and another year for being green!
I am currently on call for jury duty in the federal court system. Blech. [the following recounts jury-duty experiences:]
I have been summoned a once before for the federal court (went in that morning, got let go by noon); and a bunch of times for the state court (got out via phone the night before each time). This Tuesday I had a new experience at the court, due to my assigned number and the subject matter of the trial. The jury organizer gives us name tags with assigned numbers, and the numbers have been randomly assigned via computer. The last time I was in, my number must have been towards the very end of the line (I remember sitting in the back row). This time my number was 13 (out of 49). This upped my chances of being selected, but as it happened the judge explained that they only needed to select two jurors that day, as the rest had already been selected.
It turns out the case to be tried was a criminal one regarding drugs (possession with intent to sell, heroin & crack cocaine). (for the record, I know nothing about the case and am just talking about process and my experience.) Before getting in line and entering the court room, all of the prospective jurors filled out a numbered questionnaire, the majority of them yes or no questions. In the court room, each person stands up, says "Hi, my name is X and I am juror #1" or whatnot, and then goes down the list of questions, reciting his or her answers. It was actually interesting to follow along listening to the other folks' answers, as the questionnaire started with biographical info [are you employed and by whom? what is your profession? if you have a spouse/partner, what is her/his profession? do you have kids? do they live at home?] After that came all the yes and no's, and a person would literally say, "numbers 4 through 12 are 'no,' number 13 is 'yes,' numbers 14 through 22 are 'no.' If there were no interruptions it might well have been possible to get through 49 people at a quick clip. Unfortunately, almost every prospective juror was asked to go into detail about one or more question response. Then, if there was still a potential issue re: juror suitability, the prospective juror was asked to come up front.
And on Tuesday, I was one of the lucky contestants asked to step forward and go into the anteroom for a sidebar. In my case, it had to do with the question asking (paraphrased): "Do you have strong feelings regarding drugs, federal laws regarding drugs, and the prosecution of drug laws." To which I answered yes. In the sideroom the judge and the attorneys were very pleasant and patient with me; they wanted me to think about and tell them whether my strong feelings about drugs (my feelings: drugs can really mess up people's lives, and have led to death and tragedy) would influence my ability to remain impartial as a juror. I found this a very difficult question to answer, because (as I told them) I'd never been in this situation before, and although I would like to say that yes, I would definitely remain impartial and treat the defendant fairly, always thinking "innocent until the evidence of the state proves him/her guilty beyond all reasonable doubt." But I just couldn't know for sure. I was maybe 95% sure, and after we went around in circles a bit that's what I told them. *sigh* The issue of a juror's duty is something I hadn't given much thought to from a personal, in-the-moment perspective. At any rate, I had my sidebar and then they moved onto person #14. After moving down the line through person #17 or so, the judge told us that they had a big enough juror pool, and those people who had not been interviewed yet were free to leave (#s 18 -49). The first 17 of us stayed for awhile as more deliberation went on in the sideroom, and then the two selected jurors were announced (not me! Hallelujah!)
As much as I enjoy my courtroom dramas (Twelve Angry Men; To Inherit the Wind; To Kill A Mockingbird...), it feels different when you are the person being asked to examine your thoughts and emotions and question your ability to (a) be impartial, and (b) recognize when you are not being impartial. I will be doing some thinking on this. Considering I have a second date that I have to report in to the court for (in June - I've never received a summons for more than 1 date before!), that's a good thing.
I'm at the end of this post, but I also want to note that I was surprised by the number of prospective jurors who responded that they did not have strong feelings regarding drugs, etc. I recognize that it is a complex issue with multiple aspects. But it certainly something I feel strongly about! To recount a story from my own life, my dad has a coworker who is the mother of two sons, one age ~12 and one age ~19. The 19-yr old had been living on his own for a year or so, when (just this April) the mom got called at work by the police, who told her that her son was dead of an accidental drug overdose. While I don't know my dad's coworker on more than a face-recognition/say 'hello' and chat basis, I reach out to her with my heart. It always brings it home, where instead of a news story or a set of statistics, it is that neighbor, that woman's son, that brother. (What one-word emotion expresses how I feel here? I will go to bed thinking about that, too.)
p.s. On a lighter note, who knows where the quote in my post title comes from? I'll give you a hint: one of the charges was calling someone "fat face!"
I have been summoned a once before for the federal court (went in that morning, got let go by noon); and a bunch of times for the state court (got out via phone the night before each time). This Tuesday I had a new experience at the court, due to my assigned number and the subject matter of the trial. The jury organizer gives us name tags with assigned numbers, and the numbers have been randomly assigned via computer. The last time I was in, my number must have been towards the very end of the line (I remember sitting in the back row). This time my number was 13 (out of 49). This upped my chances of being selected, but as it happened the judge explained that they only needed to select two jurors that day, as the rest had already been selected.
It turns out the case to be tried was a criminal one regarding drugs (possession with intent to sell, heroin & crack cocaine). (for the record, I know nothing about the case and am just talking about process and my experience.) Before getting in line and entering the court room, all of the prospective jurors filled out a numbered questionnaire, the majority of them yes or no questions. In the court room, each person stands up, says "Hi, my name is X and I am juror #1" or whatnot, and then goes down the list of questions, reciting his or her answers. It was actually interesting to follow along listening to the other folks' answers, as the questionnaire started with biographical info [are you employed and by whom? what is your profession? if you have a spouse/partner, what is her/his profession? do you have kids? do they live at home?] After that came all the yes and no's, and a person would literally say, "numbers 4 through 12 are 'no,' number 13 is 'yes,' numbers 14 through 22 are 'no.' If there were no interruptions it might well have been possible to get through 49 people at a quick clip. Unfortunately, almost every prospective juror was asked to go into detail about one or more question response. Then, if there was still a potential issue re: juror suitability, the prospective juror was asked to come up front.
And on Tuesday, I was one of the lucky contestants asked to step forward and go into the anteroom for a sidebar. In my case, it had to do with the question asking (paraphrased): "Do you have strong feelings regarding drugs, federal laws regarding drugs, and the prosecution of drug laws." To which I answered yes. In the sideroom the judge and the attorneys were very pleasant and patient with me; they wanted me to think about and tell them whether my strong feelings about drugs (my feelings: drugs can really mess up people's lives, and have led to death and tragedy) would influence my ability to remain impartial as a juror. I found this a very difficult question to answer, because (as I told them) I'd never been in this situation before, and although I would like to say that yes, I would definitely remain impartial and treat the defendant fairly, always thinking "innocent until the evidence of the state proves him/her guilty beyond all reasonable doubt." But I just couldn't know for sure. I was maybe 95% sure, and after we went around in circles a bit that's what I told them. *sigh* The issue of a juror's duty is something I hadn't given much thought to from a personal, in-the-moment perspective. At any rate, I had my sidebar and then they moved onto person #14. After moving down the line through person #17 or so, the judge told us that they had a big enough juror pool, and those people who had not been interviewed yet were free to leave (#s 18 -49). The first 17 of us stayed for awhile as more deliberation went on in the sideroom, and then the two selected jurors were announced (not me! Hallelujah!)
As much as I enjoy my courtroom dramas (Twelve Angry Men; To Inherit the Wind; To Kill A Mockingbird...), it feels different when you are the person being asked to examine your thoughts and emotions and question your ability to (a) be impartial, and (b) recognize when you are not being impartial. I will be doing some thinking on this. Considering I have a second date that I have to report in to the court for (in June - I've never received a summons for more than 1 date before!), that's a good thing.
I'm at the end of this post, but I also want to note that I was surprised by the number of prospective jurors who responded that they did not have strong feelings regarding drugs, etc. I recognize that it is a complex issue with multiple aspects. But it certainly something I feel strongly about! To recount a story from my own life, my dad has a coworker who is the mother of two sons, one age ~12 and one age ~19. The 19-yr old had been living on his own for a year or so, when (just this April) the mom got called at work by the police, who told her that her son was dead of an accidental drug overdose. While I don't know my dad's coworker on more than a face-recognition/say 'hello' and chat basis, I reach out to her with my heart. It always brings it home, where instead of a news story or a set of statistics, it is that neighbor, that woman's son, that brother. (What one-word emotion expresses how I feel here? I will go to bed thinking about that, too.)
p.s. On a lighter note, who knows where the quote in my post title comes from? I'll give you a hint: one of the charges was calling someone "fat face!"