Once upon a time in New York, a black man named John White was found guilty of fatally shooting a white teen. However, in December, 2007, one of the jurors came out of the courtroom closet, so to speak, stating that he helped convict the man for shooting and killing the boy but felt pressured by other jurors and the judge to change his vote to guilty during a deliberating session.

Convicting White (54) of second-degree manslaughter in the August 2006 shooting of 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro, Jr., the man faces a prison term of five to 15 years and remains free on bail. Defense attorneys argued that White feared a “lynch mob” had come to attack his family when a group of white teens came to White’s house to confront his son.

Juror Francois Larche said that during a long weekend where the jurors were stuck in a room trying to come to a decision, he endured a lot of “pressure” by fellow jurors and the judge to close this case and go home.

“I thought about my family and the families of the other jurors,” Larche said. “It was not worth it in the end.”

Jury forewoman Maureen Steigerwald denied that the judge, a 12-hour deliberating session on Saturday — the fourth day of deliberations — or the holidays played a role in the jury’s decision.

However, if one juror is feeling badly about his final decision, this brings up a big problem. Although this case was closed (until the appeal) several months ago, the juror’s statement should still be mentioned today. With a man’s life at stake, better instructions and possibly a time limitation (that exclude weekends and offer break periods) may need to be considered. After all, sending someone to prison for many years to wrap up a case isn’t a fair deal. But then again, who ever said the law was always fair?

Popularity: 7% [?]