My second experience in Jury Duty
My roommate told me that if I wanted to get out of jury duty on a criminal case, I had to say this:
"I believe a strong burden of proof rests on the prosecution."
I got called in last Thursday at the end of the day. The judge didn't finish excusing people by the end, so we had to come back in again today (and by "we", I mean all 65 people who were called in on Thursday.) I was number 32, by the way, which meant the only way I'd end up on the jury was if 20 people ahead of me got excused. I was pretty sure I wouldn't get on the jury anyway. (FYI, last time I was number 13. I got on the jury right away.)
The defendant was accused of stabbing someone with a knife. Evidence was probably going to be presented by two witnesses. The trial would take no more than five days, the judge said.
The first thing the judge asked is if anyone had any encounters with the law that would affect their ability to be a fair and impartial juror. First he asked the 12 people on the jury seats. A couple people got excused. Then he asked the first row. Some people did get excused because they'd had horrible things happen to them.
One particularly memorable case was number 20. He described a time when he had been jumped by two guys in his neighborhood who were "not Caucasian". He said it would affect his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He was excused (probably for being racist.) This was the same guy who had made a big stink last Thursday, saying he couldn't come in today because he was "irreplaceable" at his job (as lighting designer for the Ellen DeGeneres show.)
Eventually, enough people were excused that I was moved to the first row. (The way it works, see, is that there's 12 people in the jury box, and 10 potential jurors in the first row of the audience. They talk to the jurors and the first-row people and decides who goes and who stays.) So eventually they had to ask me if I had any issues that would affect my ability to be a fair and impartial juror.
My response: "Back in 2008, I was in a car accident that wasn't my fault. The other party ran a red light and hit me. She tried to sue me, though, to pin it on me, but her insurance company talked her out of it."
"And how would this affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
"I don't know if this is a bad thing, but I think it's made me feel that the prosecution needs a really strong burden of proof. I'm a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty. This also ties in to the last question about prior jury service -" lemme explain this part. We were supposed to say 1) if we had issues with the case, 2) our occupation, 3) marital status/partner's occupation, and 4) whether or not we'd served on a jury and if we had reached a verdict (but we couldn't say WHAT the verdict was.) " - I've served in jury service before, and I was the foreperson, and we did reach a verdict. But to be honest I think it was mostly because we wanted to go home. And the evidence was kind of straddling the line between 'reasonable doubt' and 'far-fetched doubt'."
"And did this experience sour your feelings about working on a jury?" asked the judge.
"Oh no. It was a great experience. But if I have any issues, that's where they'd come from."
"And do you think this would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
"I'd like to think it wouldn't."
"Well that's good." The judge did not excuse me at that moment.
After the judge was done asking questions, he invited the lawyers to ask the jury some questions. This surprised me because I didn't remember this part in the last case I was in.
First the defense attorney came up. He was kind of a short guy, going a little bald, and he talked really fast and nervously. I liked him already.
"Juror number fifteen," he asked, "You see there's been a car accident, car A and car B. The driver of car A comes up and tells you what happens, and he seems very credible, like there's no reason to think he's lying. But then the driver of car B comes up and tells you his story, and he seems credible too. What would you do?"
Number fifteen replied that he couldn't come to a conclusion. So the defense asked "So is there anyone else who would do that? Would anyone else say 'eh, I don't know' if that happened, or could you reach a conclusion? Who would do that?"
I raised my hand. "Who would come to a conclusion?" I asked, trying to clarify the question.
"That was number 32," he said for the record. "But yeah, no, who would say 'eh, I don't know' and not be able to come - no wait, let's say there's one guy, and just he tells you what happened, and he seems credible, could you come to a conclusion?"
I was flummoxed. "So wait... one guy or two guys?"
The judge jumped in. "Well hang on, that was two questions. Let me put it this way. One witness is giving the evidence. If he's a credible witness and he's saying the defendant is guilty, would that be enough for you to reach a guilty verdict?"
I shook my head. "No. Not on my conscience."
"And that ties back to what you were saying earlier?" asked the judge.
"Yes," I replied.
"Thank you."
Then it was the prosecutor's turn to ask the jury questions. He was tall with big shoulders and wavy black hair. He turned to the jury box (away from me) and asked, "First let me just find something out... do any of you guys just not like me? Have a problem with me?" Then he turned and looked at me. "I'm not even gonna ask you, number 32."
Aww.
Nobody responded, though.
"Juror number 7," said the prosecutor, "would you close your eyes for a second?" She did.
The prosecutor picked up a pen, showed the jury, and dropped it on his desk. "You may open your eyes, number 7," said the prosecutor, and she did. "Number 15! Did I just pick up a pen?"
"Yes," said 15.
"Number 7, do you believe him?"
"...Yes," said number 7.
"Why?"
"Well... I don't know. I have no reason not to."
"Would that be enough to convince you in a court of law? Or would you need fingerprints and DNA evidence?"
"Well, in court, I would need more proof," she said. "And I would believe him since it's nothing serious, but if it were something more serious, I would need more proof."
"So, what? You'd need fingerprint evidence to know for sure? You'd need me to get a DNA sample from the mosquito that bit him while he was eating pizza one day or something? And besides do you know how hard it is to get fingerprints on a small, wet object like this pen?"
The pen was wet?
"...Yeah," said 7.
The judge excused us for lunch.
I went to Quizno's in the L.A. Mall with two other jurors. We had a nice chat and made fun of number 20. When we got back, we waited in the hall outside, where I chatted with numbers 38, 30 and 31. Then the bailiff came out of the room and announced, "I need numbers 7 and 32 to come inside!"
Yikes! I went inside and waited for number 7 to join. Once she was with me, we went in.
"Hi!" said the judge. "You guys are excused. Just go to the jury summons room. Bailiff, you can call everyone else in now."
And as 7 and I exited the courtroom building, we watched a bunch of protesters demand justice for Michael Jackson and sing "We Are the World". (Apparently the guy who sold him the bad ganja was on trial that day.)
"I believe a strong burden of proof rests on the prosecution."
I got called in last Thursday at the end of the day. The judge didn't finish excusing people by the end, so we had to come back in again today (and by "we", I mean all 65 people who were called in on Thursday.) I was number 32, by the way, which meant the only way I'd end up on the jury was if 20 people ahead of me got excused. I was pretty sure I wouldn't get on the jury anyway. (FYI, last time I was number 13. I got on the jury right away.)
The defendant was accused of stabbing someone with a knife. Evidence was probably going to be presented by two witnesses. The trial would take no more than five days, the judge said.
The first thing the judge asked is if anyone had any encounters with the law that would affect their ability to be a fair and impartial juror. First he asked the 12 people on the jury seats. A couple people got excused. Then he asked the first row. Some people did get excused because they'd had horrible things happen to them.
One particularly memorable case was number 20. He described a time when he had been jumped by two guys in his neighborhood who were "not Caucasian". He said it would affect his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. He was excused (probably for being racist.) This was the same guy who had made a big stink last Thursday, saying he couldn't come in today because he was "irreplaceable" at his job (as lighting designer for the Ellen DeGeneres show.)
Eventually, enough people were excused that I was moved to the first row. (The way it works, see, is that there's 12 people in the jury box, and 10 potential jurors in the first row of the audience. They talk to the jurors and the first-row people and decides who goes and who stays.) So eventually they had to ask me if I had any issues that would affect my ability to be a fair and impartial juror.
My response: "Back in 2008, I was in a car accident that wasn't my fault. The other party ran a red light and hit me. She tried to sue me, though, to pin it on me, but her insurance company talked her out of it."
"And how would this affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
"I don't know if this is a bad thing, but I think it's made me feel that the prosecution needs a really strong burden of proof. I'm a strong believer in innocent until proven guilty. This also ties in to the last question about prior jury service -" lemme explain this part. We were supposed to say 1) if we had issues with the case, 2) our occupation, 3) marital status/partner's occupation, and 4) whether or not we'd served on a jury and if we had reached a verdict (but we couldn't say WHAT the verdict was.) " - I've served in jury service before, and I was the foreperson, and we did reach a verdict. But to be honest I think it was mostly because we wanted to go home. And the evidence was kind of straddling the line between 'reasonable doubt' and 'far-fetched doubt'."
"And did this experience sour your feelings about working on a jury?" asked the judge.
"Oh no. It was a great experience. But if I have any issues, that's where they'd come from."
"And do you think this would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
"I'd like to think it wouldn't."
"Well that's good." The judge did not excuse me at that moment.
After the judge was done asking questions, he invited the lawyers to ask the jury some questions. This surprised me because I didn't remember this part in the last case I was in.
First the defense attorney came up. He was kind of a short guy, going a little bald, and he talked really fast and nervously. I liked him already.
"Juror number fifteen," he asked, "You see there's been a car accident, car A and car B. The driver of car A comes up and tells you what happens, and he seems very credible, like there's no reason to think he's lying. But then the driver of car B comes up and tells you his story, and he seems credible too. What would you do?"
Number fifteen replied that he couldn't come to a conclusion. So the defense asked "So is there anyone else who would do that? Would anyone else say 'eh, I don't know' if that happened, or could you reach a conclusion? Who would do that?"
I raised my hand. "Who would come to a conclusion?" I asked, trying to clarify the question.
"That was number 32," he said for the record. "But yeah, no, who would say 'eh, I don't know' and not be able to come - no wait, let's say there's one guy, and just he tells you what happened, and he seems credible, could you come to a conclusion?"
I was flummoxed. "So wait... one guy or two guys?"
The judge jumped in. "Well hang on, that was two questions. Let me put it this way. One witness is giving the evidence. If he's a credible witness and he's saying the defendant is guilty, would that be enough for you to reach a guilty verdict?"
I shook my head. "No. Not on my conscience."
"And that ties back to what you were saying earlier?" asked the judge.
"Yes," I replied.
"Thank you."
Then it was the prosecutor's turn to ask the jury questions. He was tall with big shoulders and wavy black hair. He turned to the jury box (away from me) and asked, "First let me just find something out... do any of you guys just not like me? Have a problem with me?" Then he turned and looked at me. "I'm not even gonna ask you, number 32."
Aww.
Nobody responded, though.
"Juror number 7," said the prosecutor, "would you close your eyes for a second?" She did.
The prosecutor picked up a pen, showed the jury, and dropped it on his desk. "You may open your eyes, number 7," said the prosecutor, and she did. "Number 15! Did I just pick up a pen?"
"Yes," said 15.
"Number 7, do you believe him?"
"...Yes," said number 7.
"Why?"
"Well... I don't know. I have no reason not to."
"Would that be enough to convince you in a court of law? Or would you need fingerprints and DNA evidence?"
"Well, in court, I would need more proof," she said. "And I would believe him since it's nothing serious, but if it were something more serious, I would need more proof."
"So, what? You'd need fingerprint evidence to know for sure? You'd need me to get a DNA sample from the mosquito that bit him while he was eating pizza one day or something? And besides do you know how hard it is to get fingerprints on a small, wet object like this pen?"
The pen was wet?
"...Yeah," said 7.
The judge excused us for lunch.
I went to Quizno's in the L.A. Mall with two other jurors. We had a nice chat and made fun of number 20. When we got back, we waited in the hall outside, where I chatted with numbers 38, 30 and 31. Then the bailiff came out of the room and announced, "I need numbers 7 and 32 to come inside!"
Yikes! I went inside and waited for number 7 to join. Once she was with me, we went in.
"Hi!" said the judge. "You guys are excused. Just go to the jury summons room. Bailiff, you can call everyone else in now."
And as 7 and I exited the courtroom building, we watched a bunch of protesters demand justice for Michael Jackson and sing "We Are the World". (Apparently the guy who sold him the bad ganja was on trial that day.)