Thanks to law shows today, like the many Law and Order spin-offs and the god-awful CSI franchises, people want cop/court shows to be over the top, contain lots of fights, have twists and turns in the evidence and be in your face. This show builds slowly and focuses on the fact that average people are deciding someone else's fate. I don't usually like court shows (I can only watch L&O up until when the case goes to trial, because the trials are so boring), but I like this show. The problem is that I wouldn't have bothered to notice this show if it wasn't a Fontana/Levinson project. Because I loved Homicide so much, I can appreciate what they're trying to do here. There's only been three episodes so far, but I like that the cases have been "average." TV shows always have to have a case that's been "ripped from the headlines," and is so sensational that it's impossible to believe. Instead, The Jury had an episode about an inmate who killed a priest during a riot. One juror wondered what the point was of trying him, because either way the man was going back to jail to finish his sentence from a previous crime. Yet the writers (including James Yoshimura, who wrote Homicide's much-celebrated "Subway" episode) still use that "back-page" subject matter. It is their willingness to go into typical crimes that makes this show interesting. Instead of going for the shocking like CSI does, they find shocking things in everyday life.Yeah I remember The Beat too. ;)

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.

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...

As a longtime fan of "Twelve Angry Men," the classic You-Are-There jury drama, and as someone who's thoroughly enjoyed Levinson and Fontana's previous TV work, like "Oz," "Homicide" and "The Beat" (does anyone else remember "The Beat"? What a great show!), I had to check this out. I wouldn't say I was overwhelmed by the two episodes I just watched, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it improve once the creators really get comfortable with the format. Unfortunately, though, if I have one complaint, it is with that very format, which seems to aim to present for us too many perspectives for its own good. Much of the appeal of the courtroom drama -- and of the jury drama -- stems from the knowledge that there may never be a clear answer, and that any decisions that are made may very well go unconfirmed. Having watched two episodes already, though, I know that the creators mean to reveal to us the nature of the crime at the end of its respective episode - in other words, to let us know whether the jury judged correctly. This simply strikes me as too neat, and I'm afraid that, by putting too much distance between the viewer and the jury, the inherent drama of the deliberations will be undermined. But I may be wrong. In any case, it's a very stylish show, and it's definitely worth a look.