I got a first-hand look at the wheels of justice in motion over the last two weeks and the big thing that I learned was that they move REALLY FREAKIN SLOW! I actually found the experience to be a very interesting one, but in the corporate world those seven days could have been squeezed into three or four.
When you first start jury duty you basically sit around in a big room waiting to be put on a "panel" of prospective jurors for a trial. I actually didn't have to wait too long before being sent over to a court room with about 40 other people. As I soon found out, it actually takes a lot of prospects to fill the final sixteen seats (twelve plus four alternates).
The trial we were up for was attempted murder in the 2nd degree, assault in the 1st degree, and tampering with a witness in the 4th degree. A guy allegedly slashed his girlfriend/common-law wife with a razor blade in a jealous rage. One of the cuts hit the main artery in her wrist and she apparently lost a ton of blood. After being arrested, and despite signing an order of protection, he called her 60+ times to try to talk her out of testifying against him.
The first thing the judge does is form a "bullshit line" down the center isle in the courtroom. This is where anyone can stand up and present the judge with his or her bullshit reason why they can't serve as a juror for the given trial. Some people do have legitimate excuses, such as prior travel arrangements, various hardships, or personal biases based on the nature of the case. But, the shit-eating grins I was seeing as the people would turn around after being dismissed by the judge told me that most people were full of it. Even if you get dismissed, you still have to hang around for at least three days while they try to put you on other trials. I guess if you keep the BS flowing you'll be done after the three days and won't have to serve on a jury.
I didn't really want to take a ton of time off of work to serve on a jury, but I also didn't have it in me to walk up to the front of the courtroom and stand in front of the judge and feed him a line of crap. I don't know about all judges, but this one definitely had an air of "justice" about him that compelled me to do my civic duty.
They next call up eighteen people at random to go sit in the jury box and answer questions from the judge and the attorneys. The judge asks the entire group basic questions about whether or not they know the defendant or either of the attorneys, whether or not they can be fair and impartial jurors, if anyone is a lawyer, if anyone has been arrested or knows anyone that has been arrested, etc. For most people this is smooth sailing, but there are the few folks who claim that they aren't able to find someone guilty based on just "reasonable" doubt, or the guy who got roughed up by the police a few years back and doesn't believe anything they say.
After that each person answers some questions about where they live, what they do, how old they are, etc. It's actually a bit uncomfortable to have everyone in the room (including the guy with the anger management problem sitting in the defendant's chair) know so much about you. You know everyone's basic personal information, plus the fact that this guy's younger brother was murdered, and this other guy was arrested for disorderly conduct, and that yet another guy has two siblings in jail. For the record, I didn't feel it necessary to mention those little underage drinking and indecent exposure incidents from my youth. :-)
Finally, the two attorneys get to ask some questions. They seem to focus in on the potential trouble-makers that they want to eliminate. For example, a few people said that they might be biased by the fact that the victim in this case wouldn't be testifying. (Apparently those 60+ calls worked.)
Everyone is then sent out of the courtroom while the attorneys vote some people off the island. I think they each get a certain number of vetoes. I wasn't in the first round of 18, but only seven jurors survived the first cut so I figured I'd be in the next round.
While I didn't want to get up and lie to the judge, I wasn't above trying little tricks people had told me about how to not get picked. For example, I'd heard that if you dress in nice business attire you'll be less likely to be picked. So, I did that and also tried to make myself appear a little I'm-way-too-smart-for-this.
This plan worked really well! So well in fact, that I was the only juror selected from my panel of eighteen. Guess I should have tried the bullshit line.
They got the final eight out of the next panel and the trial started right away. I figured things would get exciting at this point. Boy, was I wrong. This is definitely not what you see on Law & Order. What they call the "evidentiary" part of the trial is so slow and boring that it's painful. Most of the witnesses were their just to establish basic facts or to provide a means to get things into evidence. Very little of the "Isn't true that blah blah blah!" that you might expect to hear.
The other thing that you become very aware of is that these real-life lawyers are no where near as articulate as Sam Waterston. The attorneys on both sides basically sucked. The highlight was the video expert trying to explain to the 70-something defense attorney how he copied the digital files off of the hotel's computer. I really hope he was a public defender and the defendant didn't actually have to pay for this guy. It's easy to see how people with money get off easy.
Although boring, there were definitely moments that drove home the fact that this wasn't TV and that the stakes were real. Listening to the tape of the 911 call and seeing photos of the victim after the incident were two of them. The only real interesting part was when the defendant himself testified. Unfortunately for him, he kind of dug his own grave by claiming that the victim actually inflicted the wounds on herself as he was trying to wrestle the razor blade away from her. His story was just way too vague and inconsistent with the physical evidence (her wounds, blood spatter, etc.).
The prosecutor made somewhat of a comeback with her closing arguments, but after an unceremonious end to that part of the trial we started deliberations.
In general the case seemed pretty obvious to all of us. We did ask to see some of the evidence again and have the laws read back to us, but it only took us about 3 hours to come to a verdict. Even in this case, where it seemed pretty obvious that he was guilty, you definitely have some hesitation knowing that someone's fate is in your hands.
The thing I was surprised by was just how much on your own you are once you start deliberations. You can submit questions to the judge, but in general, the 12 of you are left to interpret the facts and the law. It's easy to see how the makeup of the jury can swing the outcome. There were definitely certain people with stronger personalities that dominated the discussions, and others who basically said little or nothing.
In the end, we found him not guilty of attempted murder, and guilty of assault and tampering. The most uncomfortable part was when the foreman had to read the verdicts. I think that both sides were pleased with the outcome. I think the prosecutors knew that they didn't really have a case for attempted murder, and the defendant knew he was guilty and just didn't want to go up the river for 20 years on attempted murder. In fact, after the verdicts were read, his weeping mother mouthed "thank you" to the jury.
Definitely an interesting and eye-opening experience. I know that everyone tends to avoid it like the plague, but I highly recommend that you do it at least once. I'd actually like to do it again sometime just to get a basis for comparison with this trial.
 | I was an alternate on a case in Florida a few months ago. The charge was possession of crack-cocain and the guy was clearly guilty. The whole process from jury selection to verdict took less than a day; maybe because the case or the state only required 6 jurors and one alternate. I was also very impressed by the judge and would much rather have my fate in his hands were I the defendant. The OJ case is a proof for me that the juror system can be influanced very easily. |
 | I have no idea how they actually pick who should be called up for jury duty, because it just makes no sense to me that James would be called 2 - 3 times, yet I've never been called. |
 | I love jury duty, I think it is a great experinece. Last time I was called for state grand jury proceedings. It is much diffenrt than sitting on a regular jury. The job of a state grand juror is to review evidence in cases and based on the evidence presented by the prosecutors decide whether or not cases go to trial. During my 20 weeks of service ( yeah once a week for 20 weeks) I got to review evidence in ATM scams, murder, and my favorite organized crime cases. Being from Jersey you can imagine how many of those cases I heard. Best part is you get to hear all the evidence (wire taps, people wearing wires, video, and key witness, all without ever going into a court room) and you can readily see how close hollywood comes to making these mob movies seem real. It's really cool. Plus the pay sacle is different. I got 20 bucks a day plus gas and tolls.In the peoples republic of New Jersey that came out to about 120 bucks a week. So yeah I suggest everyone do it at least once |
 | It's really interesting to hear your perspective. I worked at the manhattan D.A.'s office years ago as a paralegal. It was my first job in the city and back when I was half-way to law school. It's really not glamorous at all...although I did have a handful of "law and order" moments! It's always so fascinating to me to hear about deliberations because when I worked there and when you had a case that was on trial, all you did was try and interepret what the jury was thinking! btw, have the buildings gotten less gritty and nasty??! |
 | ginarw wrote on Sep 29, '04, edited on Sep 29, '04 Lucky you Dave!!! At least you had an interesting case!
I on the other hand, got called & spent two days never getting past the intitial room. Then a couple hours before the time we were to be dismissed I got called in to a case. It was regarding the STL airport expansion. It was interesting watching the lawyers in action. Needless to say the case sounded boring ---so I told them I was a nurse & I didn't think I could get off work. Lucky for me I didn't get picked. I was never so bored!!
Ken on the other hand has gotten called twice. The first time he went he knew a bunch of guys there. They brought cards & went out & had beers for lunch. The second time my bro got him out of going! |
 | baker wrote on Sep 29, '04 Wow, that is a really interesting write-up! I love hearing the details of this stuff.... |
 | kayt wrote on Sep 30, '04, edited on Sep 30, '04  I have no idea how they actually pick who should be called up for jury duty, because it just makes no sense to me that James would be called 2 - 3 times, yet I've never been called.  Must be those ties of yours to Bush...=)
But Dave, very interesting. Thanks for passing on the details. |
 | Good stuff...thanks for the feedback. I had jury duty back in July but was not selected, its interesting to hear what goes on from someone who was. |
 | Very interesting. I only got called once and I never got past the first step. I would love to be picked for a trial, but I would have trouble if it were someone charged with murder. Maybe next time. Thanks for the details of your trial. |
 | I was called for jury duty early this year, but had to defer it because I am the sole care-giver for our 3-year old son. They were very understanding, and just reminded me that when he starts school, I am expected to serve, which I will do willingly.
The interesting part is that we live in Somerset County, NJ. The time of year of my service was during the Jayson Williams trial, here in Somerville. I'm not saying I would have been on that jury, but I would have been reporting during the pandemonium that beset our little county seat- it was craziness with the national media here for weeks! |
| |
