Jury selection walks a fine line

As local court officials continue to choose a jury in the murder trial of Christopher Erin Rogers Jr., we’re struck by the painstaking measures Superior Court Judge Vanessa White is taking to ensure a suitable group is impaneled.

Rogers is being tried on 12 felonies in Palmer court, including murder, for allegedly using a machete to kill his father and seriously injure his father’s fiancé Dec. 2, 2007. His rampage continued into Anchroage, where he admitted to police he assaulted people there with a gun, killing another man. At a later trial in Anchorage, Rogers will face 10 more felony counts, also including murder.

Because of the nature and notoriety of Rogers’ alleged crimes, jury selection has taken the better part of two days, with more to come beginning Monday. Anticipating Rogers’ defense attorney John Richard could ask for a venue change for the trial, we agree extra pains must be taken to ensure the best possible jury can be found locally to keep the trial here in the Valley.

Rogers is a Palmer resident on trial for hideous crimes in our community, and we have a responsibility to give any defendant, including Rogers, a fair trial. That said, we are also left questioning a system that at times entrusts the least informed to decide innocence or guilt.

At the same time, “We’re trying to figure out which jurors have already read so much about this case that they can’t sit on the jury,” District Attorney Roman Kalytiak said.

Presumably, one juror who said Rogers “should be in jail for the rest of his life” and another who said, “I don’t know how he could not be guilty of a crime everyone knows he committed” won’t be among those selected.

Preconceptions by some are inevitable, especially in such a sensational and well-publicized case. What’s important is not choosing a group of “12 Angry Men” and finding jurors who can be open-minded enough to fairly balance any evidence presented at trial.

What should not be lost in this process is dumbing down this — or any — jury to the least common denominator. We’re reminded of the famous headline after jury selection in OJ Simpson’s Los Angeles murder trial: “12 ignorant enough to sit on Simpson jury.”

In being extra careful to seat a jury, we hope the result is an attentive, open-minded jury and not simply “12 ignorant enough to sit on Rogers jury.”