Since at least the time of Peter Zenger, American juries have served as agents of legal and social change. When and how juries become involved in transformative decision making has only occasionally been examined. This Article seeks to explore the jury as change agent in the context of the recent conviction of the Arthur Andersen accounting firm on a charge of obstruction of justice. It analyzes the erroneous belief that the case would be a "slam-dunk" for the government, detailing why the jury found the matter so difficult to decide. It then considers the reasons for the government's hard-won victory as well as the legal and social implications of the jury's verdict.

Included in

Law Commons