I wrote before that I don't believe juries make mistakes.  Juries are very good, much better than judges, at figuring out what happened in a particular case.  In the vernacular of the judicial system, I would say juries are very good "triers of fact." American law is based on English common law, which has for hundreds of years divided the "trier of law" and the "trier of facts."  Judges figure out the law, while the jury figures out the facts. I think that distinction is a very good one, and most of the sentiment for eliminating jury trials is nothing more than anti-democratic elitism. 

Having said that though, the guilty verdict in the James Arthur Ray trial bothers me. Even though I have written quite a bit about the double standard of our legal system- what I call Prison Democracy- it seems that the exact reverse happened here.  I hope that it is not the case that Mr. Ray was only charged and convicted because he is famous, but with the weak evidence against him, I can't help but think that.  While I don't think famous or established persons should escape due punishment, I also don't think they should suffer from unwarranted accusations either. 

So did the jury make a mistake?  I never read the transcripts of the trial or saw any of it; so without more information I would say no.  But the verdict- criminally negligent homicide- could still be bad as a result of odd or incomplete facts.  The defense attorneys' for Mr. Ray claim that the verdict is a result of prosecutorial misconduct. (Arizona self-help guru deserves new trial in sweat lodge case): 

A self-help guru who was convicted in the deaths of three participants in an Arizona sweat lodge ceremony deserves a new trial...Ray's attorneys went before a Superior Court judge in Yavapai County, Arizona, claiming he should be tried again because of prosecutorial misconduct...[t]he defense claims the prosecution did not disclose evidence on time.

The defense's position since the deaths is that the adults who participated in this event knew full well the consequences and dangers they were facing, and that Mr. Ray never misled them.  In fact, it is in part because of those dangers that they wanted to be part of the sweat lodge.  Thus, this case seems to me the classic example of something that should be handled in our civil personal injury system, and not the criminal system.