Now that we’re all caught up on how jury selection works and why I am always selected to sit on a jury, let me share with you the ridiculousness of the actual case that we had to hear. I’ll tell it the same way I experienced it and in the same fashion that certain information was given to me/us – the jury.
On December 15th 2009, I arrive at the courthouse well before I was supposed to be there and made my way to the deliberation room for District Court 7 on the 7th Floor. The judge had made it extremely clear that we were NOT to be late. I did not take that as an idle threat as he was ex-military – a higher up of some kinda. We were to be in the deliberation room by 8:45am as court started promptly at 9:00am. I was there by 8:15am. I’d be damned if it was me that was going to be late!
As the other 11 jurors and 1 alternate make their way into the room, they sit down and we all make small chit-chat. Nothing special, because we were instructed NOT to talk about the case, which we still had no direct knowledge of outside of the jury selection questions and crafted speculations. We did try and surmise how many days we thought it would take to finish the trial. It was my guess that we’d have to go through to Wednesday on the basis of a few things. First, there was a gal that they selected that had children that she needed to pick up by 4:00pm. When she was selected to be on the jury the day before, the judge said we would work around her schedule (i.e. end trial for the day at 3:30pm so she could get her kids). Second, trial began at 9am. We were told we would take 30minute breaks every hour – on the hour. Then the judge tells us that we are taking lunch from 11:30am to 2:00pm. Why so long you ask? Well, simple – he was really big on the jury bonding, so we weren’t allowed to leave for lunch, but rather we had to get to know our fellow jury members. Awesome. So that being said, with all the 30minute breaks, the ridiculously long lunch hour and having to shut trial down at 3:30pm didn’t leave a whole lot of room to hear the whole trial in 1 day. I guessed we’d hear all the witnesses, but would have to come back Wednesday to continue to deliberate.
Made sense to me, but the lawyers and judge knew more than we did. They kept saying that they did not feel the trial would go more than 1 day. My reservation on believing that little detail was biased as the last trial I was on, they said it would last 1-2 days and I was there for 5.
After trying to guesstimate how much time we’d have to feel “civic” the jurors tried to speculate as to why each member was selected. I openly made the observation that it was a male dominated jury – 4 women and 9 men. If I had to guess as to why in that moment, which I did because the other jurors asked why I thought it was important, I speculated that it was going to be some kind of emotional trial. That being said, the gender most likely to sympathize with that would be a woman – by nature alone.
As 9:15am rolls around, the jury still hasn’t been called out of the deliberation room to begin trial. I start to wonder if they had decided to settle. Regardless if they had settled, the jury would still be involved in determining the ultimate sentence if they had settled to a guilty verdict. It wasn’t long after I started trying to figure out what the delay was, that the bailiff came in and asked us to line up in order on the basis of how we were called to the jury box the day before.
I was – Juror 10, Ms. Magnet.
We filed into the courtroom where the judge tells us that some things have ultimately changed and how we were going to be proceeding was going to change. At 9am to 9:15am the lawyers and judge were in the courtroom discussing things. It was at that time, that the defense attorney and the defendant had decided to enter a plea of guilty. The defendant had to say that he changed his plea to guilty in front of the jury and for the record. He stood and took ownership of the guilty plea.
The jury was then told that we’d hear from some witnesses from both the state and the defense but that it wouldn’t be as long and drawn out as it would have been if he’d wanted the jury to decide his guilt or innocence. The judge then shared that our sole duty at this point was to listen to the evidence and make a decision on the punishment that came with his theft charge. Again, we had the option of 180days to 2years. And so it began.
The state forfeited the option to give an opening statement. This led me to believe that they felt like it was a waste of time, and as we learned more – they were right.
The defense attorney reminded me of a dirty used care salesman. When he had asked questions to the jury the day before, you got this sense that he was trying to pull something over on you, but since everything was so vague, you couldn’t put your finger on the exacts. It also surprised me that sitting beside the defense attorney during the jury selection, was the defendant. He never once looked up at the potential jurors. He never once spoke to his lawyer. Rather, he sat with his head hung low. It was indicative of sorrow, remorse, embarrassment and potentially guilt. I wasn’t being biased, I just found it to be odd that the lawyer would first have him present for this part of the process and second never once tell his defendant to sit up or become more engaging (i.e. look a little less guilty). None of that made sense until after we’d come to a decision on the sentence.
The defense stood and set the scene for this being an emotional trial and planted the seed that they’d later be asking the jury to take mercy on the defendant. He didn’t speak for long. He just made the defendant out to be a sad state of affairs. I didn’t buy it.
Once the opening statements were done, the state called their first witness. He was a Loss Prevention Manager for Fiesta Grocery Store on Web Chapel. His testimony was designed to show how the defendant had stolen groceries and he’d seen the entire thing. He said that the defendant was first in the beer aisle. He said he felt like the defendant was acting suspiciously – nervous of his surroundings, jittery. The manager followed him throughout the store as he continued to gather items like sausage and other meat products and place them in his basket. The manager had then witnessed the defendant walk right past the cash registers and out the front door. The manager went out after the defendant and stopped him before he could leave asking to see a receipt of sale on the unsacked groceries that were in the cart. The defendant, of course, could not as he had not purchased any of the items. The manager escorted the defendant back into the store and held him until the police arrived. He recounted that the defendant was extremely cooperative, didn’t put up a fight and was generally upset and remorseful that he’d been caught.
Once the state was done questioning the Fiesta Manager, the defense asked a few questions. Nothing too elaborate, but did manage to drop in a weird question. He asked the manager if that after the police arrived, were any of the items that the defendant had stolen been given to the defendant and/or the defendant’s fiancé? The manager had no idea if that was the case or not and could not speak against it or in its favor. He was dismissed from the stand, but stayed to see the results of the trial.
I found that to be a weird question. Why would Fiesta or the police for that matter press charges and arrest the guy for theft only to turn around and give him some of the stolen items for free. I was eager to find out if that was the case – because someone somewhere would be in serious trouble for that. But if it were true, I could see how it could play to jury sympathy – so as to say, look even the store and/or the police recognized the defendant’s dire situation. The seed was planted. I wasn’t watering it yet, but I definitely had the faucet turned on.
Next to the stand was the arresting police officer. She went through her account of the situation. She’d arrived, viewed the video tape of the defendant stealing the groceries, taken an inventory of those stolen items to come to a total value and then subsequently arrested the defendant on charges of theft. The total value of the items stolen was just under $100. Now, I know you are saying – $100? That’s not a felony. Why is this even in a felony courtroom? –All will be revealed very soon, as I thought the exact same thing at that exact moment. The state then asked her how the defendant was acting when she arrested him. She shared that he knew he was in big trouble this time and that this was not his first offense. The defendant also told the officer that he had several warrants out for his arrest on other unrelated charges. His legal situation was obviously getting progressively worse.
Once the state was satisfied with the police officers account, she was turned over to the defense. The defense attorney asked again, if any of the items were released to the defendant’s fiancé. The officer said that she felt badly for the guy. He hadn’t put up a fight, was very cooperative and knew he was in some serious trouble this time. The defendant had indicated to her that this was not his first theft arrest. Because of his story and how sad he looked, the officer allowed the defendant to stop by their residence on the way to jail to drop off his keys, cell phone and personal items that were in his pocket. Once his fiancé had those items, she took the defendant to jail. The defense attorney pressed in asking if she’d released any of the stolen groceries to the fiancé. The police officer looked plain appalled. She said she had not and that those grocery items were itemized and returned to Fiesta. While she admitted it was not procedure to allow someone who is being arrested to stop by home to drop off personal affects, she did not release any Fiesta items to either one of them. That was the last question for her from the defense and she was then excused. Make no mistake, this police officer was extremely sympathetic to the defendants situation and played a good witness for both the state and defense.
I got to wondering why the defense lawyer was stuck on asking everyone if some of the grocery items that had been stolen were given to the defendant and/or to his fiancé. The defendant had to have told his attorney that that happened. Which was a blatant lie, obviously. That made me not think too kindly of the defendant and furthermore it made me feel like he was not as innocent or remorseful as he was being made out to be. If it was concocted by his lawyer… well, that’s why you never use a court appointed attorney. Note to self…
The state rested on the accounts of the store manager and the police officers testimony. The defense only called one witness – the defendant. And here’s where the defendant deserved a Tony Award. I mean… really quite brilliant in his ignorance. By the end of it, I felt sorry for the guy but was not interested in leniency. The 9 males and 4 women as juror selections were becoming overwhelmingly clear to me at this point. But all the defense needed was 1 juror to buy it and to either hang the jury or at the very least make them compromise to a lesser sentence so as to not hang the jury on such a small theft case.
The state rested and enter the defendant’s moment of glory. The defense lawyer called the defendant to the stand.
He was a Hispanic man and if I had to guess, I would say he was easily in his late 50s. He was wearing a decent suit that didn’t fit as if it were anything well made. It didn’t surprise me that this man most likely has never owned a suit. He was missing several of his bottom teeth. I couldn’t tell if any were missing from the top. When he spoke, he did not have a Spanish accent. He didn’t have an accent at all. He was at times hard to understand because of his poor usage of the English language and what almost sounded like a slight speech impediment. I could not deduce if it was in fact an impediment or rather him talking around his missing teeth. It wasn’t significant to anything really, but it did successfully make you feel that much sorrier for the guy.
The defendant was sworn under oath and took the stand. Before the defendant even stated his name for the court, he began to cough slightly and clear his throat. His lawyer addressed him informally asking him if he needed something to drink.
Now here’s where if this was a movie or Broadway play, some unseen narrator would have said – and here’s where the tap dance begins.
The defendant says to his lawyer – No sir. Thank you though. I just have Diabetes and it makes my throat dry sometimes. I’ll be fine.
Ok, now in my head, I start to go… whhhhhat? That was an awfully convenient way to drop that in without having to outright ask about his health. If he had, I think it would have been a lot easier for the people on a jury to say – ok, really? They’re playing the “I’m sick” card – feel sorry before I even state my name. That’s some balls. Audacity, really. But ok, I guess you have to use what you have and make it work. If he even really had diabetes… I’ll never know.
His lawyer then asks him to explain what happened on July 1st 2009 when he was arrested at Fiesta on theft charges.
The defendant begins…
I haven’t been a good man. I have been an even worse father.
(At this point, he tears up, and stumbles through the rest of his recount pausing at moments to regain his composure, cry a little more, burry his face in his hands, and ask for tissues before continuing through his testimony. And truly, it was sad to watch – I’m not heartless, but I am fair.)
Over the last 5 years things have just gotten progressively worse. I have a job. I’m a truck driver. I make about $300 a week, when the work is steady. Right now, my fiancé and I are living in a motel paying rent week-to-week. Five years ago, my mother died. I never really recovered from that. It’s all been down hill from there. I have been trying to figure out a way to get my life back on track. I wanted to be a better father to my children. That’s when I had the idea to go to Fiesta and steal some food so that I could throw a small 4th of July barbeque for the kids. You know, to start over, fresh. It was a really dumb idea. I know it was wrong, but I still did it and I am willing to accept any punishment that I receive for my actions.
His lawyer starts to dig in deeper. He asks him to elaborate on how exactly it was that he came to the idea of stealing food from Fiesta in the first place.
The defendant says (still whimpering, crying) – I was next door at my neighbors place. We’d been drinking pretty heavily. I’ve been doing that a lot lately. I came up with the idea to try and have the kids over and start becoming a better dad. To be a person in their lives.
Lawyer – How’s your health as it stands right now?
Defendant (in almost a whisper) – Cancer. *then he paused, put his head in his hands and cried very hard*
>>I wasn’t even sure if I had heard him right? Did he say he has cancer now?
Defendant (after regaining some composure) – It doesn’t matter. I shouldn’t have done what I did. It was wrong and I will take any punishment I am given.
Lawyer – Did you say you have cancer?
Defendant – Yes. I have cancer. I was diagnosed with it back in February of 2009. I haven’t done anything about it because I have been trying to work and deal with all my diabetes doctor’s appointments. Soon enough, I was missing a lot of work, which I could not afford. I have no idea what stage I am even in right now?
Lawyer – Are you getting treatment in jail currently?
Defendant – Well sir, I had tried. I was supposed to be seeing a doctor, but they never took me to a hospital of any kind. They didn’t do my blood work and I felt like they were not interested in helping me. The other day, they said they were going to take me back to the doctor. I signed a sheet saying that I refused medical care telling them that the doctors they were sending me to were not helping and I was done with all of that. I later found out, that they had planned on taking me to Parkland to get tested and assessed. When I heard that, I tried to remove my refusal of medical treatment, but it’s a long process to do that. I have been in jail since July and I have not been treated for the cancer.
>>Ok, for the record – as the defendant was saying all of this, the judge laughed. He laughed so hard he was red in the face. He was laughing in total shock and dismay that this guy was even saying what he was saying. The states attorneys looked as if the Cancer proclamation was news to them too; hearing it for the very 1st time.
The defense lawyer got the point pretty quickly and steered the defendant in another direction. He wanted the defendant to start talking about the computer classes he had been taking while he was in jail this last time awaiting this trial.
Defendant – I have been taking computer classes and getting certifications. I wanted to better myself this time. I wanted to come out a better person. I wanted to turn my life around. The idea was to learn computers so I could buy one for my truck. So I could keep better track of my routes and loads, etc. I had hoped that when I was done serving this sentence that I would be able to buy my own truck. Be my own boss. Make a change.
>>Yeeeeah, right. Dude, you’re stealing $100 worth of groceries. You aren’t buying your own truck when you get out of here. Really?! Good Lord, this was getting out of control.
The defense lawyer asked a few more questions here and there that he knew would provoke tears and lengthy pauses so that his client could gather himself before continuing. And the honest truth of it all is that I believed some of what this guy had to say. I really did. I felt badly for him. Like he’d been dealt a bad hand and was making one bad decision on top of another. I don’t know if he was really sick with diabetes or cancer as no one proved it or to its contrary. Nonetheless, something happened to this guy. What? I wasn’t exactly sure. I wasn’t too naive to know that what he was telling wasn’t the whole story. There was a big part of me that felt like this guy knew exactly what he was doing and was attempting to milk the system. I, however had no evidence of that… yet.
After the defense was through, the defendant was turned over to the state for questioning. And here’s where all the warm and fuzzy feelings came to a screeching halt. The state’s attorney had zero sympathy for this guy. Almost to the extent that he’d seen and dealt with this guy before – possibly several times. I wasn’t sure yet as he hadn’t really asked any deep revealing questions, but his tone and demeanor was indicative of annoyance of having to be at this trial in the 1st place.
The states attorney then cuts the wound a little deeper. He shows the jury and the court 7 documents. Each of the 7 documents were prior arrests and guilty convictions for theft by the defendant stemming from 2007 to the current charge from July 1st 2009. In each offence, the defendant was caught stealing groceries at or around the $100 value mark. This is where the state explained to the defendant that repeat offenses of theft become felony charges, and that was why we were here today. He asked the defendant if he understood that and he said he did. I more think that it was the states way of letting the jury know why such a “small” offense was being seen in a felony court instead of a civil court.
The states attorney pressed into each offense and the repercussions of each offense. The 1st offense that was brought to felony court was in 2007. The defendant received a fine and 2years probation. He didn’t even make it off of probation before he was arrested for theft again. When he was arrested the 2nd time, they revoked the probation and sentenced him to the minimum sentence at that time of 120days in jail. Each offense there after, the defendant would claim guilt at the last minute, and offer the sentence up to a selected jury – a lot like the jury I was now sitting on. For the remaining 6 offenses, the defendant had received the minimum sentence of somewhere between 120days to 180days.
After the defendant readily acknowledged all those previous offenses with little coaxing, the states attorney asked him – when is enough, enough? The defendant resorted to his normal response of – I was wrong and I am sorry. I will accept any punishment that this jury sees fit. –When you think about it, this is really a non-response.
The states attorney asked the defendant if he knew about resources like Salvation Army that could help people in his situation; to give people an option to not steal.
Defendant (and here’s where my sympathy hit the edge of a 3million mile cliff) – Yeah, I know about those options. I have tried some before. I just didn’t like them. I didn’t want to use them.
States Lawyer – You knew about them and didn’t want to use them? Are you saying that you feel that stealing someone else’s property is a better solution? The only solution?
Defendant – No sir. I just couldn’t bring myself to ask for the help. I didn’t want to burden anyone.
>> Here’s where the defendant is now playing the – father with pride – card.
States Lawyer – How many people do you feel you have burdened here today, by having to bring this case before a judge?
The defendant offered no verbal response. Instead, he began to cry again muttering something about cancer, being wrong, owning up to it all… I’m not sure what he was saying at that point in time. With his speech impediment or lack of teeth, he was borderline unintelligible.
States Lawyer – Are these 7 offenses that I have presented here today in court the only times you have been arrested?
Defendant – No sir. I was arrested when I was 16.
States Lawyer – For theft?
Defendant – Yes sir, but I was just a kid.
States Lawyer (not even gracing the “kid” comment with a rebuttal) – Have you ever been arrested in other states?
Defendant – No sir.
States Lawyer – You’ve never been arrested in Georgia for larceny?
Defendant – What’s larceny, sir?
States Lawyer – It’s a fancy word for theft.
Defendant – Oh, yes sir. I was arrested for that in Georgia. I didn’t understand what you were asking.
States Lawyer – Can you tell the court about that incident?
Defendant (after a long pause, placing his head in his hands and crying again) – It was just stupid sir. It wasn’t right and I was just stupid. There’s not much more to say about it other than that. I was stupid.
Even though the defendant didn’t even begin to try and answer that question, the states lawyer’s point was made. It’s not about the 7 times you have been arrested in Texas; that we know about, but more-so the fact that this is a pattern not limited to the last 5 years of things going downhill in Texas. The states lawyer didn’t even press him further to give more details and not hide behind a cop-out response. He’d done what he’d come to do and that was discredit all the crying and emotional antics.
States Lawyer – How is it that you want this jury to believe you when you say you’re sorry? That you won’t do this again. How many times and to how many juries have you said that this is the last time? Why are we to believe you this time?
Defendant – This time sir, I am taking classes while I am in here. I want to be a better person when I get out. That’s the difference, sir.
I found that hard to believe. What I did believe is his defense attorney saying – oh shit man. This is number 8 on the theft charges. I’m not sure the crying act will work again this time. We’re going to have to do better than that. We’ll need cancer. How can you argue cancer? You can’t. Yes, we’ll have cancer. OH and you’ll need to take some classes while you are in there. You’ll be in there for a bit awaiting trial you might as well sneak in some computer courses. Oh yeah, yeah… that’s good. This could work.
At one point, while the state was questioning the defendant, the defendant said that he had only tried to steal from Fiesta because he really thought he could get away with it. That it wasn’t until he was caught that he’d even reconciled that the decision was a stupid one. That admission did not sit well with me in the least bit.
The states attorney had a few more questions that were relatively inconsequential but further elaborated the fact that the defendant had no intention of changing his behaviors.
The state then rested and closing arguments began. The defense lawyer was first.
He was as brief in his closing as he was in his opening statement. He leaned on the fact that the defendant was taking classes this time. That the defendant wanted to be better and make a change in his life. He then closed his statement by begging the jury to take mercy on his client and show him some leniency.
The states attorney stood up and without sugar coating one thing reiterated that the defendant was a repeat offender. He nothing short of accused the defendant of being manipulative and calculated in his defense. He brought out the 7 previous convictions and went through each one again. He pressed the fact that the defendant had had minimum sentences for all of his previous convictions. He highlighted that there was an infinite amount of people who had been down in the dumps and had not resorted to theft as the solution. He asked the jury how much did we want to spend out of pocket to let people like the defendant believe that what he was doing was acceptable. He then ended with the line – And really… when is enough, enough?
By 10:38, the decision had been handed over to the jury for deliberation on the sentencing. I felt like the decision was simple and that the deliberation would take nothing more than 1 quick vote and we’d be on our way back to our own lives… work.
How wrong could one person be? The intricacies of a jury’s deliberation to reach a decision agreed upon by 12 people was a whole different story.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
is there an art to jury selection…
Of course they’d have us all believe that there is a certain Viennese Waltz involved in jury selection. Where from across the room, lawyers attempt to accurately align themselves with their partner whose footwork will be in perfect timing with the initiators. It’s a delicate courtship in which all laws of probability are essentially and effectively removed.
For those of you, who have never even been called to jury duty, let me walk you through the basic steps of how the process unfolds. If you have served on a jury before, skip ahead.
_______________________________
First, you are selected at what the state would have you believe is random.
Second, the state assigns you a jury pool identification number. This number ranges anywhere from 1 to 4,000. This number holds no true significance as not only are there not as many people as there are numbers, but jurors are selected in clumps to move from the Central Jury Room to the District Courts which is were the true jury selection occurs. This occurs in no true numerical order.
Third, you appear at the courthouse on the date and time as so instructed.
Fourth, you check yourself in so that the state knows you have appeared for your God given civic duty – the unequivocal checkmark of attendance.
Fifth, you pour into an over crowded room they call the Central Jury Room. You are called to be at the courthouse no later than 8:30am, however there is no forward progression until closer to the 10am mark. The hour-and-a-half is to allow for our wonderful state employees to make sense of the selected jurors and the day’s agenda. Once you are in the Central Jury Room, you are sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with hundreds of the other lucky bastards who are fulfilling their civic duties. There is not enough room between the seat you are in and the one in front of you for anyone to pass through. Simply, if there is an open seat in the middle, everyone up to that seat nothing short of gets up, files out of the aisle and lets the new arrival sit. The same process happens when someone’s number is called and they must move to the appropriately assigned District Court Room.
Sixth, a judge arrives and thanks you for your time and service and then swears you in.
For most people that have been called to serve jury duty, this is where their process ends. Their number was not lucky enough to have been selected in the juror lottery and they are thanked for their time and sent home. For those that are assigned to a District Courtroom the process continues.
Seventh, the court then announces what numbers have been selected to move to a District Courtroom. They are in clumps of hundreds and in no numerical order. For example – group one may be numbers 352 through 524. The next group could be numbers 3 through 124. In each grouping, even if the grouping numbers exceed 100+ numbers, there are only 63 people in that group that move to the assigned District Courtroom.
Eighth, you pile to the elevators where you wait an eternity to find one that is going up and then fight to cram into an elevator that’s well above the maximum occupancy to get to your assigned floor. This process in and of itself can take 20 minutes to accomplish, if not more.
Ninth, when you arrive at your courtroom, and of course wait a little while longer, the bailiff comes out and takes role to assure that you are where you are supposed to be and assign you yet another juror number. This time your number is in order and is between 1 and 63. There is a second bailiff inside that instructs you where to sit. This is now officially your assigned seating for the remainder of the day. The lawyers and judges all have a seating chart and know exactly who you are and refer to you as your juror number first and your given name second (i.e. Juror 43, Angela Williams).
Tenth, after you are seated where you will be for the rest of the time it takes to select the jury, the judge swears you in, again. The judge then takes you through the basics of your responsibilities should you be selected. He then asks if you know him, the lawyers and/or the defendant personally. After a few basics, there and for the record via the court reporter, he hands the room over to the State Council.
Eleventh, the state then tells you the charge. It is in no exceptional detail other than legal terms that most people sitting in the courtroom don’t have the vaguest of understanding. The state then runs you through some legal scenarios – which always correlate to the trial at hand, but in an even vaguer manner. Sometimes they single people out directly. Others sitting in the courtroom are never addressed directly. The amount of questions you are asked and/or not asked is not indicative of selection or lack thereof.
Twelfth, the defense then does his jury questioning. The directive is different than that of the states and for the obvious reasons. His goal is to select jurors that will vote in favor of his client or at the very least stumble on an emotional connection. His questions rely more on how you’d feel, can you relate, can you be objective, and impartial, etc.
Thirteenth, the 63 people are asked to leave the courtroom while the state and defense begin selecting who they want to be a member of their jury. The defense eliminates individuals whom they feel will be biased even if they have previously indicated that that can be impartial – as does the state. In a matter of 30 to 45 minutes, they have selected their jury from the pool of randomly selected individuals. Twelve members are selected and a thirteenth is selected as an alternate. These 13 individuals are then sworn in again. If this selection has not pressed into the latter part of the afternoon and the state is ready to begin presenting their case, the trial can start the same day you are selected. If the trial is not started on the same day, it merely beings the next calendar business day.
_______________________________
It has been my general experience that most people have either never been called to jury duty or have been called but have never made it out of the Central Jury Room. While it’s considered a burden to miss work to “voluntarily” do your civic duty, it’s really only a scratch on the surface as to what all goes into jury selection. Furthermore, it’s only when you move to the individual District Courtrooms, that you see one of three jurors.
First, you have the blatant – I don’t want to be here – jurors.
Second, you have the flagrant – I desperately want to be on your jury – jurors.
Third, there are the – I would rather be doing something else, but understand my responsibility to answer the questions honestly and if I get called, I will serve – jurors.
On Monday, December 14th 2009, I had the “pleasure” of being called to serve jury duty for the 5th time in my life. I have served on 3 juries and have (now) played the role of foreman twice. The 2 times I was called that I didn’t serve on a jury, my initial juror number was not selected and I never left the Central Court Room. It’s my postulated theory that had I been moved to a District Courtroom, on those two occasions, I could effectively say that I have served on 5 juries total.
The first time I ever served on a jury, I was 22 years old. It was a felony robbery with the intent to harm case. For some reason and although I was by far the youngest member of the jury, I was selected to be the foreman. Which at the time, I thought had no bearing on my future jury experiences so I readily accepted. My thought process was more driven by my desire to no longer discuss things that didn’t matter – like who would be the foreman – and simply deliberate to a verdict. Which let me clear that up for everyone right now… IT DOES MATTER. It wasn’t until today that I found out why.
Let me back this up a skoach. So on December 14th 2009, there we are all 63 of us piled into this small District Courtroom. Remember the 3 different types of jurors I was talking about before? Let me introduce them to you in real-life examples.
The – I don’t want to be here – Jurors.
These people are the best. I mean, when you have to be doing something like potentially being selected for a jury, it’s imperative that there is some comic relief or you might go insane. It’s these people that provide all of that that you will need in the several hours you will be spending with them.
There was a guy sitting right next to me. He was Juror 42. I was Juror 43. Any time the state or defense attorney asked a question pertaining to being impartial or if a given scenario was fair or that they could agree with it, this guy would either raise his hand emphatically, talk out of turn or a combination of the two. His tone was harsh and to the point. He was opposing things that were obviously against the law. For instance, the state set up the following scenario (and this was after we had a 40minute discussion as to what reasonable doubt actually meant AKA a damn beating):
If the state has one witness and that one witness is according to you believable and reliable and you feel is telling the truth. Can you convict a person on the basis of that one person’s testimony?
Granted this scenario calls for a person to make some assumptions. First, if that is the evidence that the state is providing to prove guilt, and you believe it without a reasonable doubt, then you must convict – by definition of how our laws and court system is designed. Second, whether or not you think that the evidence provided could be more thorough, or that you would rather have more to go on, the law simply states that if you believe what is placed before you without a reasonable doubt, you must convict. It’s that simple.
This guy was all about saying he didn’t believe in that method of justice. It’s like well sir, you should move to Canada or possibly France, because guess what, we’re in America and this is how the show is run. He said he couldn’t be impartial when asked but could give no reason as to why. Which I suppose could be argued that that is his given right as an American to not have to explain himself.
Let me put it to you this way… it was so evident that he had zero desire to be there, that at one point and in the middle of questioning, I turned to him and said – wow, you really don’t want to serve on this jury, do you? And before he could answer I said – why don’t you just raise your hand and say you don’t want to be here. They obviously aren’t going to pick you. He just looked at me like a deer caught in headlights; like how’d you know? C’mon man… really?!
1 juror out.
Aside from him, there was a woman in the front row that followed Juror 42’s lead. When he said anything that got a negative response from the judge or the lawyers, she’d chime in and say something far more excessive. Like when 42 said he couldn’t be impartial ol’girl in the front was like – me either. As a matter of fact, I don’t care what the crime is – I’m giving the max sentence. In between siding with the crazy guy beside me, she’d sigh heavily and deeply while intermittently putting her head down on the railing (as she was in the front row) giving the ultimate eff-you to the court system.
2 jurors out.
There was another lady who when asked if after she’d convicted someone of a felony theft, could she justify all aspects of the sentencing as allotted by the court and the specific crime. For instance, this felony theft charged, if convicted, carried a sentence of 180days up to 2years. This woman responds with – for a felony, I cannot see how 180days or 6months would be enough of a sentence. I could not consider the lowest end of that range for possible sentencing.
3 jurors out.
Aside from the 3 of them, there were a slew of others that raised their hands and said for one reason or another that they could not be impartial.
My dad owned his owned his own company and was a victim of theft…
I was a victim of theft directly…
I worked for a company that was victimized by theft…
My friends were victims of theft…
4, 5, 6…12 jurors out.
Then there were four people that claimed to not be able understand the English language well enough to answer even the simplest of questions. I most closely related this to that car accident where the person who hit you pulls the – no hablo ingles – card. Well that is until the cops get there and then they speak perfect ingles. Nonetheless, the court will not call those people saying that there is a language barrier a liar.
16 jurors out.
Finally in this category, you have the famous last minute – oh shit, people are weeding themselves out so I have better come up with something quickly or my likelihood of serving is increasing with each passing moment.
Enter the following question: does anyone have anything planned within the next couple of days that would prevent you from being able to serve this jury in its entirety? Something that was already previously planned?
And here’s the few people that made me actually laugh out loud in court. My laughter was only drowned out by the simultaneous heavy sighing accompanied by eye rolling from our very Judge. It was by this point that he was ready to commit a felony against one of these rebellious potential jurors.
One guy raises his hand and is vague. He had something on Wednesday that he could not get out of. One thing I have learned about the art of lying AKA the fake call in sick to work – is this… never offer more information than is being requested. Be simple and to the point without ever really saying anything of substance. It’s likely that your work AND the overworked courts will not ask you to provide anything further than your very word. And in this instance, with this juror, the attorney simply asked if it was something that could be rescheduled. Without giving any other details the juror responded – no it’s not and they marked him down as a no and moved on. In my head, I had to applaud that guy. Nicely done, sir – well, played.
17 jurors out.
There was an older man who said he wouldn’t be able to serve because he had a colonoscopy scheduled. When the attorney asked him when it was scheduled, the man answered – oh, no it’s already happened but the simple fact is that I am uncomfortable to sit for long periods of time right now. I laughed – literally, out loud. Now, I’ve got to tell you that I was halfway tempted raise my hand and say that I had broken my coccyx in 6th grade (which is 100% true) and any time that I sit for long periods my tailbone aches. I, however, refrained. I settled with a hardy laugh and the hairy eyeball from the guy.
18 jurors out (on sheer stupidity alone).
And for some reason, I guess this guy’s very informative self-proclamation opened the flood gates of ridiculousness. A woman on the back row raises her hand and shares that she has serious bladder problems and unless the court wanted to adjourn every 15minutes to allow her to relieve herself, she’d most likely not be a good juror candidate. From that, a woman in the front proclaimed that she had ovarian cysts and those caused her great pain daily and not being able to get up and move around at her instant desire to relieve that pain probably wouldn’t work for the courts as well. From there, a guy in the third row says that he has IBS and would have a similar problem to the woman with the bladder condition. It was at this point that the judge put a stop to that nonsense. He reinstructed the jurors that it had to be a planned trip and/or a planned surgery. That just about everyone can come up with a reason that they can’t and/or don’t want to sit and listen for long periods of time. After a remedial lecture about the meaning of ones civic duty, no one else dared to mention anything of the kind again, however the damage was done.
21 jurors out.
Now to some juror math so far – 63 jurors started – 21 jurors that had successfully eliminated themselves from the running = 42 potentials remaining. My odds are starting to look bleak for not being seated on this jury. Couple these people’s ridiculousness with my shitty jury luck to start and before we were halfway done with anything – I made my own proclamation in my head… I’m screwed. I’m going to be on this jury.
The flagrant – I desperately want to be on your jury – Jurors.
There was a gentleman that arrived at my assigned District Courtroom wearing what I deemed his best – gettin’ picked for a jury outfit. This guy was in a 3-piece suit fully equipped with a Troy Duncan bow-tie that matched his suit vest. He spoke extremely proper English – annoying even to a native speaker; forced almost. My throat hurt just listening to the guy annunciate each word in its exact perfection. Any time he had the opportunity to raise his hand and give an opinion, he would do just that. He would say exactly what he thought the attorney’s wanted to hear and in perfectly indented paragraphs. I swear, I could almost see the paragraph sigh, every time he’d being a new and extended paragraph with an intro sentence, three complex sentences and conclusion sentence to sum up how perfect he was for this jury. It was impressive really. I find it near impossible that that is how he actually is in real life. Anyone who calls this man a friend outside of the courtroom needs to slap the shit out of him.
22 jurors out.
There was also a woman in this category. She was more calculated. She answered the questions in exact perfection without sounding to emphatic or eager. Her flaw however, was that in order to maintain control she sat on her hands and almost swayed back and forth as to keep an exact pace with the perfect words coming out of her mouth. She was spotted immediately. Good try sweet cheeks; good old Blind Liberty wasn’t buying that day.
23 jurors out.
The – I would rather be doing something else, but understand my responsibility to answer the questions honestly and if I get called, I will serve – Jurors.
Here’s where I fell. Most of the other 40 jurors were in this category too. Some teetered on the edge so as to say – I will if you want me to, but I’d really rather not. With my previous jury luck and how many people had managed to eliminate themselves before I even had a chance to talk, I had chalked it up to the fact that I was serving on this jury no matter what I had to say. And then THIS happened...
The defense lawyer asks the following question: If you had to choose between these 2 types of punishment, which would you favor – Rehabilitation or Deterrent?
Now, I’m Juror 43, Angela Williams and he began going down the list of jurors in order, starting with Juror 1. As people are answering Rehabilitation, Deterrent, Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation, Deterrent, etc. it dawns on me, that I have no real basis to make that kind of conclusion. I have 42 jurors to get through coupled with some people needing more definition around the words Rehabilitation and Deterrent before I have to give my answer. I start to think. Which I truly believe was my first problem. How do I know what I would lean towards? What if they’d tried to rehabilitate several times and it didn’t work. Well in that case, I’d potentially lean towards deterrent – and vice versa.
When it gets to Juror 43, Angela Williams and without hesitation I say – well, I think it would depend. I could tell that the defense attorney wasn’t extremely pleased with my answer and stared at me seeking further explanation. I only offered – you know, depending on the situation.
AND THERE’S WHERE I SEALED MY SEAT IN THIS JURY. Like a damn idiot.
After I answered and the defense attorney is still not terribly pleased as he responded with a drawn out – oooook – the judge who had only interjected to make simple clarifications when jurors were being complete idiots says – that is quite possibly the most perfect answer to that question, nicely done Juror 43. Shit. Thanks Judge. Why don’t you just send me to the head of the class where I can get my nose nice and close to your ass? It sure is hard to have a brownnose when I am 4 rows back and this was the first words I had spoken outside of when they’d called role 3 hours previously and I answered a generic – here.
Shit, shit, shit. Way to think Juror 43. I couldn’t even call myself by name at that point. I wasn’t on speaking terms with myself. Stupid 43.
Now you’d think with that kind of response from the judge that everyone after me would have said – it depends. Not one person did. Even the proper English speaker begging for a seat on this jury whom I wanted to punch as he gave his answer of rehabilitation in it’s disjointed perfection.
Not long after this, they deliberated to make their final jury selection. We went into the hall at 3:30pm and by 4:00pm, they’d selected their focal 12 and their alternative 13th. When they call us back in, they begin to call the names of the selected. As the names are being called, it becomes evident quickly that the jury will be predominantly male. I get semi-excited that maybe, just maybe I have beat the system this time. Juror 7 is selected… not me. Juror 8… not me. Juror 9… not me. It’s at this point that I started thinking again. Dumb move number 2. Both dumb moves involved thinking. See a pattern yet? I say to myself – well, there’s only 3 more spots, surely I’m not going to be on this jury. Juror 10… Angela Williams. SHIT.
Without thinking as I grabbed my bag and sweater to make my way to Juror 10’s seat in the jury box, I inadvertently say – damnit. Not a great move, I’ll admit. But it was the first thing I had done without thinking, so by default it was possibly the smartest thing I had done all day.
The judge says in response to my damnit comment – it was probably your amazing answer that got you selected to this jury. To which I replied – well, if you hadn’t sent me to the head of the class, maybe they wouldn’t have noticed. He laughed. He laughed hard. So I figured I would just follow that up with – I’m a jury magnet, it’s ok because I knew this would happen. He laughed hard again. From that point forward, he’d refer to me as Juror 10, Ms. Magnet. I enjoyed it, until I was selected to be Juror 1, Ms. Foreman Magnet. Standard.
The trial was short. It only lasted the morning of December 15th 2009. Once it was all said and done, and we’d reached a verdict and sentence, I hung around to talk to the states lawyers and the judge. I always do. It was probably mistake number 2,000 of mine for the less than 2 days that I was there. Here’s where I learned a valuable piece of information – LISTEN UP. THIS COULD SAVE YOU MY JURY DRAMA IN THE FUTURE!
One of the states attorneys is telling us how they selected some of the jury members that were left hanging around. He looks at me and tells me that no matter what I said or did, I would be on this trial. Furthermore, he knew I would be the foreman. In complete awe, I asked him how that was that he knew that and why was a guarantee without having to say anything at all?
Remember when I said I was on my 1st jury when I was 22 and in haste I had agreed to be the foreman? My mistake 6 years ago had proven to be one that I would carry throughout the rest of my life. As it turns out, each state lawyer can make permanent notes about their juries. If one juror stands out to them, they can comment specifically on that juror. It’s not a paragraph in nature, but enough to know that they should or should not immediately select a person. Since I was 22 and a foreman on a jury of people 2x+ my age and we came back with a quick and fair verdict, I consequentially was left with the following PERMANENT NOTE:
Was the foreman at 22yrs old. EXCEPTIONAL juror.
I shit you not, the states attorney tells me, that the word exceptional was in all caps. He said that’s lawyer talk for you’d be an idiot to not have this person on your jury. Then he followed that up with – so it wasn’t the judge sending you to the head of the class that screwed you, although we all got a good laugh out of that comment.
He then leaned in and whispered to me – no matter what, if the state can help it and you show up in another courtroom, you will be selected.
MOTHER of GOD…
That’s what I get for being a cocky 22year-old. I’m telling you people, there’s no jury dance involved. They almost have their entire 12 selected before you even step through the door – it generally only needs slight by manageable tweaking. Just know if you ever get in a District Courtroom with me, your odds decreased by 1 seat automatically. My stupidity says – you’re welcome as well as NEVER elect to be the foreman.
The small things in life are often learned as you’re paying for your bad decisions made in a fleeting moment that didn’t even register as a decision in that moment. Such is my life.
For those of you, who have never even been called to jury duty, let me walk you through the basic steps of how the process unfolds. If you have served on a jury before, skip ahead.
_______________________________
First, you are selected at what the state would have you believe is random.
Second, the state assigns you a jury pool identification number. This number ranges anywhere from 1 to 4,000. This number holds no true significance as not only are there not as many people as there are numbers, but jurors are selected in clumps to move from the Central Jury Room to the District Courts which is were the true jury selection occurs. This occurs in no true numerical order.
Third, you appear at the courthouse on the date and time as so instructed.
Fourth, you check yourself in so that the state knows you have appeared for your God given civic duty – the unequivocal checkmark of attendance.
Fifth, you pour into an over crowded room they call the Central Jury Room. You are called to be at the courthouse no later than 8:30am, however there is no forward progression until closer to the 10am mark. The hour-and-a-half is to allow for our wonderful state employees to make sense of the selected jurors and the day’s agenda. Once you are in the Central Jury Room, you are sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with hundreds of the other lucky bastards who are fulfilling their civic duties. There is not enough room between the seat you are in and the one in front of you for anyone to pass through. Simply, if there is an open seat in the middle, everyone up to that seat nothing short of gets up, files out of the aisle and lets the new arrival sit. The same process happens when someone’s number is called and they must move to the appropriately assigned District Court Room.
Sixth, a judge arrives and thanks you for your time and service and then swears you in.
For most people that have been called to serve jury duty, this is where their process ends. Their number was not lucky enough to have been selected in the juror lottery and they are thanked for their time and sent home. For those that are assigned to a District Courtroom the process continues.
Seventh, the court then announces what numbers have been selected to move to a District Courtroom. They are in clumps of hundreds and in no numerical order. For example – group one may be numbers 352 through 524. The next group could be numbers 3 through 124. In each grouping, even if the grouping numbers exceed 100+ numbers, there are only 63 people in that group that move to the assigned District Courtroom.
Eighth, you pile to the elevators where you wait an eternity to find one that is going up and then fight to cram into an elevator that’s well above the maximum occupancy to get to your assigned floor. This process in and of itself can take 20 minutes to accomplish, if not more.
Ninth, when you arrive at your courtroom, and of course wait a little while longer, the bailiff comes out and takes role to assure that you are where you are supposed to be and assign you yet another juror number. This time your number is in order and is between 1 and 63. There is a second bailiff inside that instructs you where to sit. This is now officially your assigned seating for the remainder of the day. The lawyers and judges all have a seating chart and know exactly who you are and refer to you as your juror number first and your given name second (i.e. Juror 43, Angela Williams).
Tenth, after you are seated where you will be for the rest of the time it takes to select the jury, the judge swears you in, again. The judge then takes you through the basics of your responsibilities should you be selected. He then asks if you know him, the lawyers and/or the defendant personally. After a few basics, there and for the record via the court reporter, he hands the room over to the State Council.
Eleventh, the state then tells you the charge. It is in no exceptional detail other than legal terms that most people sitting in the courtroom don’t have the vaguest of understanding. The state then runs you through some legal scenarios – which always correlate to the trial at hand, but in an even vaguer manner. Sometimes they single people out directly. Others sitting in the courtroom are never addressed directly. The amount of questions you are asked and/or not asked is not indicative of selection or lack thereof.
Twelfth, the defense then does his jury questioning. The directive is different than that of the states and for the obvious reasons. His goal is to select jurors that will vote in favor of his client or at the very least stumble on an emotional connection. His questions rely more on how you’d feel, can you relate, can you be objective, and impartial, etc.
Thirteenth, the 63 people are asked to leave the courtroom while the state and defense begin selecting who they want to be a member of their jury. The defense eliminates individuals whom they feel will be biased even if they have previously indicated that that can be impartial – as does the state. In a matter of 30 to 45 minutes, they have selected their jury from the pool of randomly selected individuals. Twelve members are selected and a thirteenth is selected as an alternate. These 13 individuals are then sworn in again. If this selection has not pressed into the latter part of the afternoon and the state is ready to begin presenting their case, the trial can start the same day you are selected. If the trial is not started on the same day, it merely beings the next calendar business day.
_______________________________
It has been my general experience that most people have either never been called to jury duty or have been called but have never made it out of the Central Jury Room. While it’s considered a burden to miss work to “voluntarily” do your civic duty, it’s really only a scratch on the surface as to what all goes into jury selection. Furthermore, it’s only when you move to the individual District Courtrooms, that you see one of three jurors.
First, you have the blatant – I don’t want to be here – jurors.
Second, you have the flagrant – I desperately want to be on your jury – jurors.
Third, there are the – I would rather be doing something else, but understand my responsibility to answer the questions honestly and if I get called, I will serve – jurors.
On Monday, December 14th 2009, I had the “pleasure” of being called to serve jury duty for the 5th time in my life. I have served on 3 juries and have (now) played the role of foreman twice. The 2 times I was called that I didn’t serve on a jury, my initial juror number was not selected and I never left the Central Court Room. It’s my postulated theory that had I been moved to a District Courtroom, on those two occasions, I could effectively say that I have served on 5 juries total.
The first time I ever served on a jury, I was 22 years old. It was a felony robbery with the intent to harm case. For some reason and although I was by far the youngest member of the jury, I was selected to be the foreman. Which at the time, I thought had no bearing on my future jury experiences so I readily accepted. My thought process was more driven by my desire to no longer discuss things that didn’t matter – like who would be the foreman – and simply deliberate to a verdict. Which let me clear that up for everyone right now… IT DOES MATTER. It wasn’t until today that I found out why.
Let me back this up a skoach. So on December 14th 2009, there we are all 63 of us piled into this small District Courtroom. Remember the 3 different types of jurors I was talking about before? Let me introduce them to you in real-life examples.
The – I don’t want to be here – Jurors.
These people are the best. I mean, when you have to be doing something like potentially being selected for a jury, it’s imperative that there is some comic relief or you might go insane. It’s these people that provide all of that that you will need in the several hours you will be spending with them.
There was a guy sitting right next to me. He was Juror 42. I was Juror 43. Any time the state or defense attorney asked a question pertaining to being impartial or if a given scenario was fair or that they could agree with it, this guy would either raise his hand emphatically, talk out of turn or a combination of the two. His tone was harsh and to the point. He was opposing things that were obviously against the law. For instance, the state set up the following scenario (and this was after we had a 40minute discussion as to what reasonable doubt actually meant AKA a damn beating):
If the state has one witness and that one witness is according to you believable and reliable and you feel is telling the truth. Can you convict a person on the basis of that one person’s testimony?
Granted this scenario calls for a person to make some assumptions. First, if that is the evidence that the state is providing to prove guilt, and you believe it without a reasonable doubt, then you must convict – by definition of how our laws and court system is designed. Second, whether or not you think that the evidence provided could be more thorough, or that you would rather have more to go on, the law simply states that if you believe what is placed before you without a reasonable doubt, you must convict. It’s that simple.
This guy was all about saying he didn’t believe in that method of justice. It’s like well sir, you should move to Canada or possibly France, because guess what, we’re in America and this is how the show is run. He said he couldn’t be impartial when asked but could give no reason as to why. Which I suppose could be argued that that is his given right as an American to not have to explain himself.
Let me put it to you this way… it was so evident that he had zero desire to be there, that at one point and in the middle of questioning, I turned to him and said – wow, you really don’t want to serve on this jury, do you? And before he could answer I said – why don’t you just raise your hand and say you don’t want to be here. They obviously aren’t going to pick you. He just looked at me like a deer caught in headlights; like how’d you know? C’mon man… really?!
1 juror out.
Aside from him, there was a woman in the front row that followed Juror 42’s lead. When he said anything that got a negative response from the judge or the lawyers, she’d chime in and say something far more excessive. Like when 42 said he couldn’t be impartial ol’girl in the front was like – me either. As a matter of fact, I don’t care what the crime is – I’m giving the max sentence. In between siding with the crazy guy beside me, she’d sigh heavily and deeply while intermittently putting her head down on the railing (as she was in the front row) giving the ultimate eff-you to the court system.
2 jurors out.
There was another lady who when asked if after she’d convicted someone of a felony theft, could she justify all aspects of the sentencing as allotted by the court and the specific crime. For instance, this felony theft charged, if convicted, carried a sentence of 180days up to 2years. This woman responds with – for a felony, I cannot see how 180days or 6months would be enough of a sentence. I could not consider the lowest end of that range for possible sentencing.
3 jurors out.
Aside from the 3 of them, there were a slew of others that raised their hands and said for one reason or another that they could not be impartial.
My dad owned his owned his own company and was a victim of theft…
I was a victim of theft directly…
I worked for a company that was victimized by theft…
My friends were victims of theft…
4, 5, 6…12 jurors out.
Then there were four people that claimed to not be able understand the English language well enough to answer even the simplest of questions. I most closely related this to that car accident where the person who hit you pulls the – no hablo ingles – card. Well that is until the cops get there and then they speak perfect ingles. Nonetheless, the court will not call those people saying that there is a language barrier a liar.
16 jurors out.
Finally in this category, you have the famous last minute – oh shit, people are weeding themselves out so I have better come up with something quickly or my likelihood of serving is increasing with each passing moment.
Enter the following question: does anyone have anything planned within the next couple of days that would prevent you from being able to serve this jury in its entirety? Something that was already previously planned?
And here’s the few people that made me actually laugh out loud in court. My laughter was only drowned out by the simultaneous heavy sighing accompanied by eye rolling from our very Judge. It was by this point that he was ready to commit a felony against one of these rebellious potential jurors.
One guy raises his hand and is vague. He had something on Wednesday that he could not get out of. One thing I have learned about the art of lying AKA the fake call in sick to work – is this… never offer more information than is being requested. Be simple and to the point without ever really saying anything of substance. It’s likely that your work AND the overworked courts will not ask you to provide anything further than your very word. And in this instance, with this juror, the attorney simply asked if it was something that could be rescheduled. Without giving any other details the juror responded – no it’s not and they marked him down as a no and moved on. In my head, I had to applaud that guy. Nicely done, sir – well, played.
17 jurors out.
There was an older man who said he wouldn’t be able to serve because he had a colonoscopy scheduled. When the attorney asked him when it was scheduled, the man answered – oh, no it’s already happened but the simple fact is that I am uncomfortable to sit for long periods of time right now. I laughed – literally, out loud. Now, I’ve got to tell you that I was halfway tempted raise my hand and say that I had broken my coccyx in 6th grade (which is 100% true) and any time that I sit for long periods my tailbone aches. I, however, refrained. I settled with a hardy laugh and the hairy eyeball from the guy.
18 jurors out (on sheer stupidity alone).
And for some reason, I guess this guy’s very informative self-proclamation opened the flood gates of ridiculousness. A woman on the back row raises her hand and shares that she has serious bladder problems and unless the court wanted to adjourn every 15minutes to allow her to relieve herself, she’d most likely not be a good juror candidate. From that, a woman in the front proclaimed that she had ovarian cysts and those caused her great pain daily and not being able to get up and move around at her instant desire to relieve that pain probably wouldn’t work for the courts as well. From there, a guy in the third row says that he has IBS and would have a similar problem to the woman with the bladder condition. It was at this point that the judge put a stop to that nonsense. He reinstructed the jurors that it had to be a planned trip and/or a planned surgery. That just about everyone can come up with a reason that they can’t and/or don’t want to sit and listen for long periods of time. After a remedial lecture about the meaning of ones civic duty, no one else dared to mention anything of the kind again, however the damage was done.
21 jurors out.
Now to some juror math so far – 63 jurors started – 21 jurors that had successfully eliminated themselves from the running = 42 potentials remaining. My odds are starting to look bleak for not being seated on this jury. Couple these people’s ridiculousness with my shitty jury luck to start and before we were halfway done with anything – I made my own proclamation in my head… I’m screwed. I’m going to be on this jury.
The flagrant – I desperately want to be on your jury – Jurors.
There was a gentleman that arrived at my assigned District Courtroom wearing what I deemed his best – gettin’ picked for a jury outfit. This guy was in a 3-piece suit fully equipped with a Troy Duncan bow-tie that matched his suit vest. He spoke extremely proper English – annoying even to a native speaker; forced almost. My throat hurt just listening to the guy annunciate each word in its exact perfection. Any time he had the opportunity to raise his hand and give an opinion, he would do just that. He would say exactly what he thought the attorney’s wanted to hear and in perfectly indented paragraphs. I swear, I could almost see the paragraph sigh, every time he’d being a new and extended paragraph with an intro sentence, three complex sentences and conclusion sentence to sum up how perfect he was for this jury. It was impressive really. I find it near impossible that that is how he actually is in real life. Anyone who calls this man a friend outside of the courtroom needs to slap the shit out of him.
22 jurors out.
There was also a woman in this category. She was more calculated. She answered the questions in exact perfection without sounding to emphatic or eager. Her flaw however, was that in order to maintain control she sat on her hands and almost swayed back and forth as to keep an exact pace with the perfect words coming out of her mouth. She was spotted immediately. Good try sweet cheeks; good old Blind Liberty wasn’t buying that day.
23 jurors out.
The – I would rather be doing something else, but understand my responsibility to answer the questions honestly and if I get called, I will serve – Jurors.
Here’s where I fell. Most of the other 40 jurors were in this category too. Some teetered on the edge so as to say – I will if you want me to, but I’d really rather not. With my previous jury luck and how many people had managed to eliminate themselves before I even had a chance to talk, I had chalked it up to the fact that I was serving on this jury no matter what I had to say. And then THIS happened...
The defense lawyer asks the following question: If you had to choose between these 2 types of punishment, which would you favor – Rehabilitation or Deterrent?
Now, I’m Juror 43, Angela Williams and he began going down the list of jurors in order, starting with Juror 1. As people are answering Rehabilitation, Deterrent, Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation, Deterrent, etc. it dawns on me, that I have no real basis to make that kind of conclusion. I have 42 jurors to get through coupled with some people needing more definition around the words Rehabilitation and Deterrent before I have to give my answer. I start to think. Which I truly believe was my first problem. How do I know what I would lean towards? What if they’d tried to rehabilitate several times and it didn’t work. Well in that case, I’d potentially lean towards deterrent – and vice versa.
When it gets to Juror 43, Angela Williams and without hesitation I say – well, I think it would depend. I could tell that the defense attorney wasn’t extremely pleased with my answer and stared at me seeking further explanation. I only offered – you know, depending on the situation.
AND THERE’S WHERE I SEALED MY SEAT IN THIS JURY. Like a damn idiot.
After I answered and the defense attorney is still not terribly pleased as he responded with a drawn out – oooook – the judge who had only interjected to make simple clarifications when jurors were being complete idiots says – that is quite possibly the most perfect answer to that question, nicely done Juror 43. Shit. Thanks Judge. Why don’t you just send me to the head of the class where I can get my nose nice and close to your ass? It sure is hard to have a brownnose when I am 4 rows back and this was the first words I had spoken outside of when they’d called role 3 hours previously and I answered a generic – here.
Shit, shit, shit. Way to think Juror 43. I couldn’t even call myself by name at that point. I wasn’t on speaking terms with myself. Stupid 43.
Now you’d think with that kind of response from the judge that everyone after me would have said – it depends. Not one person did. Even the proper English speaker begging for a seat on this jury whom I wanted to punch as he gave his answer of rehabilitation in it’s disjointed perfection.
Not long after this, they deliberated to make their final jury selection. We went into the hall at 3:30pm and by 4:00pm, they’d selected their focal 12 and their alternative 13th. When they call us back in, they begin to call the names of the selected. As the names are being called, it becomes evident quickly that the jury will be predominantly male. I get semi-excited that maybe, just maybe I have beat the system this time. Juror 7 is selected… not me. Juror 8… not me. Juror 9… not me. It’s at this point that I started thinking again. Dumb move number 2. Both dumb moves involved thinking. See a pattern yet? I say to myself – well, there’s only 3 more spots, surely I’m not going to be on this jury. Juror 10… Angela Williams. SHIT.
Without thinking as I grabbed my bag and sweater to make my way to Juror 10’s seat in the jury box, I inadvertently say – damnit. Not a great move, I’ll admit. But it was the first thing I had done without thinking, so by default it was possibly the smartest thing I had done all day.
The judge says in response to my damnit comment – it was probably your amazing answer that got you selected to this jury. To which I replied – well, if you hadn’t sent me to the head of the class, maybe they wouldn’t have noticed. He laughed. He laughed hard. So I figured I would just follow that up with – I’m a jury magnet, it’s ok because I knew this would happen. He laughed hard again. From that point forward, he’d refer to me as Juror 10, Ms. Magnet. I enjoyed it, until I was selected to be Juror 1, Ms. Foreman Magnet. Standard.
The trial was short. It only lasted the morning of December 15th 2009. Once it was all said and done, and we’d reached a verdict and sentence, I hung around to talk to the states lawyers and the judge. I always do. It was probably mistake number 2,000 of mine for the less than 2 days that I was there. Here’s where I learned a valuable piece of information – LISTEN UP. THIS COULD SAVE YOU MY JURY DRAMA IN THE FUTURE!
One of the states attorneys is telling us how they selected some of the jury members that were left hanging around. He looks at me and tells me that no matter what I said or did, I would be on this trial. Furthermore, he knew I would be the foreman. In complete awe, I asked him how that was that he knew that and why was a guarantee without having to say anything at all?
Remember when I said I was on my 1st jury when I was 22 and in haste I had agreed to be the foreman? My mistake 6 years ago had proven to be one that I would carry throughout the rest of my life. As it turns out, each state lawyer can make permanent notes about their juries. If one juror stands out to them, they can comment specifically on that juror. It’s not a paragraph in nature, but enough to know that they should or should not immediately select a person. Since I was 22 and a foreman on a jury of people 2x+ my age and we came back with a quick and fair verdict, I consequentially was left with the following PERMANENT NOTE:
Was the foreman at 22yrs old. EXCEPTIONAL juror.
I shit you not, the states attorney tells me, that the word exceptional was in all caps. He said that’s lawyer talk for you’d be an idiot to not have this person on your jury. Then he followed that up with – so it wasn’t the judge sending you to the head of the class that screwed you, although we all got a good laugh out of that comment.
He then leaned in and whispered to me – no matter what, if the state can help it and you show up in another courtroom, you will be selected.
MOTHER of GOD…
That’s what I get for being a cocky 22year-old. I’m telling you people, there’s no jury dance involved. They almost have their entire 12 selected before you even step through the door – it generally only needs slight by manageable tweaking. Just know if you ever get in a District Courtroom with me, your odds decreased by 1 seat automatically. My stupidity says – you’re welcome as well as NEVER elect to be the foreman.
The small things in life are often learned as you’re paying for your bad decisions made in a fleeting moment that didn’t even register as a decision in that moment. Such is my life.
Monday, December 7, 2009
uh... uncomfortable much...
So this came from a personality/compatibility test that I originally took as a joke from a free online dating site. I'm not ok with what it had to say... mostly because I was like, CAN YOU SEE ME?! I feel like I just got Dr. Phil'd with some BS test that accidently got it a little too right...
I repeat... NOT OK!!
Self-Confidence
As someone with high self-confidence, you feel quite comfortable interacting with other people. Indeed, you find the company of others very stimulating and enjoy meeting new people. Your relaxed demeanor in groups makes people around you comfortable too. Perhaps because you feel comfortable talking about yourself, others tend to enjoy being around you and perceive you as socially competent.
The confidence that helps you feel comfortable talking to people also spills into your own personal beliefs about yourself. Although you have several strengths, it’s likely that you also acknowledge and accept your weaknesses. But unlike some people, you take full responsibility for your actions—you rarely regret things you’ve done in the past and are not embarrassed easily.
Perhaps the defining feature that sets you apart from most people is the exceptionally high standards that you set for yourself. Your competence in social gatherings as well as at work should provide ample evidence for this. With these characteristics, it’s very likely that people come to you for advice and generally think of you as someone with leader-like qualities.
Family Orientation
As someone who respects family values, you tend to enjoy the company of family-members and are open to living a domestic life. If you have children already, you enjoy spending time with them very much and work hard to be a good parent, but may occasionally wish to “cut-loose” and let your true colors show.
If you don’t have children, you probably desire having a family sometime in the distant future. Although you occasionally enjoy cooking at home, you also like going to restaurants. This has the potential to create added stress as you transition into parenthood.
You are attracted to the idea of having a family and may be willing to work hard to achieve this, although not necessarily any time soon. This conflict is illustrated by the fact that you don’t mind doing things around the house—like cooking and entertaining guests—on the one hand. But, on the other hand, you also like going to restaurants and parties. It’s possible that in time you might prefer spending time at home more because you won’t feel like you’re missing anything when you don’t go out.
One aspect of yourself that makes you likely to become more family oriented is that you generally know how to manage your frustrations and work well on your own. This means that you have some of the basic ingredients to enjoy family life. Maintaining a tidy home, keeping a well-stocked kitchen, and making sure the kids are safe is a tough job. So attending to these things, while also taking care of yourself, may prove somewhat difficult for you.
Self-Control
The self-control personality dimension captures the way in which a person regulates and directs him or herself. Being low in self-control can be both good and bad. Occasionally people may be compelled to follow their intuitions and give in to their temptations, and your degree of self-control makes this likely to happen more often than not. This can be good in circumstances where being relaxed and open are important. However, in situations where it is necessary to be focused and careful, you might find that you do or say things that may be inappropriate.
As someone who exerts little control over your actions, you may find that you commit social blunders that might offend other people and get yourself in trouble. For example, if you’re given responsibility to work on a project that requires close attention to detail, you may be likely to overlook important details because you have difficulty staying focused. Consequently, you might feel more comfortable delegating such tasks to other people who are more detail oriented. Being able to recognize such characteristics in yourself and having more detail-oriented people do such tasks could be an effective way to manage your own stress level.
Low self-control may diminish your effectiveness at work. Acting too relaxed can make it difficult for you to focus on projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Thus, your ability to accomplish may be inconsistent. Indeed, it’s possible that you might be criticized periodically for being unreliable or unable to “stay within the lines.” Nonetheless, you may still experience many short-lived pleasures and never be thought of as boring.
Openness
As someone high in openness, you have a strong appreciation for beauty, both in art and nature. Indeed, it’s likely that you are easily absorbed in music and art, as well as natural phenomena. Another aspect of your openness is your emotional insight; that is, you probably have good access to and awareness of your own emotions.
Another aspect of the openness dimension is the tendency to think about abstract concepts and ideas. This thinking style may take the form of artistic and metaphorical use of language, and/or music composition or performance. Thus, it is likely that, either in your work or spare time, you enjoy activities that get your “creative juices” flowing.
Your tendency to be open-minded can have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, when there are no clear rules about how to approach a particular problem, your openness makes it easier for you to identify new ways to solve problems that might not be very obvious to people that are not as open as you are. In contrast, you may be bored easily in situations that lack high amounts of intellectual stimulation. In such cases, you might have difficulty excelling on projects that do not provide much stimulation or require much creative thinking.
Easygoingness
Easygoingness refers to one's ability to relax. Based on your score, you appear to work and play hard. The benefits of being moderate in easygoingness are that you achieve success through hard work, but you also know when and how to relax. Your colleagues and friends likely consider you as reliable and fun to be around.
Being moderate in easygoingness can cause you some stress, however. For example, you may sometimes find it difficult to complete tasks thoroughly and efficiently, which can cause stress for both you and the people around you. You may occasionally experience stress by working hard to reach your goals, but you value having fun and just relaxing. Knowing how to balance both work and play is a gift, and you have the key ingredients for doing this.
You have enough mental flexibility to think creatively and enough focus to implement those ideas well. This might be epitomized by your occasional difficulty focusing on subtle details, but the ease with which you’re able to adjust to changes in your life.
As someone who is neither rigid nor careless, you likely get along with most people well. On the one hand, you recognize the value of working hard and therefore consider such qualities in others beneficial. On the other hand, you know how to relax and thus appreciate people that know how to do this too. Chances are your friends and colleagues perceive you as someone that works hard, but also knows how to have a good time.
How does your personality affect your love life?
Given the strong degree of confidence that you have, it’s no surprise that you get along well with most people. Indeed, it’s self-confidence that allows people to feel comfortable interacting with others without feeling insecure and vulnerable. For this reason, you shouldn’t have much difficulty in romance, at least not initially. Your social skills will likely help relieve any anxiety your romantic partners might have on those first few dates. However, over time, the high standards that you have for yourself could potentially frustrate your partner.
Because you respect family values but appreciate a good night out on the town, you probably get along well with people that are different from you. For this reason, you would probably be quite content in a romantic relationship with someone who shares your same values on these issues. Being in a relationship with someone who enjoys going out to parties and staying-up late at night might be fun, at least initially; yet it’s likely that you will find this tiring over time. Thus, it might be easier and more satisfying for you to develop a long-lasting relationship with a person who enjoys both spending time at home and going out to eat.
As someone who is more relaxed than most people, you’ll likely be attracted to most people. However, your free-spirited nature might make being in a relationship with a person that is more rigid than you difficult because you might perceive the person as being too uptight and controlling. For this reason, you may ultimately be most satisfied in a relationship with someone that is shares your level of self-control.
Your openness probably makes it easy for you to respect and appreciate people that are different from you. However, when it comes to romantic relationships, your openness might make it difficult for you to tolerate people that cannot appreciate diversity as much as you. Therefore, you may be happiest in serious relationships with people that share your open-mindedness. But, your openness might occasionally cause a certain degree of dependency on your end because you may be so open that you easily adopt the preferences and habits of your partners and gradually relinquish things that make you so unique.
I repeat... NOT OK!!
Self-Confidence
As someone with high self-confidence, you feel quite comfortable interacting with other people. Indeed, you find the company of others very stimulating and enjoy meeting new people. Your relaxed demeanor in groups makes people around you comfortable too. Perhaps because you feel comfortable talking about yourself, others tend to enjoy being around you and perceive you as socially competent.
The confidence that helps you feel comfortable talking to people also spills into your own personal beliefs about yourself. Although you have several strengths, it’s likely that you also acknowledge and accept your weaknesses. But unlike some people, you take full responsibility for your actions—you rarely regret things you’ve done in the past and are not embarrassed easily.
Perhaps the defining feature that sets you apart from most people is the exceptionally high standards that you set for yourself. Your competence in social gatherings as well as at work should provide ample evidence for this. With these characteristics, it’s very likely that people come to you for advice and generally think of you as someone with leader-like qualities.
Family Orientation
As someone who respects family values, you tend to enjoy the company of family-members and are open to living a domestic life. If you have children already, you enjoy spending time with them very much and work hard to be a good parent, but may occasionally wish to “cut-loose” and let your true colors show.
If you don’t have children, you probably desire having a family sometime in the distant future. Although you occasionally enjoy cooking at home, you also like going to restaurants. This has the potential to create added stress as you transition into parenthood.
You are attracted to the idea of having a family and may be willing to work hard to achieve this, although not necessarily any time soon. This conflict is illustrated by the fact that you don’t mind doing things around the house—like cooking and entertaining guests—on the one hand. But, on the other hand, you also like going to restaurants and parties. It’s possible that in time you might prefer spending time at home more because you won’t feel like you’re missing anything when you don’t go out.
One aspect of yourself that makes you likely to become more family oriented is that you generally know how to manage your frustrations and work well on your own. This means that you have some of the basic ingredients to enjoy family life. Maintaining a tidy home, keeping a well-stocked kitchen, and making sure the kids are safe is a tough job. So attending to these things, while also taking care of yourself, may prove somewhat difficult for you.
Self-Control
The self-control personality dimension captures the way in which a person regulates and directs him or herself. Being low in self-control can be both good and bad. Occasionally people may be compelled to follow their intuitions and give in to their temptations, and your degree of self-control makes this likely to happen more often than not. This can be good in circumstances where being relaxed and open are important. However, in situations where it is necessary to be focused and careful, you might find that you do or say things that may be inappropriate.
As someone who exerts little control over your actions, you may find that you commit social blunders that might offend other people and get yourself in trouble. For example, if you’re given responsibility to work on a project that requires close attention to detail, you may be likely to overlook important details because you have difficulty staying focused. Consequently, you might feel more comfortable delegating such tasks to other people who are more detail oriented. Being able to recognize such characteristics in yourself and having more detail-oriented people do such tasks could be an effective way to manage your own stress level.
Low self-control may diminish your effectiveness at work. Acting too relaxed can make it difficult for you to focus on projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Thus, your ability to accomplish may be inconsistent. Indeed, it’s possible that you might be criticized periodically for being unreliable or unable to “stay within the lines.” Nonetheless, you may still experience many short-lived pleasures and never be thought of as boring.
Openness
As someone high in openness, you have a strong appreciation for beauty, both in art and nature. Indeed, it’s likely that you are easily absorbed in music and art, as well as natural phenomena. Another aspect of your openness is your emotional insight; that is, you probably have good access to and awareness of your own emotions.
Another aspect of the openness dimension is the tendency to think about abstract concepts and ideas. This thinking style may take the form of artistic and metaphorical use of language, and/or music composition or performance. Thus, it is likely that, either in your work or spare time, you enjoy activities that get your “creative juices” flowing.
Your tendency to be open-minded can have advantages and disadvantages. For instance, when there are no clear rules about how to approach a particular problem, your openness makes it easier for you to identify new ways to solve problems that might not be very obvious to people that are not as open as you are. In contrast, you may be bored easily in situations that lack high amounts of intellectual stimulation. In such cases, you might have difficulty excelling on projects that do not provide much stimulation or require much creative thinking.
Easygoingness
Easygoingness refers to one's ability to relax. Based on your score, you appear to work and play hard. The benefits of being moderate in easygoingness are that you achieve success through hard work, but you also know when and how to relax. Your colleagues and friends likely consider you as reliable and fun to be around.
Being moderate in easygoingness can cause you some stress, however. For example, you may sometimes find it difficult to complete tasks thoroughly and efficiently, which can cause stress for both you and the people around you. You may occasionally experience stress by working hard to reach your goals, but you value having fun and just relaxing. Knowing how to balance both work and play is a gift, and you have the key ingredients for doing this.
You have enough mental flexibility to think creatively and enough focus to implement those ideas well. This might be epitomized by your occasional difficulty focusing on subtle details, but the ease with which you’re able to adjust to changes in your life.
As someone who is neither rigid nor careless, you likely get along with most people well. On the one hand, you recognize the value of working hard and therefore consider such qualities in others beneficial. On the other hand, you know how to relax and thus appreciate people that know how to do this too. Chances are your friends and colleagues perceive you as someone that works hard, but also knows how to have a good time.
How does your personality affect your love life?
Given the strong degree of confidence that you have, it’s no surprise that you get along well with most people. Indeed, it’s self-confidence that allows people to feel comfortable interacting with others without feeling insecure and vulnerable. For this reason, you shouldn’t have much difficulty in romance, at least not initially. Your social skills will likely help relieve any anxiety your romantic partners might have on those first few dates. However, over time, the high standards that you have for yourself could potentially frustrate your partner.
Because you respect family values but appreciate a good night out on the town, you probably get along well with people that are different from you. For this reason, you would probably be quite content in a romantic relationship with someone who shares your same values on these issues. Being in a relationship with someone who enjoys going out to parties and staying-up late at night might be fun, at least initially; yet it’s likely that you will find this tiring over time. Thus, it might be easier and more satisfying for you to develop a long-lasting relationship with a person who enjoys both spending time at home and going out to eat.
As someone who is more relaxed than most people, you’ll likely be attracted to most people. However, your free-spirited nature might make being in a relationship with a person that is more rigid than you difficult because you might perceive the person as being too uptight and controlling. For this reason, you may ultimately be most satisfied in a relationship with someone that is shares your level of self-control.
Your openness probably makes it easy for you to respect and appreciate people that are different from you. However, when it comes to romantic relationships, your openness might make it difficult for you to tolerate people that cannot appreciate diversity as much as you. Therefore, you may be happiest in serious relationships with people that share your open-mindedness. But, your openness might occasionally cause a certain degree of dependency on your end because you may be so open that you easily adopt the preferences and habits of your partners and gradually relinquish things that make you so unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
