Jury system might benefit from reform

Mary Elizabeth Campbell has been vindicated, but she says that doesn't count for much. When a murderer goes free, there are no winners. Mostly, she is just sad.

And one other thing. She has lost a lot of faith in the justice system.

This thoughtful and, by her own description, "pacific" mother of seven, grandmother of 21 and great-grandmother of seven, was, for about four hours, the lone holdout on a jury that 15 years ago this May acquitted Michael D. Lane of charges he murdered a 2-year-old boy. She thought he was guilty; that the evidence was clear. Another juror initially agreed with her, but after the first vote everyone but Campbell was solidly of the opinion that Lane was innocent — or at least that the prosecution hadn't proved otherwise.

After four hours, Campbell felt there was little use in trying to persuade everyone else. She isn't the type who likes to argue or to confront people who won't budge. Even today she remembers how awful it felt to be alone. "I felt almost weird because I had this point of view," she said in a visit to my office last week.

She finally decided to vote not-guilty, too, but she didn't really believe it.

Michael Lane has been in the news a lot lately, both locally and on CNN and elsewhere. That's because after all these years he decided to go to the police and tell the truth. He did in fact kill little Paul Eugene Watts, the son of his girlfriend at the time, Jennifer Watts.

As reported in this newspaper and elsewhere, Lane said he was high on methamphetamine. Jennifer left him in charge of the child while she went to church. When he tried changing little Paul's diaper, the child began crying and wouldn't stop — that is, not until Lane brutally beat him to death.

By all accounts, Lane thought his confession would result in a jail sentence; that he would finally pay society's bill collector. But more than two centuries ago the Founding Fathers, worried that prosecutors one day might be vindictive and keep trying a person over and over until they found a jury that would give the preferred verdict, passed the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That amendment prohibits anyone from being tried twice for the same crime.

Other than thanking Lane for setting the record straight, there was little prosecutors could do. Because he never testified during the trial, Lane can't even be charged with lying under oath.