BOB GARFIELD: And now, another breakthrough in reality TV. Only this is real reality. ABC's 7-part series "In the Jury Room" offers an unprecedented look inside the judicial process. The cameras follow prosecutors as they build their case, film confidential lawyer-client meetings. They're even inside the judge's chambers. But what really sets this series apart from regular Court TV fare is that for the first time ever, the Ohio Supreme Court let producer Michael Bicks set up cameras inside the jury room for a capital murder case and tape the often heart-wrenching deliberations therein. Others have attempted this, and they were all denied. The PBS show Frontline asked for access to a Texas murder trial but was refused because the prosecutor said he believed jurors would be influenced by the presence of the cameras. The ABC series records six homicide trials and begins with the death penalty case of Mark Ducic. I asked producer Michael Bicks if he noticed any posturing from his jurors.

MICHAEL BICKS: In the case of the trial of Mark Ducic, went along for three weeks -- I mean you're coming back to the jury room on breaks with these cameras and microphones there. But by the time they get through the trial, they've already gotten used to the idea, and so by the time it gets to jury deliberations, they seem to be completely comfortable with it. I mean the one time that you do notice it a little is during breaks. You know, somebody'll make a joke about - do you think they like what I'm eating for lunch - or something like that.

BOB GARFIELD: Well, don't those little moments of self-awareness give you pause? I mean I have to keep reminding myself, watching this thing, that the jurors weren't voting someone off the island. There's a chilling moment when it comes to the decision between life imprisonment and the death penalty. [TAPE PLAYS]

JUROR 1: I'm stuck between the gurney and life--

JUROR 2: Are you really? [LAUGHS]

JUROR 1: -- life without--

JUROR 2: That's where you are?

JUROR 1: -- life without parole and the gurney.

JUROR 2: So where are you?

JUROR 3: Life, I guess.

JUROR 2: Yeah.

JUROR 3: Put me down for life, cause I'll feel better him thinking about what he did.

JUROR 4: I want him to have 25 years.

JUROR 5: And my vote would be-- death. [TAPE ENDS]

MICHAEL BICKS: That's a wild moment. I mean it's, it's a funny thing, because-- I mean these are ordinary citizens who are discussing something extraordinary. They take what they're doing incredibly seriously. I mean this is not like Survivor. I mean this is somebody's life.

BOB GARFIELD: It's certainly gripping television, and sometimes you want to gasp, and sometimes the moments are just positively absurd. The deliberations in the jury room at one point get just surreal, when they finally reach a conclusion -- and cheer! [TAPE PLAYS]

FOREMAN: [READING] The verdict: We the jury in this case do find the defendant, Mark Ducic, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aggravated murder, charged in Count One of the indictment. Are we all on board? [SEVERAL SPEAK AT ONCE]

JUROR 1: Yes.

JUROR 2: Yes.

JUROR 3: Yes.

FOREMAN: [READING] Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUROR 3: Three cheers. [APPLAUSE, CHEERS]

JUROR 2: Good job. [TAPE ENDS]

MICHAEL BICKS: Right after the cheering, one of them breaks down crying. The rest of them realize that their response was completely inappropriate, and they give this woman who is completely distraught at the fact that she's found somebody guilty of murder -- I mean they all walk over and give her a big hug. Back to your question, does their awareness of the cameras a little bit give me pause? Slightly, but do I think that we had anything to do with that? No. I mean it was an extremely contentious deliberation, and I think that they were relieved that it was over. I mean the notion that sort of 11 people spontaneously erupted, because there were remote control cameras there, I just don't buy.

BOB GARFIELD: Let's talk about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that tracking an object affects the path of that object. When PBS was refused access, the judge had said, okay, you can do this, but the prosecutor objected, saying that he thought that the camera's presence would alter the deliberations. Was he wrong?

MICHAEL BICKS: We've now done 11 cases over our two series, and at the end of every single case, we sit down with the judge and the jurors and talk to them about whether they thought the cameras had any effect, and out of over a hundred jurors, none of them have ever said that it does, and nor have the prosecutors or the defense lawyers or the defendant -- nobody has come back and said we have changed the outcome. I mean the one thing that I always fall back on, because I have a huge concern about this. I mean if I thought I was affecting the outcome or the system, my deal with everybody is I would stop.

BOB GARFIELD: Really?

MICHAEL BICKS: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean we do business on the basis of our word, and I mean that's what's carried us from state to state, from, you know, prosecutor's office to prosecutor's office. If I really thought that we were affecting the process, I'd have to stop. That's my agreement with them, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself. Yeah, really.

BOB GARFIELD: A common thread in the reviews I've read about "In the Jury Room" was that, yeah, it was compelling viewing, but the reviewers questioned what was gained by the experience. What does a viewer get from "In the Jury Room" that he wouldn't get from watching a few episodes of "Law and Order?"

MICHAEL BICKS: Well, I mean Law and Order - well f-- Law and Order is fiction. I mean when you think about probably one of the most crucial parts of our democracy is the jury system, and there's probably no greater responsibility we give a citizen than to decide in a capital case whether somebody lives or dies. To witness how that happens, and to expose the public to it, from where I sit is a huge public service. And our commitment to this goes way beyond the shows. I mean we are publishing on the internet the entire transcript of the jury deliberations. I mean anybody can look at it -- they can look at what we picked, what we didn't. And we're also making available the tapes of the complete deliberations to law schools.

BOB GARFIELD: It's clear that you're articulating the, the argument for such a program -- its value as a civics lesson. But the other argument is that it reduces an essential process of jurisprudence to a -- just another reality TV show.

MICHAEL BICKS: I'm a journalist. I've been a journalist for 21 years. There is a huge difference between reality television and what I do. I mean what I do is the opposite of reality television. I mean reality television, basically, manufactures a situation and then just sort of has fun watching people do it. We don't manufacture anything. I mean we are old school, fly on the wall documentaryists. There's no correspondent. We just watch what happens.

BOB GARFIELD: Ultimately, the defendant in this case, Mark Ducic, is convicted of murder but spared the death penalty. Had he been condemned, were you prepared to deal with that?

MICHAEL BICKS: Yes. I mean yeah, there's obviously the personal level, depending on whether you believe in the death penalty. But separate from that, it wouldn't have made any difference to me. I'm there to document the process. Having said that, I, I take no shame in telling compelling stories. But there's a big difference between sort of a compelling story and exploiting the situation. I mean we're not doing this for entertainment. We're doing this because we think it's important.

BOB GARFIELD: All right, Michael. Well, thank you very much.

MICHAEL BICKS: Thank you very much.

BOB GARFIELD: Michael Bicks is the producer of "In the Jury Room," which airs on ABC. [MUSIC]