Jury Duty Day 2, in which much is revealed.

[elfs]

I realized after I awoke this morning that there wasn't enough milk in the 'fridge for me to have coffee and for the girls to have breakfast, so I left five minutes early and walked down to the Olympic, a small stand-alone roaster and coffee shop. It's sad to see the Olympic circling the drain so tenaciously. Their coffee is so much better than the two new Starbucks that have opened up just down the street, and their morning staff is far more cute, but now they've started a "free coffee before 6:30am" program and free WiFi. The latter is probably more crucial than the former.

After the bus dropped me off at the Seattle Art Museum I decided to walk to the courthouse. It wasn't that far and it let me walk down first Avenue toward Pioneer Square. As I walked I saw a motorcycle cop go by, whooping his siren, and he pulled over a jaywalker. Yeah, they ticket jaywalkers in this town pretty seriously.

There must be some kind of content filtering down here in the basement of the courthouse, because the bandwidth on some websites is fine and on others it just sucks.

They signed us in quickly and then we waited only a short time for the court to be called. We were seated and the judge proceeded through the process of voir dire on personal issues: "Do you know any police officers?" "Have you ever been arrested?" "Does anyone you know have a substance abuse issue?" and so on. The number of people who know of someone with a substance abuse problem was basically the whole room. Only three people claimed to have never been the victim of a crime. Lucky them.

10:30: Bathroom break.

Voir dire begins in earnest. We discover that three of the potential jurors are cops, military police, or retired police officers. Recalling j5nn5r's recent work with the Seattle PD, I have to raise my hand about the "Do you have any close friends who are police officers?" The judge gives us the bad news: this case is expected to last three weeks. Ouch! There is no jury seating on Friday; we're free to spend that day at work.

There are sob stories about hardships. Sick mothers, "special needs" children (note, retarded children are no longer described as "special", they're now "children with special needs." George Carlin is right: we add syllables to distract and bleach tragedy out of reality), careers that will fail if the speaker isn't let go. One is a crab boat fisherman who can't miss the opening of the season. Another is a Federal Indian Law Attorney who can't afford to miss an upcoming conference. The fisherman goes free; the attorney doesn't.

12:00: We get a lunch break. I grab a pork sandwich at Hole-In-The-Wall barbecue, then go back to the jury assembly room. Hey, there's free bandwidth in there, and I've got a badge.

1:15 The jury re-assembles. Voir dire resumes, this time led by the prosecutor. One woman reveals herself to be a complete ditz: "Free will is more powerful than any drug. There's no such thing as addiction. People who say they're addicted are just using the language of The Man [I could totally hear those capital letters] to excuse their behavior." On the other hand, she's for the right of people to put whatever they want into their bodies.

One woman in her late 60's talks about having been in jail overnight for assault. Wowsers. Oh, this is lovely: after she says "You can't imagine what it's like to lose your freedom like that," she says, "Imagine what it must be like for the people of Iraq." Good grief, people, there's a time and a place for that kind of thing.

One man with a law-enforcement related job turns out to be a forensics expert, a latent print examiner for the Seattle PD. Coolness! Another one is a fossil preparer for the Burke museum. Double cool!

The defense attorney rises. Okay, I'm immediately prejudiced against him: I have the Han Solo "Where did they dig up this old fossil?" reaction as he launches straight into his questions with "I'll skip the Oprah Winfrey method of jury selection," and does not address the jury with either a "Good afternoon" or a "Ladies and gentlement of the jury," the way the prosecutor did. Him, but not his client.

Drug addiction, consensual sex vs. non-consensual sex, prison sex. Man, this is an ugly, ugly case. The prosecutor gets another round, asking about credibility. She asks me by number: I'm juror #45, "What makes you question someone's credibility?" My answer is simple: incentive. What do they get out of telling their story their particular way? Others talk about body language, and experience with the speaker. C'mon, people, incentive and consensus. Incentive is not motive.

Then she asks for reasonable doubt versus "the shadow of doubt." Again, I'm called on. "Beyond a shadow of doubt is when the matter is so settled that it would be perverse, an act of deception, to propose that an alternative explanation exists." She talks about the presumption of credibility even if the witnesses have felony convinctions.

Then it's the last turn for the defense. He starts to ask questions about the jury system. He starts with the presumption of innocence, and one juror comes forth with the notion that the presumption of guilt would be a more effective citizen. This time I volunteer my anarchic opinion that when the power of the state is arrayed against an individual in a criminal matter, the presumption of innocence is absolutely crucial.

Then he starts to ask questions about the jury system. One juror says she doesn't want to be a juror because she's an average citizen and she doesn't believe the jury system works: panels of wise men (and women, presumably, although she didn't say so). Yeah, that works.

And then the defense attorney asks two questions which make me really unhappy, really anxious. Remember that the system wants twelve people to agree either way. He asks why we don't have a jury system that takes a seven-to-five vote as sufficient, and another about why we don't have a system of judges rather than jurors. And as he's going around the room, asking individual jurors, I realize something: He's looking for a nullifier. He's looking for someone to either evangelize the jury or to hang it for his client. That's what he wants. He's buying time for his client.

And damn my conscience, now that I'm aware of the game, I don't feel I could play it out fairly. At the next break, I inform the bailiff. I talk to the judge and the two attorneys. I reveal my discomfort. I reveal my knowledge, the right of the jury to nullify, the responsibility a citizen has to the law before the judge, Scharf v. US 1865, all of it. The defense attorney looks shocked, but denies that he even knows what I'm talking about ("oh, bullshit, you old fart." I could see the judge thinking that). I tell them that I feel I could judge the case on its merits, but obviously everyone is really uncomfortable with the moment and the judge thanks me for not bringing this up in front of the rest of the jury.

And I feel really bad about it because I know it's gotten me thrown off the jury. Part of me is relieved: I get to go home. The other part of me wants to know what really happened next.

3:30: We come back from break, and sure enough, I'm immediately excused. And dammit, that's sad. My interest and knowledge of the law and its exercise should not exclude me from jury duty.

Anyway, if you want to know, and now that I'm free to look it up, the case involves a prison guard at the King County Correctional Facility accused of three counts of Custodial Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree, one in the Second. There seems to be some exchange of sex for drugs. There seems to be a question of consent.

What's more distrubing: that I'm curious to know if anything said during the trial would make for story material, or that I'm glad I got away because I have doubt that anything would?

Comments

[tagryn]

Thanks, hadn't even heard of jury nullification before this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Is it the opposite of where a judge throws out/overturns a jury decision after it is read, because he/she decides the jury showed poor judgement? (not sure what the technical term for that would be)

[mouser.livejournal.com]

Sort of. Basically the idea is that the jury can ignore the law to give justice. "We know you did it - the evidence says so. The law says you have to be punished. But, damnit that's not right!"

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

LOVE the icon.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

better picture. (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0409,conaway,51511,1.html)

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

And a good article too. Thank you for pointing to it.

[intrepid-reason.livejournal.com]

As always I was completely enthralled reading your account of what for most people is just the another mundane aspect of life. Thanks!

[rapier.livejournal.com]

Dang. That totally trumps how I got excused from jury duty. I work nights, and rolled into my jury duty after a nine hour shift. I was pretty wired on coffee during the selection process, and when I get wired, I get chatty. One attorney asked me about my job, and how long I had been awake. Both attorneys and the judge were eager to see me go after I told them, and that I'd be something like 36 hours awake by the end of our turn in the jury box. I guess sleep-deprived jurors aren't their cup of tea. :)

[woggie.livejournal.com]

Your method of jury avoidance is more fun than mine.

I just tell them I'm on SSI for anger management and anxiety issues, and they're perfectly happy letting me not even attempt to come into the building. Over the phone. Especially when I'm apologetic.

Honestly, they called me once about five years ago, and I called them back to tell them the above. They haven't attempted to ask me in since. I guess word gets around... :p

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

if you have the time, (since most trials are public) you can catch the bus, stop by, and listen in, if you want to know what you missed.

Wow...

[geak.livejournal.com]

Not only was that an entertaining entry, I'd consider it highly educational. Now that I'm aware of a jury's right to judge the law as well as the facts I'm rather town between several very different reactions.

On one hand I'm delighted at discovering a method for the citizenry to possibly effect the law in a positive way, unfortunately since the court has no real compulsion to inform the jury... it seems to be left to the jury to educate themselves. This makes me want to shout it from the rooftops at the top of my lungs.

On the other hand, it strikes me as potentially harmful in the wrong hands. Just look at all those white juries that refused to convict white criminals for hate crimes. In essence stating that hate crimes aren't crimes. Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut. Positive methods for effecting the law are subject to what your community considers a 'positive effect'.

On the gripping hand though... it very selfishly strikes me as a perfect method for weaselling out of future jury duty. This realization also leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling over possibly shirking what I consider a civic duty, but then it occurs to me that if I don't apply this knowledge correctly when I'm ever in the situation to do so, I might find myself in some trouble.

Thank you Elf... you've given me something to think about.

Re: Wow...

[geak.livejournal.com]

Rather 'torn' that is...

Re: Wow...

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I will admit up front to being more relieved that I got out of it than upset that I'm not going to participate. I've been on juries before without this kind of hangup. I think my problem stems from an awareness that, given what I knew about the mechanics of the process, I could not be fair and impartial.

My anxiety came from the realization that the defense attorney was leading the jury to agree to the neccessity of both a trial by jury and a unanimous verdict. The entire jury went with that and agreed that that was the responsibility and power of a jury, without ever once pointing out the collary: one man can hang a jury. If the defense gets that, he can only hope to exhaust the prosecution and the defendent goes free.

When I realized the intended outcome the defense was seeking, I knew I couldn't play that game. It's dishonest: let someone else play it.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

It really doesn't matter if there was consent or not, if it occurred "under color of authority" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_color_of_authority). Under those circumstances, it's ALWAYS non-consensual.

[omahas.livejournal.com]

Exactly what I pointed it out to Elf when he told me about the case. That's why Elf believed the defense lawyer was looking for jury nullification...because the defendant had basically admitted his guilt.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

He's probably right. And not knowing any specifics of the case, I can't form an opinion of there might really BE a good case for nullification.

[lisakit.livejournal.com]

Sounds like you did the only thing you could. You were open and honest with the Judge and attorneys in a non-disruptive way. And I agree, it sucks that someone who understands the responsibility of jury duty should get disqualified.

Don't know if this makes you feel any better but, when I had my first paralegal class I was told that now I would likely never get to sit a jury. I would always be excused because, even after just taking the one intro to law class, I now know too much about the legal system. Lawyers prefer a jury they can lead or sway to their side, not one that's going to be logical about the whole thing.

Of course the strange dichotomy I discovered in the legal field is that it is filled with people with a strong sense of responsibility and respect for both the law and what they believe is right. Even the asshat I worked for had my respect in that mien.

And yet somehow, even with a system that seems guaranteed to have only the stupid and/or easily swayed sitting a jury, justice occurs in surprising frequency.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

That may or may not be true. In the recent Scooter Libby trial, one of the jurors was an actual lawyer. As it happens, that trial also included an attempt by the defense lawyers at jury nullification, which failed miserably.

[hydrolagus.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it varies at different levels of court?

[(Anonymous)]

Do you by chance mean "Sparf v. U.S."? That would have been 1895.

[halloranelder.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this, both entertaining and educational.

It sickens me at times to see how much the legal system isn't about justice, it's about manipulation and social engineering. Unfortunately, it's the best one we can come up with.

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Especially in this case, where the defense is gaming the system in the hopes of exhausting the prosecution and getting them to give up. All he needs to do is hang the jury enough times that the prosecution finally decides that the cost of continuing isn't worth it.

[halloranelder.livejournal.com]

Which makes me ask a simple question:

How much is justice worth?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Arguably, a price cannot be placed on justice. But the prosecution does cost taxpayer money and time and they've got to consider both the backlog and their responsibilities to the whole of the tax base. I know, we would like to see justice done in this case, but real justice is like real humanity in general: a messy business not given to consistently coughing up absolutes.

I'm confused

[brainchaos.net (from livejournal.com)]

I guess it's unclear to my why you felt compelled to, for lack of a better word, "tattle" on yourself and the defense, simply because you are aware of an obscure (but admittedly crucial) legal tenet, and believed due to that knowledge that the defense was looking for someone willing to do what a juror is in fact obliged to do. Unless, of course, you had pre-judged the case without benefit of trial, and concluded that nullification would have been "wrong".

Re: I'm confused

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Oddly, now that I've read through the newspaper reports on this case and seen what's been going on, I'm convinced that I did the right thing.

The defense attorney worked hard (and rather well) to discuss with the jury the need for consensus among jurors. Every single one of the jurors other than myself apparently missed the flip side of his thesis about jury power: it takes only one guy to hang a jury. I now know that he's done it once and that's what he's aiming for: he's looking to exhaust the prosecution into giving up. He needs jury hangers and nullifiers to do it. And frankly, I did not want to be on that jury. I could not be the person he wanted and I felt more than a little outraged that I was being played for a pawn in a legal game of chicken.

Maybe I could have been a decent juror. I probably could have. The defense was going to argue against the credibility of the witnesses, but they seem to have no solid attack against the lack of incentives the witnesses might have had, but there's some question maybe that sex happened at all. But I don't know that I could have been fair knowing up front the defense's intent as clearly as I did. He didn't believe in his client's innocence. He just needed to keep him out of jail.

[kistha.livejournal.com]

Hi!

It's #54

We have friends in common apparently. I've friended you since you were interesting in person. *LOL*

You were much more detailed than I - and remembered different people. The big one for me was the woman who had already decided he was innocent. Ack!

[elfs.livejournal.com]

I took notes! (And thank you for recovering them for me!) In fact, that seemed to be an odd thing to do: take notes. I'm rather surprised no one called me on it. I'm just a rabid blogger.

Yes, the woman who had "looked into his eyes" (shades of George Bush and Vladimir Putin) and decided the young man was already innocent was a bit of a shock to me. Then again, he was one of those guys right on the cusp between being devastatingly cute and just a little too... slippery looking. He looked like the kind of guy who could talk someone into bed without too much trouble.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the presumption of innocence. But if I knew then what I knew now about Savage, I don't know that I'd feel the same way.