law and order: part 2

After a long lunch break, we met back in the jury room only to be told that both lawyers needed more time to look over the questionnaires. I guess I shouldn't have expected the judicial process to be timely....ha. An hour later, we finally went back down to the courtroom and this is where the fun began.

They called 18 people up at a time, 12 to sit in the jury box and 6 to sit in the alternate row. Both sides then questioned these people about the answers they gave in their questionnaires, which as you can tell from my previous post had great potential to be uncomfortable. After all 18 had been questioned, the D.A. and the defense could say which people they wanted to excuse and then more people were called up to fill the now empty spots.

I should mention that both lawyers were younger woman, no older than 35. I found this interesting....I was expecting the defense lawyer to be a man. I wondered why this woman would defend this sleazy creep and then I realized a core truth of the justice system: I needed to be presuming this guy was INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around. Both the judge and the defense would remind everyone of this multiple times. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of a crime and not just some guy who had anal lube in a Motel 6 (which is gross, but not a crime).

A favorite question of the defense was to ask each person if they would want themselves as a juror if they were sitting in the defendant's seat. A lot of people responded with an honest "no" and were then made to explain why. "I had a family member in a similar situation." "I'm a mother of a 17 year old daughter." "I work for a women's organization that has to report situations like this." "I just couldn't be impartial due to my personal beliefs."

After each reason, the defense lawyer would reemphasize that the law calls us to be impartial and fair and set our personal feelings aside and determine a verdict based on the evidence alone and not our preconceptions. She then would ask each person one last time if, as mandated by the law, they could give her defendant a fair trial? Most feebly replied "Well, I hope I could be fair."

Another highlight of the questioning session was when the D.A. asked one of the potential jurors to further explain what he wrote on his questionnaire about his thoughts toward district attorneys. He then snarled "I think they're all pathetic!" Everyone in the room tried to stifle their laughter. Then the D.A. asked if there were previous experiences that this man had had to justify his feelings. Again, he retorted angrily, "That's none of your business!" Needless to say, he was excused.

Well this is going to be anticlimatic, but I wasn't questioned. After two and a half hours, they finally settled on 12 jurors and 2 alternates and the rest of us were excused. As I walked down the courthouse steps, I pondered over the fact that those people chosen would decide a man's fate. Ordinary people like myself get to play a crucial role in choosing the path of someone's life: imprisonment or freedom. But my time to play that role had not come yet and my day as a potential juror was over.