The moral dilemma of being a popular jury

In Clint Eastwood's latest film, Juror No. 2 , his protagonist is called to serve on a jury in a murder trial. He fits the bill. He has nothing to do with the victim, a woman who was run over, or with the alleged killer, the deceased's boyfriend. He goes to court out of a sense of duty, but things get complicated when, during the trial, upon hearing the account of the events, he realizes he was at the scene of the crime at the time and unknowingly caused the young woman's death. He then faces the moral dilemma of whether to save himself by declaring the alleged killer guilty, knowing he wasn't, or to do what he must and testify about what happened.

This is relevant to Judge Peinado's announcement, not yet final, that the trial against Begoña Gómez, her advisor Cristina Álvarez, and Francisco Martín, then Secretary General of the Presidency, will be tried by a jury. Nine judges from the Community of Madrid will judge the president's wife. There is nothing to criticize about the decision from a procedural standpoint. The Jury Law, which is already 30 years old, includes, in its list of crimes to be tried, bribery, influence peddling, and embezzlement of public funds, all of which are covered in the case. The case meets all the requirements, although these types of trials are not very common.

To what extent would a citizen meet the requirements of objectivity?

But the doubts that arise in me, as will have occurred to many citizens, are whether among the people who will form part of that jury, there will be those who, as in the Eastwood film, will have a moral doubt about becoming judges, or if there are those who will see it as an opportunity to apply the divine justice that they believe should fall on Pedro Sánchez, even if it is in the person of his wife, or on the contrary, if there are those who will see it as an opportunity to save their leader, their president, leaving aside, in both cases, the slightest objectivity with which a member of a jury must approach the case to declare "proven or not proven the justiciable fact" and the "guilt or innocence of each accused."

The Jury Law clearly establishes the conditions for serving on the Jury: being Spanish, of legal age, having sufficient aptitude for the role, etc.; which individuals are incompatible with serving on the Jury, for example, the Prime Minister simply because he is a Prime Minister; and those who cannot serve on the tribunal in a particular case, among other things, due to "a close friendship or manifest enmity with any of the parties," or "having a direct or indirect interest in the case."

At this point, it's worth asking to what extent a citizen called to judge Begoña Gómez would meet the requirements of objectivity that should be assumed. For example: can someone who is randomly assigned to sit on the jury and is a PSOE member get closer to the case, putting aside their beliefs? And someone with a PP card? I think so, if they intimately consider the moral dilemma of fulfilling their duty and not engaging in politics in the trial. I have more doubts about a Vox member. With the existing polarization in Spain, which has been rising since 2021 with no signs of stopping, and when all Spaniards have already acquitted or convicted the president's wife, given the press reports, would a juror without a party card, but a supporter or voter, be willing to put aside their prejudices to deliver justice? I'd like to believe so, but... It's true that when we read in the newspapers that "a majority of conservative judges will judge the Attorney General," we might face the same dilemma.

No, I'm not going to tell you the ending of Clint Eastwood's film. You have to go to the movies, even though reality often surpasses fiction.