I’ve been away from this blog for a while because I spent much of the week serving as juror No. 1 in the state of Arizona v. Sara Byron, a criminal trial before Maricopa County Superior Court in downtown Phoenix.  Being called to jury duty is quite common these days, as at least one of every four adults in this county receives a summons in a single year. Perhaps that’s why so many people who came to the courthouse last week were visibly upset at the idea of getting picked for a trial, even if it lasted only a few days.

On the other hand, it’s still rare for daily news journalists to actually be sworn in. Too often, we know about the case at hand, or we know some of the court officials and law enforcement investigators involved, or we simply can’t be trusted to avoid news reports as the trial progresses.

So I had never been in a jury pool before, which disappointed me because I have long considered jury service to be one of the two basic duties of every U.S. citizen (the other duty is voting). I did have some idea how a Maricopa County jury works, thanks to a 2002 ABC television series called “State v.” But I always wanted to experience this firsthand. Juries from a cross-section of the community are an essential check on the power of a potentially overzealous government, an issue that came up in this particular trial.

Nervous about working with complete strangers who didn’t want to be there, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened. The five women and three men (and two alternates) were normal people with interesting lives who strove in small ways to make our task less onerous – from holding the elevator door for each other to sharing lunch bills to bringing donuts and other treats for the jury deliberation room. It also helped that all of us wanted to follow the rules as outlined by Judge John Hannah. And we shared the same views about the criminal case as soon as the closing arguments were over.

Sara Byron co-owned a dental office in Sun City West, and she was locked in a bitter legal dispute with another co-owner, the dentist, who claimed he actually controlled the business. About a year ago, someone went into the office in the middle of the night, poured gasoline around various pieces of the expensive equipment and started several fires which eventually burned themselves out.

Suspicion fell on Byron because the arsonist got into the building without breaking any door locks or windows. Her alleged motives were revenge against the dentist who dragged her into court, or to obtain insurance money to buy the business outright. But Byron pointed to her roommate and close friend Donavan Bering. After a series of interviews, Bering eventually confessed to the detective that she arranged for the arson with another roommate, Zachary Proctor, who was the one who entered the building and set the fires. Bering and Proctor both pleaded guilty to felony arson.

At this point, you’re probably wondering why Byron as the co-owner was on trial. Well, the roommate Bering said she actually planned the crime with Byron, who handed over a key to the office to make it happen. But Byron insisted the roommate was lying. Bryon told a sheriff’s detective she never would want the business destroyed; that’s why she had fought so hard with the dentist to keep it. Assistant Maricopa County Attorney Jon Wendell didn’t buy Byron’s story, and took the case to trial.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, Bering was the only person to claim that Byron was part of the conspiracy, and Bering was a terrible witness. Her explanations changed wildly over time. She couldn’t reconcile her story that Byron expected the fire to be disguised as an accident for the insurance money, with how the arson actually was carried out in such an obvious manner. Byron’s defense lawyer, Justin Beresky, called a litany of witnesses who testified that Bering constantly lied about events in her life to manipulate other people.

Finally, Bering’s accomplice, who came across as far more credible, testified for the defense that he wasn’t given any reason to believe Byron was involved.

Once we jurors gathered in our windowless conference room, one woman didn’t even want to bother with deliberations. Quoting from the judge’s instructions, she argued for an immediate vote of not guilty, “The state has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this is not even close!”

But Carol the forewoman said we owed it to the state (and county taxpayers) to review all of the evidence and be confident in our final decision. That required about 45 minutes of discussion. As we kept identifying more holes in the prosecution’s case, several of us wondered why there was a trial in the first place. Wendell’s explanation in his closing argument, and again to the jurors after the verdict was read, was that Byron had to be guilty “because she was the only one who benefited” if the business was destroyed.

And that’s the ultimate beauty of including citizen jurors in the administration of justice. If you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, then we never should convict someone simply because a government prosecutor or judge wants to believe that person did wrong. Jurors apply common sense and a diversity of experiences to test whether the accused really deserves to lose her freedom and reputation.

Sara Byron cried and whispered “thank you” as the jurors walked past after the judge had read our verdict. It was our reward for doing our duty as citizens in a country that values liberty so deeply.