- from the praying-girl card Mr. Jordan delivered at the movie set to the notes he pushed through her door -- was to be interpreted as one criminal act.

If that was the case, then I could say he was guilty.

At first blush, it appears that the lawyer's instruction to the other jurors was probably a correct statement of the law. But I have wonder if it fully agreed with the judge's instructions to the jury. I think if I were ever serving on a jury I'd be very careful to avoid a situation where the other jurors relied upon my greater knowledge of the law to determine how they would vote on guilt or innocence. And in the situation that Ms. Steel describes I'd be very likely to say, "I think the judge instructed us to consider all of the defendant's actions between May 2005 and August 2007 together in order to determine if he was stalking her. But don't rely on my interpretation. If you have any questions about how to apply the facts to the law we should ask the judge to clarify his instruction."