Jury Selection

Jury selection had a process, but by design, it also contained an element of random selection. The process essentially consisted of first eliminazting those people who did not want to be there and then eliminating those people the judge or the lawyers saw as a poor fit for this trial. For those that did not want to be there, it was clear that the reason they were excused was because they tried so hard to find minute reasons why they might not be qualified that the judge had to be concerned that they would not be a fair juror. I tend to agree that these people need to be excused because the last thing anyone wants in a trial is someone with a grudge. Surprisingly, when I was selected, I did not hold a grudge. I was disappointed because I knew I would miss one of the most important meetings in our company's history which was scheduled for the next day, but when the trial began I naturally focused on doing a good job - I think all of the other jurors took their job with the same seriousness as well. When I entered the jury room, there were 64 other individuals. Given only 13 would be selected, I thoughts my odds were pretty strong that I would not be selected - just more than 1 in 5 odds of being selected. The process works where essentially 12 people are randomly selected to sit in the juror's box. The judge questions each juror and determines if they should be excused. The prosecutor and criminal defender are then given the opportunity to question the prospective panel. After questioning this initial 12, in rotating order, the criminal defender and prosecutor eliminate those jurors they do not want to keep on the panel. As each juror is eliminated, a new juror is added to the panel and is asked a round of questions the judge, prosecutor, and criminal defender. The longer you are not randomly selected the better your chances of not being on the jury with the one caveat that the later you are selected, the higher the odds of you being selected for the jury. The only people who had the lowest chance (and in the end no chance), were those who were part of the jury pool, but never selected to replace an excused juror. The catch in this whole process is that a. you look the accused in the eye the whole time because in our case, he sat just 12 feet away from us, directly across, and b. the first person you test on honest testimony is yourself. There are several issues I could have cited that probably would have gotten me removed from the jury not because I feel I would have been unfair in my evaluation of the facts, but because I could have spun the story in such a way that either the judge or lawyers would have felt compelled to excuse me. I certainly had priorities that week and no one at work would have faulted me. I just found it too hard to stretch the truth to make my case. While I have had experiences, like almost everyone else, that could influence my evaluation of the facts in the case, I knew that in all reality, I would be able to evaluate the facts independantly and not let past experiences influences my evaluation. I think ultimately the difference between someone selected and someone not, is the jury's ability to be able to collectively work together to evaluate the facts of the case presented. All individuals will bring in past experience, but the colletive group will guide each individual to evaluate the facts presented and come to a unanimous decision based on those facts.

Face to Face with the Accused

Continued from 12 Angry Men

When our jury pool was called to the court room for jury selection, I took the situation lightly. I do not know why but we all were joking as we walked from the jury room to the court room. When I entered the court room, my feelings immediately changed. The courtroom was smaller than one might imagine and it was a circular room - the wall never ended. The judge was at her desk. The bailiff was giving us instructions for where to sit. There were three other men sitting at desks in the room. It took me a moment to realize that this was a criminal case and that the three men I was looking at were the prosecutor, criminal public defender, and the accused. I immediately felt self-conscious and more serious realizing that this group of people who only moments ago were joking and laughing, now had the future of one man in its hands. Looking at the accused, I also felt a little ashamed when I thought, "I wonder what he did," forgetting that the bedrock of the criminal justice system is the statement "innocent until proven guilty." I can not imagine being in the position of the accused and wondering what this group holds for his future for the course of this person history changes based on the decision made by some group of 12 people sprinkled within the 65 people in the room. Very eerie. Very sobering. Very serious.

12 Angry Men (and Women)

I sat on a jury this week in a criminal trial in Marin County at the Civic Center. The whole process was very fascinating - much more so than the mock trials one does in primary school. I am not going to write a narrative about the experience, but I do have some interesting observations that I will be posting as part of series over the course of the next two weeks.

After having been through this particular case, I found the jury system to be quite an achievment for our country. 12 average people (and an alternate) were brought together to examine a set of facts with two sets of arguments to describe what those facts mean. The jury's job is to analyze the facts presented as evidence and to determine if the facts presented determine beyond a reasonable doubt if the accused is guilty. Nothing that either lawyer says is to be considered evidence. The only evidence allowed is testimony and physical evidence entered during the course of someone's testimony. The jury can choose to believe all, some, or none or anyone's testimony. After the testimony is presented, then the jury meets until a decision is made. While this all probably seems familiar from watching popular TV shows, to live the experience is much more intense because while TV only shows high drama points, it is the details that make the system so interesting. Keep reading...

I understand a lot more about why trials are so expensive in this country. The procedures leading up to, during and after the trial took much more time than the trial itself. Whereas the trial took no more than an hour, the jury selection phase itself took 2 1/2 hours. Instructions to the jury before, during, and after the trial took 1 1/2 more hours. While this seems time consuming, without the intensely detailed procedures, the jury system would not work. The length of the procedures serve to act as a level set for all trials where juries are provided standard sets of instruction (which is in fact training) and ensures that each trial is conducted in the same manor. Given all of this work to get the jury selected, trained, deliver arguments, etc. it is critical that the jury come to a decision. Judge Verna Adams had 24 other cases besides the one I particpated in and repeating the process creates a bigger backlog. To that point, to any prospective juror who had previously sat on a jury, the judge asked if that jury had come to a decision. No one answered that they had not, but I wonder if Judge Adams would have excused that person from service? All in all, for about an hour of testimony, the whole trial, at least the part I participated in from jury selection to verdict, took 2 days. This did not include discovery, pre-trial motions, etc.