Trey Roberson The Jury is just like Homicide, Life On the Street and OZ in one aspect, it is fast paced and never drags on. Except for one two parter the show is over and adecision has been made by the jury in one sitting for the TV audience. To goone step further , after you find out the jury's decision, you then are shown what really happened and whether the jury was correct in its decision, which in my opinion is the best way to leave your audience satisfied and not wonderingwhether or not the jury's decision was correct. Another aspect of this show that is different from other one hour dramas is that the main focus of the show is the jury and their deliberation, not the detectives or the district attorneys. Therefore there is no main star of the show, which makes sense, the name of the show is The Jury. Each week you will have 12 different actors which allows for different jury personalities and personality conflicts, in my opinion keeping the show fresh and free. OZ was a hit, Homicide was a hit and if any network gives The Jury a chance , it too will be a hit.

afunkystar 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. ;)

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!?

ljbad 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.