I went, expecting the worst. 400 people show up at 9 am, crossing a picket line (county workers on strike), to be told that if they're chosen they have the honor of getting paid $5 per day plus $.29 per mile to listen to lawyers do lawyer type stuff (lie, misrepresent, that sort of thing).
In the end, I suppose that there's not much to report. The group was split, I went to sit in the first trial and wait through questioning, eventually enough people got booted off the jury that I was called to it, then I was booted off with the last of the prosecutor's peremptory challenges. Free for two more years.
I was glad that the charges had nothing to do with any of my hot buttons (in a venue like this, that'd be mainly drug issues), so I didn't have to stress my agreement with the folks at http://www.fija.org/
The trial would have run through most of next week, something I wasn't overjoyed at, but I'd've had Friday to take care of stuff at work (this was a Wednesday), it wasn't going to turn into some sort of year long hell, and I thought it could be a fun way to learn about "the system", and (hold your breath here) I do feel a civic duty to serve on a jury.
But I do have some remaining questions, perhaps someone out there who knows more about legal procedure than I can fill me in. The main question I have is what lead the prosecutor to make that decision?
I know, it's more of a feeling thing, but the defendant was charged with brandishing a weapon in the presence of town police officers (not the words used in the actual charges), in the town I live, and the majority of the witnesses named were police officers.
The defense used their challenges against the obvious ones ("I don't think anyone should have a gun"), while the prosecution got rid of anyone with previous law enforcement experience. Hmmmm?
My hair is fairly short now, while my beard is a little scruffy, I don't think there's anything that would have automatically made anyone think I condone handgun waving incidents in which alcohol may have been a factor.
I'd like to think it was my inciteful, logical mind (although if that scares the prosecutor then I'm really worried), but I only said two things: "No" when asked if any of the previously asked questions would render me unable to return a fair verdict, and my answer to the question of what I did for a living, my marital status, where I lived, and if I had any children.
If anything, I got the feeling that the defense should be scared of me.
Anyway, if anyone out there has some insight, send it my way. danlyke@flutterby.com
Wednesday, July 29th, 1998 danlyke@flutterby.com