How It All Went Down

Well, jury duty is over. After a week that was 80% soul-crushing boredom, 20% fascinating legal minutiae, I got to hear those words that every prospective juror hopes to hear :

“Your honor, the people ask that the court thank and dismiss juror number six.”

Whew, I dodged that bullet. Not that I wasn’t willing to serve, but after a few days the novelty wore off. If I had been chosen, I would have been fair and impartial, but I was really ready to go.

So why was I dismissed? I assume it’s because during the jury selection process I openly questioned the following instructions from the judge :

  • Translated Testimony - In our particular case, one of the witnesses was going to require a translator. According to the judge, even if we were fluent in the language that the witness was speaking, the only version of the testimony that could be considered during deliberations were the words of the court-appointed translator. Though the reason for this instruction makes sense (when evaluating the evidence, all the jurors should be on the same page), it seemed odd that the judge would instruct us to overlook any potential translation mistakes.
  • Transcript Testimony - Since one of the witnesses was going to be unavailable during the main trial, a transcript of that witnesses testimony from an earlier hearing would be submitted instead. The judge told us that the transcript should be considered in the same regard as any of the live testimony. While I understand that this is necessary, transcripts make it nearly impossible to follow the judge’s earlier order to evaluate testimony in part on the witness’ “attitude” and “demeanor”. In addition to that, it seemed that relying on testimony taken before the trial may leave some pertinent questions unasked.

    When the judge was done explaining a particular aspect of the law, we were asked if we fully understood what we were told. Both times, I raised my hand and asked questions. While some may interpret my questions as the kind of obnoxious verbal parsing that only a lawyer could appreciate, it felt to me that I was being asked to ignore my instincts in an attempt to level the playing field.

    At the end of the questioning, I was asked if I would have any problem remaining fair and impartial. The way I see it, my job as a juror was to play the game according to the rules they give me. If the rules are screwed up, then that’s not my fault. So I answered “no”, but I guess they didn’t believe me.

    On a side note, I have no respect for people who try to weasel their way out of jury duty. Granted, most of the people who asked to be dismissed really did have a financial hardship, there were a couple people who clearly stretched the truth to get out of serving. It’s probably for the best though. Jerks like that would make terrible jurors.


    • posted by greg on April 25, 2004 @ 6:21 pm

    4 comments

    1. You’re definitely better off; while I was excited about my first actual jury duty, it ended up being rather unpleasant; the case was a clear-cut one of a crack/heroin dealer in Dupont Circle, D.C., and while the police witnesses were idiots and bungled what should’ve been slam dunk evidence, and the prosecuting attorney was apparently seconds out of his graduation ceremony, there was still no way the guy wasn’t guilty… so everything was set, except that one woman refused to agree that he was guilty because the victim was a young black man (she was black) and she was worried about “messing up his life”… everyone was afraid to argue with her about it (except me, because I’m stupid) so I got put in a position where I’m sure she thought I was a total racist, and she was so unconvincing during the verdict that the defense attorney polled us, and she ALMOST caved and created a mistrial… it was very instructive, but I can’t say I want to do it again anytime soon…

      Comment by jwer — April 26, 2004 @ 4:53 am

    2. I’m with Greg. I have no sympathy for people who either bitch and moan about having to serve, or who try to weasel out of it. Like being able to vote in elections? Then don’t complain if you’re asked to sit on a jury–especially if you think there might ever be the slightest chance you could be the one facing a jury allegedly of your peers. The one time I was called was a relatively simple insurance case–and there’s no way I should have been allowed on that jury, because I knew one of the witnesses from volunteering at the local hospital. But I was never asked about anybody on the witness list, and by the time the doctor popped up on the stand we were two days into the trial. Wound up being a week of relative tedium, but I was happy to be doing one of my civic duties. Of course, it helps that at that time (as now) I work for a university that pays my regular salary if I’m called for jury duty, so I wasn’t losing several days’ wages by doing it.

      Comment by Michael — April 26, 2004 @ 8:39 am

    3. I don’t think they want smart people like you on the jury. Too much analysis of the facts slows down the legal process.

      Comment by Becky — April 26, 2004 @ 10:10 am

    4. Um, what kind of a case was it going to be? You told us about the jury selection process, but not about the crime/lawsuit/whatever.

      Comment by dAnimal — April 26, 2004 @ 6:49 pm

    Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.