![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Jury Duty
I thought I would write about how jury duty goes, both for fellow USAmericans who haven't done it and are wondering about the process and for those who will never be called up for jury duty in the US but who are just generally interested in how institutions like this operate.
Anyway, I was alerted at the beginning of December that I was to come to judicial building starting this morning at 9. I arrived early, and so did a bunch of people. So we all had to stand around waiting for 9. We were given lanyards by the very kind bailiffs (they were all retirement-age people, so I wonder if it's a volunteer position? I will look into this), and when the doors opened, we filed in and gave the person at the desk our name. In turn, they gave us a parking pass, an information card with phone numbers for us to call for the rest of the week, and a badge to put on our lanyard. On one side, the badge was blue and said JUROR really big (this, it was explained later, was so that if we're walking down the hall to the bathroom and we talk to two lawyers talking about a case we might be on, the lawyers would know and would stop talking about it. A good thing) and on the back was our juror number.
It took a while to get all 299 people into the room (only one person didn't show up). So I sat and read my book for a while until the assistant/deputy clerk of court (I can't remember which her title was) came in and took roll call. The lawyers for this week's cases were all seated along one side of the room. When our name was called, we had to stand up, look at them, and tell them our name, age, occupation, marital status, and occupation of our spouse if we had one. As you can imagine, it takes a while to get through 299 people, but it was quite interesting seeing the range of people and what their occupations were. Hilariously, there was one woman whose husband is an archivist, and I turned around to look at her when she said that, and she made an, "I know, can you believe it? Two archivist-related people in one room?" face at me, which was charming. Also, another person who works in the libraries was there, though I didn't talk to him.
After we established that everyone was there and the lawyers all took notes on what they could judge of our appearance and answers, there was a round of "Who Gets Exempt." A judge came in and did this one. She would ask questions and if they applied to us, we would stand and tell them your number. She did explain quite clearly that if any of the questions were of a sensitive nature and we didn't want to stand up in front of everyone, we could come to talk to her about it later, which I appreciated.
Some of the reasons you might get exempt: if you've done jury duty in the last year or a grand jury in the past few years, if you have a medical condition that might complicate it, if you have very young children at home and are the primary caregiver, if you are a felon, if you're a full-time student or teacher, if you have less than a 6th grade education, if you don't speak English well. Also, if you're over the age of 65, you can opt out. I was happy to see that none of the people who were older than that did opt out--as the judge said (and I quite agree), we want people with the wisdom of experience to serve.
Then at the end, if you had indicated that one of those applied to you, you would go up one by one and talk to the judge and she would either excuse you (say for something medical), transfer you to another time (say if you were a student or if you had some pressing personal thing that you had to take care of this week), or tell you that you were not excused. I would say about 25 people went up into the line and about 12 of them were excused or transferred at this time.
After a break, the judge who was seeing today's case came in. It was a criminal case against a youngish black man who was pleading not guilty to not pulling over when a cop car tried to get him to. In December of 2023. I obviously have Feelings about this, but we won't get into those.
The judge read the charges to us, told us what our duty would be to listen to everything and how the jury process would work. And then we did another round of "Are You Disqualified?" He told us the names of everyone involved (the defendant, lawyers for both sides, witnesses, etc.) and asked if anyone knew any of them. None did. Then he asked if any of us knew anything about the case before we came in (like from media reports or local gossip). None did. Then he asked a series of questions that I was unsure of how to answer.
They were essentially like, "Have you had any relationship with law enforcement that might keep you from being unbiased?" [Which. Like. Everyone is biased. Come on.] One middle aged white guy stood up and said that cops had lied about him when he was in college so he was disinclined to believe them. I have not had any personal experiences with cops myself, so I didn't say anything. But the next question was basically something like, "Do you have beliefs about law enforcement that might keep you from being impartial?" And I was like... .... .... But the room had a bunch of black people, and I know the black community here doesn't have a great relationship with police even by national standards, so I figured if they could all claim to be impartial, then I could to. Even though I am fully ready to believe that a cop would lie about anything.
After all that, a handful of people were again excused and then we had actual jury selection. My impression is they do it by random assignment of numbers. The deputy clerk would read each number and ask the defense and prosecution lawyers to respond. They would look at the person, at their notes, and either said "please seat this juror" or "please excuse this juror." Y'all, this section was so weirdly suspenseful because sometimes it would take them a while to answer and this person would just be standing there for a while, waiting to know. And when they did ask that people be exempt, I know we were all trying to figure out why they exempted this person or that person. Sometimes you could have a fairly good guess--the defense tended to ask for white people who had military backgrounds to be excused, the prosecution asked to excuse working-class black men. This is gross, but not surprising.
But sometimes I have literally no idea why they chose to use one of their five strikes. The lady sitting next to me was nixed by the defense, and I asked her after if she had any theories as to why and she had no idea.
I was torn about wanting my name to be called. I wanted to see if anyone would nix me! But also I wasn't sure I was the best person to be on this particular case because I would have been embroiled in the moral questions of, "Okay, what if he did do it [like there's video evidence or something], but how ridiculous is it to convict a black man of being scared of the cops, so how should I react?" So it's probably better that I wasn't called.
There was one very weird moment when the judge asked if anyone had heard anything about the case, and this one woman stood up and was like, "I think I know something about the other charges." And the judge and everyone else were like ???? because there were no other charges? This was the only charge? Anyway, she and the lawyers all went up to confer, and the judge was like, "You misunderstood," or something, but later her number was called in the lotto and the defense nixed her, which was a great relief to me because the whole vibe was just very strange.
By the time all that wrapped up it was about 11:30 and we were dismissed for the rest of the day. Tomorrow we go in again and I imagine the procedure is the same. If I do end up on a jury, I will certainly report back on how that goes.
[eta] No, I was wrong. I called the number they gave us and anyone who wasn’t on the jury today does NOT ago in tomorrow but calls tomorrow night to see if they go in Wednesday.
Anyway, I was alerted at the beginning of December that I was to come to judicial building starting this morning at 9. I arrived early, and so did a bunch of people. So we all had to stand around waiting for 9. We were given lanyards by the very kind bailiffs (they were all retirement-age people, so I wonder if it's a volunteer position? I will look into this), and when the doors opened, we filed in and gave the person at the desk our name. In turn, they gave us a parking pass, an information card with phone numbers for us to call for the rest of the week, and a badge to put on our lanyard. On one side, the badge was blue and said JUROR really big (this, it was explained later, was so that if we're walking down the hall to the bathroom and we talk to two lawyers talking about a case we might be on, the lawyers would know and would stop talking about it. A good thing) and on the back was our juror number.
It took a while to get all 299 people into the room (only one person didn't show up). So I sat and read my book for a while until the assistant/deputy clerk of court (I can't remember which her title was) came in and took roll call. The lawyers for this week's cases were all seated along one side of the room. When our name was called, we had to stand up, look at them, and tell them our name, age, occupation, marital status, and occupation of our spouse if we had one. As you can imagine, it takes a while to get through 299 people, but it was quite interesting seeing the range of people and what their occupations were. Hilariously, there was one woman whose husband is an archivist, and I turned around to look at her when she said that, and she made an, "I know, can you believe it? Two archivist-related people in one room?" face at me, which was charming. Also, another person who works in the libraries was there, though I didn't talk to him.
After we established that everyone was there and the lawyers all took notes on what they could judge of our appearance and answers, there was a round of "Who Gets Exempt." A judge came in and did this one. She would ask questions and if they applied to us, we would stand and tell them your number. She did explain quite clearly that if any of the questions were of a sensitive nature and we didn't want to stand up in front of everyone, we could come to talk to her about it later, which I appreciated.
Some of the reasons you might get exempt: if you've done jury duty in the last year or a grand jury in the past few years, if you have a medical condition that might complicate it, if you have very young children at home and are the primary caregiver, if you are a felon, if you're a full-time student or teacher, if you have less than a 6th grade education, if you don't speak English well. Also, if you're over the age of 65, you can opt out. I was happy to see that none of the people who were older than that did opt out--as the judge said (and I quite agree), we want people with the wisdom of experience to serve.
Then at the end, if you had indicated that one of those applied to you, you would go up one by one and talk to the judge and she would either excuse you (say for something medical), transfer you to another time (say if you were a student or if you had some pressing personal thing that you had to take care of this week), or tell you that you were not excused. I would say about 25 people went up into the line and about 12 of them were excused or transferred at this time.
After a break, the judge who was seeing today's case came in. It was a criminal case against a youngish black man who was pleading not guilty to not pulling over when a cop car tried to get him to. In December of 2023. I obviously have Feelings about this, but we won't get into those.
The judge read the charges to us, told us what our duty would be to listen to everything and how the jury process would work. And then we did another round of "Are You Disqualified?" He told us the names of everyone involved (the defendant, lawyers for both sides, witnesses, etc.) and asked if anyone knew any of them. None did. Then he asked if any of us knew anything about the case before we came in (like from media reports or local gossip). None did. Then he asked a series of questions that I was unsure of how to answer.
They were essentially like, "Have you had any relationship with law enforcement that might keep you from being unbiased?" [Which. Like. Everyone is biased. Come on.] One middle aged white guy stood up and said that cops had lied about him when he was in college so he was disinclined to believe them. I have not had any personal experiences with cops myself, so I didn't say anything. But the next question was basically something like, "Do you have beliefs about law enforcement that might keep you from being impartial?" And I was like... .... .... But the room had a bunch of black people, and I know the black community here doesn't have a great relationship with police even by national standards, so I figured if they could all claim to be impartial, then I could to. Even though I am fully ready to believe that a cop would lie about anything.
After all that, a handful of people were again excused and then we had actual jury selection. My impression is they do it by random assignment of numbers. The deputy clerk would read each number and ask the defense and prosecution lawyers to respond. They would look at the person, at their notes, and either said "please seat this juror" or "please excuse this juror." Y'all, this section was so weirdly suspenseful because sometimes it would take them a while to answer and this person would just be standing there for a while, waiting to know. And when they did ask that people be exempt, I know we were all trying to figure out why they exempted this person or that person. Sometimes you could have a fairly good guess--the defense tended to ask for white people who had military backgrounds to be excused, the prosecution asked to excuse working-class black men. This is gross, but not surprising.
But sometimes I have literally no idea why they chose to use one of their five strikes. The lady sitting next to me was nixed by the defense, and I asked her after if she had any theories as to why and she had no idea.
I was torn about wanting my name to be called. I wanted to see if anyone would nix me! But also I wasn't sure I was the best person to be on this particular case because I would have been embroiled in the moral questions of, "Okay, what if he did do it [like there's video evidence or something], but how ridiculous is it to convict a black man of being scared of the cops, so how should I react?" So it's probably better that I wasn't called.
There was one very weird moment when the judge asked if anyone had heard anything about the case, and this one woman stood up and was like, "I think I know something about the other charges." And the judge and everyone else were like ???? because there were no other charges? This was the only charge? Anyway, she and the lawyers all went up to confer, and the judge was like, "You misunderstood," or something, but later her number was called in the lotto and the defense nixed her, which was a great relief to me because the whole vibe was just very strange.
By the time all that wrapped up it was about 11:30 and we were dismissed for the rest of the day. Tomorrow we go in again and I imagine the procedure is the same. If I do end up on a jury, I will certainly report back on how that goes.
[eta] No, I was wrong. I called the number they gave us and anyone who wasn’t on the jury today does NOT ago in tomorrow but calls tomorrow night to see if they go in Wednesday.
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I know from reading AAM that not all workplaces reimburse this kind of stuff. It sounds exhausting, anyhow.
no subject
Yeah, it sucks that workplaces don't reimburse. Mine does, thankfully, but otherwise you only get $25/day.
no subject
I suspect this is due to city size and general caseload, but in both Houston and Philadelphia the 300+ pool of potential jurors are originally held in a very large room then brought to different courtrooms in groups of 60-80, rather than using the entire pool for a single case. The process in Houston is a little fuzzy since it was quite some time ago. (I think it was 2009 or 2010?) The case was for a speeding ticket, but the defendant had enough traffic violations that if he was found guilty of this ticket his license would be suspended. I don't remember the specific questions I was asked, but I do remember being asked very personal questions in front of my group of prospective jurors, the prosecution, and the defense in a way that was very uncomfortable. Again, I don't remember the specifics (though I wish I did), but I remember the defense attorney being very pushy and asking one man a lot of questions that obviously made the entire room uncomfortable, which felt even more confusing because on the surface the questions felt completely unrelated to the case.
I generally prefer how things are done in Philadelphia, because all prospective jurors are given a list of questions on a page with multiple carbon copies (one for the defense, one for the prosecution, and a third you get to keep), so most personal information is written down for the lawyers to review and not announced to the entire court. Once broken into the groups of 60-80, each potential juror is given a number card. Questions are asked of the group (such as, "Do you know or recognize the defendant/lawyers/etc." and so on), and if the answer is 'yes' the potential juror raises their number card and it's written down for follow-up. Once all this is done, each prospective juror is brought individually into another room with the prosecution, defense, and judge for questioning. I much prefer this to being questioned in front of an enormous group and feel like this should be implemented nationally. (In addition to keeping information more confidential, I think the likelihood of people answering honestly increases with this setup. It also helps protect people who might be negatively impacted by the case and the questions associated with it. I say this as someone who was considered for a (CW: sexual assault of a minor and in general) child sexual assault case and had to answer questions such as, "Have you or anyone you know ever been raped? How old were you when this happened? What happened?" etc, and I can't imagine having to answer these in front of a group of 100+ people. It was bad enough in the private room with the lawyers.) Once this is done, the judge and lawyers huddle for a bit, then return to call the numbers of the people who were selected for the jury. The actual jury selection process is done in the huddle, so potential jurors don't know who was struck down by each lawyer and such.
Neither Houston nor Philadelphia provide aid with parking or transport, though in Philadelphia potential jurors are given a sticker to wear and several restaurants near the courthouse provide discounts for jurors, so that's cool. I had to be at the courthouse between 8-9 AM in both Houston and Philadelphia, and was released between 11 AM and 2 PM all three times. Jurors only have to appear one day (unless selected for a jury), so I'm intrigued that you have to return tomorrow?! Is it two days you have to appear or more? It seems this would be an added hardship to have to show up multiple days even if you aren't selected for a jury.
One thing I've always kind of side-eyed is that the question, "Do you believe the defendant is guilty just from his appearance?", is always asked, and it's always asked in front of a large group of people. (In Philadelphia, it's part of the question segment where potential jurors raise their number cards to indicate assent to a question.) It's a valid question, but does anyone say 'yes' even if the answer might be true? Like, I just don't think most people are willing to admit to a bunch of strangers that they think someone is guilty of X crime just from looking at them, even if it's true. I think that question needs to asked more privately if the lawyers are looking for truly honest answers.
Anyway, this was an interesting read! I'm so curious about all the similar but different jury selection processes across the country now.
no subject
but I do remember being asked very personal questions in front of my group of prospective jurors, the prosecution, and the defense in a way that was very uncomfortable
Yikes!
I generally prefer how things are done in Philadelphia, because all prospective jurors are given a list of questions on a page with multiple carbon copies (one for the defense, one for the prosecution, and a third you get to keep), so most personal information is written down for the lawyers to review and not announced to the entire court
This seems like a good idea to me! Though it probably adds time to things, since most people can't read as fast as they can listen.
Once all this is done, each prospective juror is brought individually into another room with the prosecution, defense, and judge for questioning. I much prefer this to being questioned in front of an enormous group and feel like this should be implemented nationally.
Agreed.
OMG, I also cannot imagine them asking those questions in front of everyone. Maybe it depends on the kind of case?
Parking/transport is SUCH a big thing, it should absolutely be covered.
though in Philadelphia potential jurors are given a sticker to wear and several restaurants near the courthouse provide discounts for jurors, so that's cool.
Love that!
Is it two days you have to appear or more?
I think it's every day this week that has a trial? They only selected for that one trial today, but there are more this week. But we'll see!
"Do you believe the defendant is guilty just from his appearance?", is always asked, and it's always asked in front of a large group of people.
Yeah, they phrased it REAL weird here, something about do you have firmly held or religious beliefs that may prevent you from being impartial about a person because of race or age. Which...who is going to say yes to that???
no subject
no subject
no subject
Right? I cross fingers to never be called to perform jury duty in Canada (I checked on the Québec's (my province) government website what indemnities and allowances would be, and seriously? It's ridiculously low and doesn't justify missing work for however long is required). They can't make me swear to remain objective and impartial because I know for sure I will not be. I'm as biased as it comes.
What are indemnities like in your State?
By the time all that wrapped up it was about 11:30 and we were dismissed for the rest of the day. Tomorrow we go in again and I imagine the procedure is the same. If I do end up on a jury, I will certainly report back on how that goes.
That sure is an experience, I'm curious to know more
no subject
We get $25/day, which, if you have to be there all day is less than minimum wage. I get paid time off for jury duty, and also I went into work after I was dismissed for the day, so that $25 is just extra for me, but yeah, that could be a real hardship for a lot of people.
no subject
It was a criminal case against a youngish black man who was pleading not guilty to not pulling over when a cop car tried to get him to.
My biggest shock is that this is a case that would even get a jury trial? Unless it's considered a far more serious offence than it seems to me, or just every case has a jury?
no subject
My biggest shock is that this is a case that would even get a jury trial? Unless it's considered a far more serious offence than it seems to me, or just every case has a jury?
I looked it up and here's what it says: If a driver fails to stop for blue lights without causing harm, they may receive a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, fines of up to $500, and a potential suspension of their driver's license for six months.
So a misdemeanor. The real question is why he plead not guilty instead of either just pleading guilty (if he did it) or taking a plea bargain. Not that I think he should take a plea bargain, it's just that something like 97% of people do. The fact that he insisted on taking it to trial is very interesting in itself.
no subject
America would be a better place if more people who thought that got onto juries, in my opinion.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I was on a hung jury though in that case I was on the "guilty" side. Based on that experience, the majority of jurors are absolutely not paying any attention to actual legal principles. The ones voting innocent were all doing so because even though they thought the guy we were trying was definitely guilty, they thought his brother and his wife were also in on it, and so they couldn't convict our guy without being sure that all three would go to jail. In vain I argued that that's not how it works and the brother and wife were undoubtedly having their own trials.
(The brother and the wife were TOTALLY in on it.)
no subject
That is FASCINATING. I wish they'd listened to you!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've been called, but then was in the pool of "oh, no, you don't have to come in today after all." I've never been sure why -- maybe if they need 300 (or whatever; I don't actually know how many they summon in a go here) they summon 350, and then see how many people reschedule or ask to be excused? My wife was called a few weeks prior and did end up on the jury for a criminal trial, though.
no subject
Yeah, a lot of the process is opaque to us for sure! Did your wife have an interesting case?
no subject
My dad did jury service last year, which was actually really awful for him. It was about repeated rapes of a woman by her husband, and it gave him nightmares. And the cops had fucked up on the recording equipment in an interview (I think with her?) so it ended in a mistrial.
Hilariously, there was one woman whose husband is an archivist, and I turned around to look at her when she said that, and she made an, "I know, can you believe it? Two archivist-related people in one room?" face at me, which was charming.
Cute :D I love those little moments of connection.
Also, if you're over the age of 65, you can opt out. I was happy to see that none of the people who were older than that did opt out--as the judge said (and I quite agree), we want people with the wisdom of experience to serve.
That's great.
They were essentially like, "Have you had any relationship with law enforcement that might keep you from being unbiased?" [Which. Like. Everyone is biased. Come on.] One middle aged white guy stood up and said that cops had lied about him when he was in college so he was disinclined to believe them. I have not had any personal experiences with cops myself, so I didn't say anything. But the next question was basically something like, "Do you have beliefs about law enforcement that might keep you from being impartial?" And I was like... .... .... But the room had a bunch of black people, and I know the black community here doesn't have a great relationship with police even by national standards, so I figured if they could all claim to be impartial, then I could to. Even though I am fully ready to believe that a cop would lie about anything.
Yeah that's really hard!!! I mean, I tend to think our shared belief that the police sometimes lie is more impartial than people who think they don't! The London Met have been proven to be unreliable over and over! Like what do they mean when they say 'impartial', especially since, as you say, that's impossible?
I'd definitely say I was impartial because I think justice is more likely to be done with jurors who're like "yeah the police are systemically racist" because they are but it's definitely complicated.
no subject
Oh my gosh, how horrific. I'm so sorry for your dad and especially for that poor woman.
I mean, I tend to think our shared belief that the police sometimes lie is more impartial than people who think they don't! The London Met have been proven to be unreliable over and over! Like what do they mean when they say 'impartial', especially since, as you say, that's impossible?
Exactly what I was getting it!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Simply would not say! This is just a way to tilt the favor towards the prosecution, so would not say, frankly.
I would have been embroiled in the moral questions of, "Okay, what if he did do it [like there's video evidence or something], but how ridiculous is it to convict a black man of being scared of the cops, so how should I react?"
Jury nullification! This is what it's for (even though it's not an official legal stance, just a practice)! Not pulling over could be for many reasons, but a jury could simply nullify the charges with a not-guilty finding. This is more common for drug charges but I think it could be used here.
no subject
Same. But sooooo many people want to get out of jury duty at all costs.
But how many members of the jury have to agree to nullify? I just can't imagine convincing 11 other people to nullify, you know.
no subject
Unfortunate but true.
See above on jury nullification!
no subject
no subject