The Jury

2004
The Jury

Seasons & Episodes

  • 1

EP1 Three Boys and a Gun Jun 08, 2004

Tempers flare as the jurors determine whether a teenager committed a premeditated murder against a rival on the basketball court, or was simply careless as he celebrated New Year's Eve with friends by firing his father's gun from the rooftop of his apartment.

EP2 The Honeymoon Suite Jun 08, 2004

The jury is charged with deciding whether a teenage girl was murdered by her boyfriend, or was a willing participant in an incomplete double suicide pact.

EP3 Mail Order Mystery Jun 15, 2004

Greenfield presents a credible case for reasonable doubt in her defense of a man accused of the murder of his mail order bride.

EP4 Bangers Jun 22, 2004

Hawthorne urges both sides to come to a swift plea agreement after he learns that gangbangers have intimidated the jurors deciding the fate of two of their members on trial for murdering a woman who opposed their drug dealing in her apartment building; Walker's dark mood during the case is explained when he reveals a painful incident from his past to Dixon.

EP5 Last Rites Jun 29, 2004

The jury weighs whether a inmate's grudge prompted him to kill the prison chaplain during a riot, or if his arrest was set up by a fellow inmate and correctional officers.

EP6 Memories Jul 09, 2004

The jury debates whether they can rely upon the memory and the testimony of a little girl in determining if she was molested by her neighbor.

EP7 The Boxer Jul 16, 2004

The jury must determine if the evidence of a contentious relationship and a hat left at the scene is enough to convict a boxer of the death of his manager.

EP8 Pilot Jul 23, 2004

The jury must decide if a highly decorated police officer is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the hit-and-run death of a homeless man even though there are no witnesses that can place him at the scene, and no damage to his vehicle.

EP9 Lamentation on the Reservation Jul 30, 2004

The jury examines the possible motives of romantic jealousy, greed, politics, business conflicts, and revenge in determining whether a woman is guilty of soliciting the murder of her business partner and lover.

EP10 Too Jung to Die Aug 06, 2004

The jury has a great deal of difficulty in determining whether a psychiatrist attempted to murder a woman who claims they had a sexual relationship while she was his patient.
6.9| 0h30m| en| More Info
Released: 08 June 2004 Ended
Producted By: 20th Century Fox Television
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Set in New York City, the series brings the viewer into the jury room to watch the deliberators try to answer the many questions posed during a trial. As facts are exposed through flashbacks of testimony and crime footage, viewers will form their own opinions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Following each verdict, a final flashback will let viewers see the crime as it actually happened and reveal whether or not the jury made the right decision.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

20th Century Fox Television

Trailers & Images

Reviews

norafromktown The show is somewhat hard to follow and made worse when some actors are awful. In the "Memories" episode aired Friday, July 9, the jurors were pretty captivating. But, the woman attempting to play the mother seemed like someone who had won bid on ebay] a guest spot on a TV show. [I don't want to say much because I don't want to spoil this for someone who has not seen the episode] Having large casts every week shouldn't be a good excuse for not finding good talent. There are a lot of good actors looking for work. This week's episode has a guest judge, which will be a welcome change. Kind of stretches the imagination to think one judge would have all these tough cases.
kcla I missed the first couple of episodes but was nevertheless immediately caught up in this series. While other shows focus on the cops and crime scene investigators who solve the cases and the district attorneys prosecuting the criminals, it's refreshing to see one that focuses on the jury; after all justice isn't served when the lab results come back and they are basically the final arbitrators of justice. Each episode starts with the jury starting deliberations with flashbacks employed to show us the trial; the actual events of what happened, whether or not the defendants are guilty are shown to the viewers at the end of the episode. Although I was intrigued by the concept, I was initially hesitant about this show because the "jury" changes each week; I like watching "Law & Order" or "CSI", but the quality of the guest stars are sometimes atrocious and can really affect the dramatic impact of an episode. Luckily, "The Jury" has so far seemed to avoid that sand trap. The actors playing the jury for the most part are very good- not great- but their not bad(and surprisingly recognizable from guest-starring roles on other shows). The actors playing the attorneys and court staff don't fare so well, though. Adam Busch is the comic relief and is quite adorable and funny, but his character seems out of place in a serious courtroom drama and I have no idea what his character's job is; the flirtation between him and Cote de Pablo's character is awkward (intentionally?). The judge (I can't remember his name) is okay but you can why he's not an actor. Anna Friel, a British actress, and Jeff Hephner take some getting used to but they become more likable each week. There are several more actors playing lawyers but the episodes showcasing them have not aired yet. The acting of the may not be the greatest. But watching the jury deliberate is riveting as they and the viewer try to weave through the evidence, trying to determine the truth of the case. The dialogue is realistic abounding with the lame jokes, bad grammar, and banter of average folks stuck together for hours. The jurors always disagree about something and that's when the show gets really exciting, when two or more jurors give us their different perspectives of what they think happened, showing how "evidence" can always be interpreted in myriad ways and how difficult it is for real juries to come to a decision given that fact. Some may argue that showing what really happens at the end of the show ruins the naturalness of it, since real juries never know the guilt or non-guilt of the defendants neither should the viewers. While that's true, I still feel it's a good idea, after going through the roller-coaster ride of emotions and ideas of a jury deliberation, finding out the true guilt or innocence of a defendant brings a certain sense of closure and emotional catharsis of relief or sadness when the viewer sees what really happened compared to the defendant's ultimate fate. Sometimes the defendants get away with murder and sometimes an innocent man is imprisoned; the show reenforces the fact that the court system isn't always right and that justice is a truly human creation.
MassMoviePsycho When I saw the promos for this show, i thought... could be good. So thankfully I finished my school work before 8 o'clock so I could check this show out. For the first half hour, I didn't know whether or not I liked it. I like the aura surrounding it but something with the way they kept flashing back I didn't like. I felt a bit dizzy. I think if they were going to do that, they should make the previous occurrences appear different like a haze over the screen or something. I just began losing track of where I was, when it was happening and I began not to care. I think it'll be interesting to see how they pull of different main characters every week. I'll tell you though, it's putting a lot more actors into jobs. Why can't shows be like this for that one specific reason!?
ashquinn1 From the official site at FOX.com, "the show offers a glimpse into a world that is rarely depicted on television." Well, there's a reason why this stuff is rarely depicted on television...it's BORING. As of this commentary, I've had the unfortunate opportunity to waste away in front of the two first episodes and I can't say I'm any more entertained for it. The show appears to focus it's attention on the deliberation of 12 ordinary citizens who're nothing more than cookie cutter stereotypes that don't deserve the viewer to care about or even sympathize with. The cases appear to unfold in such a slow, fragmented and unconvincingly skewed way that there's little reason for the viewer to get emotionally involved in the story. It's not worth the effort. Additionally, the judge and trial lawyers appear to be the sole bit of consistency in this series. Unfortunately, the regulars appear to put less effort into their characters than the jury and, ultimately, come across as less convincing in their roles than the jury does. So much so that, on screen, the regulars look more like amateurish drama students having trouble finding the inspiration for their characters after months of rehearsal. I walk away from the first two episodes severely disappointed and bored out of my mind! Sadly...and this is downright pathetic...I'd have felt better off watching reruns of the Swan and liking it (ick!!). This show absolutely fails to live up to the hype surrounding weeks of advertising for this "groundbreaking new series." And the "twist" at the end of each episode that reveals whether or not the jury was right in their decision? Who's idea was THAT!? Bad enough that the show never builds up the suspense...the anticipation of a climax...but to completely eliminate ANY reason to discuss ones opinions of the verdict with other viewers the next morning at work? That's just wrong. Deep down, I'm hurt and disgustingly insulted. Even by Fox standards. Truth be told, I had high hopes and expected better from Barry Levinson and the creators of OZ. I really hoped this series would fly but in the end, it doesn't even get to taxi down the runway. Said it once and I'll say it again, this show deserves the death penalty...