Reflections On Jury Duty (Is Justice Free, Or Is There A Toll?)

So, last week, I went through the jury duty experience for the first time. When I lived in PA, I was called twice but never had to report. This was my first time in Monroe County NY and I ended up being in the jury box, questioned, and eventually not selected for a particular trial. After a few days of reflecting, I’m still kinda left unsettled.

Since I don’t know whether other counties and states do things differently, here in NY State, I received a notification in the mail probably two months ago, stating that I was selected for jury duty. There was a short questionnaire that needed to be filled out and sent in, or completed online. I don’t remember what was on that questionnaire but I think it was short and simple; verification of address. Once that is done, after a few weeks, I received another notification with my juror number and week assigned. I was # 22 for the week of March 7, 2011.  There was another questionnaire, this time around normal work schedule and employer information, to determine whether the state had to pay for jury duty or not.  That questionnaire had to be turned in in person when reporting.

Jurors are asked to report in two different shifts:  8:15AM and 12:45PM. To see if your number is called, I had to either call in to a recorded message or look online.  Over the weekend before my week, my number was included in a group of # 1-540 to report Monday morning.   When I arrived, I turned in my questionnaire, and eventually we had to watch an intro video. This video started out with re-enactments straight out of Monty Python’s Holy Grail! They showed scene of a man getting burned at the stake. Then they showed another scene of a man, bound and gagged, getting thrown into a lake. The narrator explained that back in olden times, one view of proof of innocence was, if you were thrown in a lake and died drowning, you were deemed innocent, and if you floated, you were guilty. THEN…here comes Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer, of 60 Minutes, to explain the importance of juries in our system. Of course, the thought that went through my mind was, how much of my tax dollars went to the production, script, stunt-people, and fees to the 60 Minutes folks to help us understand the need to be there that morning? I did find it interesting, though, that in NY State, there are no automatic exceptions to jury service:  no religious exemptions, no age exceptions, even cops and judges are required to attend jury duty. Anyway…

On that Monday morning, they announced that there were seven trials on the schedule, five in the morning and two in the afternoon. They called a little more than fifty names to be assigned to each trial, so that was roughly. I was assigned to one of the morning trials, although jury selection didn’t begin until 2:00PM because of “pre-trial activity”. The other almost 200 people were asked to wait in case one of the trials exhausted their assigned pool of jurors without reaching their total number of needed jurors. The jury desk did a good job of keeping everyone informed and also trying to get updates for when we’d be called up to the courtroom. My case required another questionnaire to be filled out, this time with questions about what town I lived in and for how long, what my employer and profession was, whether I had family or close friends in law enforcement, law practices, the insurance and medical professions, and whether I had family or close friends who were a victim of, accused of, and/or convicted of a crime. That questionnaire had three additional carbon copies and we were to bring those up to the courtroom when called.

SO…finally at 2:15PM, we were called. In the courtroom were the typical people, a judge, a bailiff, a stenographer, a court clerk, the prosecutor (we were soon told was an ADA), the defense lawyers (we were soon told their names and I’m assuming it was a husband and wife team), and the defendant. When the judge finally talked, he spent about 20 minutes going through the normal how-important-being-on-a-jury-is introduction. The judge was, to my pleasant surprise, laid back, personable, and seemed genuine and sincere.  He did stress several times to remember the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,

THEN…we were told only the bare bones details about the case. This was a criminal case, not a civil case. The defendant had 3 gun possession charges, two 3^rd degree and one 2^nd degree, all from the same incident, in April 2010, in the Hudson Avenue area (which is a pretty bad area of Rochester, though in my opinion, not as bad as a North or West Philly.) The judge explained the differences between a civil (the possibility that something occurred) and criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt). The judge stressed that in a criminal case, the burden of proof was solely on the Prosecutors side, and that the Defense, if they wanted, didn’t have to call any witnesses or even prevent a defense at all. And, if that were the case, we were not to read anything into that in terms of innocence or guilt. He announced that the trial would start on Wed morning, and he didn’t expect the trial to last beyond Thurs afternoon before being turned over to the jury. He stated that they were looking for fourteen jurors, twelve standing and two alternates. He announced that the jury would not be asked to be sequestered. He reminded everyone the typical rules; do not talk about the trial to anyone, do not do outside research, only pay attention to the testimony and evidence presented and that’s all.

When all that was done, they then read off fourteen names at random. Those fourteen had to sit in the jury box and turn in their questionnaires to the bailiff, who put each of the four copies in different piles, in order. The copies went to the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorneys, and the court clerk. I was not in the first group of fourteen. The judge then stated that he was within his legal right to grant three specific exemptions to jury service, and if anyone had one of these scenarios, they were automatically excused. The three were:  if you had a scheduled and paid-for vacation, if you had a scheduled medical procedure, or if you were a presented in a scheduled seminar/work meeting that could not be held without your presentation. No one in the first group had any of those, but two people in the remaining group did, and he excused them. He then reminds everyone how important juror are (that was the basic theme of his intro) and he closed by making this statement:  “Remember, what type of juror would you want to have if you were to find yourself in the defendants chair someday? That is the type of juror we are asking you to be today, and the entire justice system depends on that.”

So, let me take a break here. At this point, I felt pretty comfortable about things. I was one of the few people who looked forward to sitting on a jury, I’ve always been curious about how this system worked, especially as opposed to what is show on TV and in the movies. Plus, to be honest, I had no issues being away from work for a few days.  If you can’t tell by this transition statement, things are about to change.

The judge starts this round of jury selection by talking to the entire group. He asked if anyone knew the Prosecutor, defense team, defendant, and then read the list of scheduled witnesses as well. No one did. He then talked to each person, in order, using their questionnaire to either engage in some small talk, or ask about something specific. He spent about 5 minutes per person. Most people had boxes checked in the victim of/accused of/convicted of section, and he asked about those items. He asked about cases where people checked off if they knew someone in law enforcement or the law profession.  At the end of a every few questions, the judge always asked, “do you think you can be open minded and give a fair trial, that you’re bringing any personal biases, that none of these items you’ve listed on your form will sway you in any way?” So, I’m still OK. When the judge was done with each person, then he announced that the prosecutor, and then the defense, each had an allotted amount of time to address the group, either as a group or individually if they chose. I’ll talk about this shortly. When their allotted times were done, the defense went off to a side room to discuss. Then, the attorneys, clerk, and stenographer approached the judge, and had a private conversation. At the end of the conversation, the judge announced that seven of the fourteen were selected. At this point, it was 4:15PM. The seven selected names were read. The judge stated that the reasons why people were or were not selected would not be revealed. The seven that were not selected were told then were done with their jury service. The remaining thirty-six or so of us were asked to report back at 2:00PM on Tuesday to continue selection.

(Fast forward to Tuesday 2:00PM…I went to work Monday at 4:15PM as I had a process I needed to finish, and I went into work Tuesday morning. My office happens to be only four blocks from the courthouse and for once, it was a sunny not-so-cold day so I walked to the courthouse.) The judge jumped right into the selection, and the next fourteen names at random were read, and I was the third of this group, so I went up, turned in my questionnaire and sat in the jury box.

ISSUE #1:  I had to face the defendant. He was a dark African-American man, middle aged. He was wearing a bright red casual button-down shirt with various patches sewn on it. The kind of patches you might see on a leather jacket. He was also wearing, no lie, red alligator boots. It instantly bothered me. To me, it wasn’t court attire at all, and although as a juror, and in my mind, as a black man, I’m technically not supposed to play stereotypes, but it was hard for me to squash that down in my mind. And then in my mind, I thought, didn’t the defense attorneys tell him what would be good to wear or not? Didn’t they meet ahead of time? Maybe they didn’t.  Did they find this acceptable? Well, it was time for me to talk to the judge.

ISSUE #2:  most of you probably don’t know this because I really didn’t talk about it, but a couple of winters ago, myself and a friend were mugged at gunpoint about 10:00PM on a Saturday night, outside of a bar not about 10 blocks from where I live, and in a not-that-bad neighborhood. We left to head home. We parked in a lot a half-block away, so we started walking to our cars. The guy, a black kid, walked up from behind. I thought he was in a hurry so as I stepped in the snow to give him room to walk by, next thing I know his hand is in my back pocket. I reactively grab his hand, turn around, and see the gun pointed at my chest. Which then, I reactively froze and put my hands up. He muttered a bunch of stuff, grabbed my friend, then grabbed her purse, and then ran off. We went back to the bar to tell the manager what happened and I called 9-1-1, and the cops arrived in something like 45 seconds. Somehow, the cops noticed my wallet in the snow at the scene, so I didn’t lose anything, but my friend lost $100, her phone, credit cards, etc. We ended up having to sit in the police station separately while they questioned us, filled out their report, and we were released at 2:30AM. Fortunately, I had my keys, and I had keys to my friends’ place, so we were able to get her car, and at 3AM, canceled her phone, credit cards, called the maintenance emergency number to have the locks changed, etc.

So, of course, the judge asks me, “Who was the victim of a crime?”

Me:  “Myself.”

J:  “What was the crime?”

Me:  “Armed robbery.”

J:  “OH. (pause) What was the weapon?”

Me:  “A gun.”

J:  “OH. (pause again) Was it a while ago?”

Me:   “A little over two years ago.”

 J:  “OH. (pause again) Were you harmed?”

Me:  “No.”

J:  “That’s good. Did anything come of it; did they ever find the person?”

Me:  “No.”

J:  “How were the cops? Do you harbor any resentment toward them for not finding…?”

Me:  “No, actually, they were very helpful.”

J:  “In light of that, do you think you can give the defendant a fair trial? DO you think you can give the prosecution a fair trial?

Me:  “Yes, I believe I can.”

J:  “Thank you.”

Well, now I have about 45 minutes, while the judge is finishing with the ten people after me, to reflect on that night. Which REALLY doesn’t put me in a good frame of mind in terms of trying to be fair, or even wanting to be on a jury in a gun possession case. Since I’m really kinda anti-guns, especially after that night. Well, I’m not anti-gun, but I am definitely pro-gun laws. If you have a true legit purpose for wanting a gun, then even if the laws are strict, you should pass all the tests with flying colors, so you’ll eventually get your gun, be patient. I have no problems with legal guns, it’s all the illegal ones out there I’d like to see go away. That’s another blog for another day…

ISSUE #3:  Now, we have to face the prosecutors’ questions, and the defense team’s questions, and keep in mind I’m already screwed up in my thinking because of the alligator boots, and because of a gun pointed at my chest in January of 2009. Now the attorneys are playing mind games. The prosecutor is asking us, what would we think if the following happened:  we were walking into a bank, when the alarm starting ringing, and a man wearing a mask and clutching two full pillowcases was running out of the building. Would we think he was a bank robber? What if someone said that it MIGHT have been a fire alarm? Of if the mask MIGHT be because it was cold outside, but we could see that the pillowcases had money flying out of them? Could we still feel confident that he was a bank robber? The defendant is asking us, are cops always to be trusted? What if they made an accidental judgment error, do we think they might try to cover it up on the report? Both sides asked about our views on gun laws. (They did ask the same kinds of questions the day before.)

Now I’m thinking, what are we getting at here? Is this a preliminary view of the trial? Are these mind games? I know that of course the prosecutor would like to find someone sympathetic to his side, and vice-versa for the defense side. Is this how this is supposed to work? I thought we weren’t supposed to be biased? Then the questions are done, the defense team goes into the side room, and then we wait. And being in that box, waiting, waiting, waiting, I couldn’t help but feel judged.  

ISSUE #4:  Then they come out, approach the bench, and begin their little secret conversation. They were talking just loud enough for us to hear a word or two, but not really. And they were pointing at the forms, and it dawned on me, I have no idea how this process REALLY works. STILL. Being in the middle of it, I’m still clueless. I have no idea what is being discussed, what is supposed to happen.  When they were done, the judge announced that one person was picked. That person was NOT me, and I was done for the day and my service was over. 3:30PM. As the thirteen of us walked out, we were all obviously relieved that we didn’t have to sit through the trial. Which then actually made me wonder also…why were so relieved? Is that fair to the defendant? 

I walked in at 2:00PM confident and left at 3:30PM a confused mess with the ghost of the defendant in the alligator boots, and the ghost of the unknown assailant, walking behind me the four blocks back to the office. Where I then tried to squash that in my mind and go back to a job I hadn’t been to in four days, including the weekend.

That fourth issue is the one that is still unsettling with me. I have no idea how the justice system really works. Whether I actually do something someday, or worse, are wrongly accused of something, I am completely dependent on the system, one that I do not understand, to be honest. A system where I saw a defendant possibly not prepared to be defended, with a defense team who possibly didn't notice. Or maybe didn’t think of it? Either way…a system where I have to pay into to hope that I am processed fairly. A system where conversations were happening in sight but out of earshot. And we all know the theory…get the best defense money can buy. Is THAT where we are, really? My innocence or guilt is dependent on the level of defense I can buy, judged by twelve average random people who aren’t getting paid, who are getting their minds played with, where probably don’t understand the rules?  Justice has an admission fee?  

Coming soon:  Does democracy have an admission fee too?  (Hint:  yes it does.)