I have mentioned jury duty before in passing as our other civic responsibility beyond voting and paying taxes. Oddly, until last week, I had never had the opportunity to participate in the process. I received a jury summons in college that required me to call in twice a day to see if I needed to show up, and then released at the end of the week without putting in an appearance. Near the beginning of 2020, I received a letter from the county asking to verify my eligibility… and then the rest of 2020 happened.
Earlier this year, I received an eligibility verification letter again and completed the survey for the county. I then received a summons for the first week of August, filled in a survey about myself (including experience with lawyers and law enforcement) but was dismissed on the preceding Friday. A couple weeks later, I received another eligibility notice, which included a question as to the best month for my schedule. I listed November, since my travel/convention schedule is usually light this time of year. Not surprisingly, I received a summons to appear in November, and on the preceding Friday (and Saturday and Sunday), an email hit my inbox saying I needed to appear at the courthouse. (Interestingly, it was a different courthouse than my previous summons.)
Bright and early last Monday morning, I gathered my packed lunch and reading material and headed in. I went through what most travelers would consider light security – I was allowed to take my water bottle in and keep my shoes on. A bailiff directed me to the jury room, where I stood in line to have my name highlighted on a list and my juror number pointed out to me, then in the next line to scan the barcode on my actual summons and provide me with a debit card for the ten dollars a day plus mileage that my county pays. I stood in a third line for general instructions, which was primarily where the bathrooms, coffee, and donuts were located, and found a comfortable seat. Once everyone was checked in – about an hour after the time we were scheduled to arrive – a series of instructional videos ran explaining the overall process. One of the bailiffs mentioned that they were supposed to seat four juries that day – those can be either 6- or 12-person juries – so they did expect to call a good chunk of the people in the room.
I was in the second group called. Like the summons, this is randomized – the bailiff read off a sorted list of thirty-five juror numbers (the high end of the numbers was close to 200) and we assembled near the assigned bailiff who led us to the appropriate courtroom. We were reminded to turn off any electronics before entering the courtroom, and filed in to sit in the first four rows of the audience benches, which look like and are as comfortable as old-style church pews.
The judge walked through some instructions and introductory questions for the potential jurors – making sure everyone was over eighteen and could understand English – and explained the expected duration of the trial before reading the charges, the list of witnesses, the defendant’s, and the attorneys’ names. He (in this case) then asked people to raise their hand if they had an affirmative answer to any of the necessary questions, which were effectively:
1) Do you have a reason to be biased for or against the defendant for these particular charges?
2) Do you have any personal or work obligations that would prevent you from serving on this jury (for the next four days)?
3) Do you know the defendant, any of the witnesses, or any of the attorneys?
All of the people who answered affirmatively then had to give brief explanations for their answers; after a brief break, they were all dismissed from the jury pool for this trial. After that, a randomized group of four potential jurors were summoned to the jury box and asked questions by both the prosecution and defense attorneys about their survey answers and whether they knew anyone who had experienced or been accused of the particular charges this trial was about.
While dismissals at this point were unexplained, the defense appeared to dismiss anyone who had personal experience or close friends/relatives who had experience with the charges (which is logical); the prosecution dismissed one person who had a friend accused on similar charges. There were also some dismissals that seemed related to regular exposure to certain groups of people, particularly lawyers and law enforcement. When someone was dismissed, another random number was called and added to the panel until a group of four was accepted by both the prosecution and defense. At that point, they were ushered by the bailiff to the jury deliberation room and another group of four were called up to the jury box. This process continued until a dozen jurors and two alternates were selected.
I won’t discuss the particulars of the case – that’s better suited for the courtroom and the jury deliberation room – but I will discuss the trial process from a juror’s perspective next week.
