AFTER A LENGHTY SELECTION PROCESS, THE JURY WAS CHOSEN AND CHARGED WITH DECIDING IF JOSE DIAZ HAD PARTICIPATED IN A FOUR-MAN ROBBERY OF A HISPANIC BAR IN THE WILLIAMSBURG SECTION OF BROOKLYN. A BARMAID IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT, BUT HER TESTIMONY DIFFERED ON SOME POINTS FROM THAT OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAD APPREHENDED THE SUSPECT. JOSE DIAZ STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN A CUSTOMER IN THE BAR AND WAS INNOCENT, BUT HE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN HIS TESTIMONY AND THAT OF OTHER WITNESSES. THE JURY DELIBERATED FOR ALMOST 2 DAYS WITH THE MAJORITY MOVING TOWARD ACQUITTAL. THEY FINALLY RETURNED A VERDICT TO ACQUIT ON THE FIRST DEGREE COUNTS, BUT WERE UNABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS ON THE SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY, LARCENY, AND POSSESSION CHARGES. AFTER THE TRAIL ENDED, THE JURORS LEARNED THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS ALREADY SERVING A SENTENCE FOR ARMED ROBBERY. THE JUDGE HAD RULED NOT TO PERMIT DISCLOSURE OF THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE IT COULD PREJUDICE THE JURY. WHEN INTERVIEWED, THE ATTORNEYS AND POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE EXPRESSED SUPRISE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT BEEN CONVICTED. JOSE DIAZ COULD NOT BE LOCATED FOR AN INTERVIEW. THE CASE IS USED AS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE INEPTNESS OF THE TRIAL PROCESS IN HANDING DOWN CONCRETE JUSTICE. FOLLOWING INTERVIEWS WITH THE MAJOR TRIAL ACTORS, THE AUTHOR IS CONFUSED AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE JURY DECISION, AS MUCH SO AS IF THE TESTIMONY HAD NOT BEEN HEARD AND DEBATED. THE ISSUE OF GROUP DECISIONMAKING IS ALSO RAISED. (MJM)