Jury Duty - Post Script

Now that the trial by jury is over and I can freely indulge in some things I could not while serving on the jury, I want to sort of collect the odds and ends of my thoughts and speculations:

1. There's a good reason for the judge's admonition not to talk about the case or do our own research.  For example, I found that the Sacramento Superior Court keeps an online database of people scheduled for hearings, arraignments, and trials.  Although this database isn't particularly user friendly or complete, it has enough information to find out what the minimum charges and convictions have been for someone list there.  Our defendant for our trial was being charged simply with reckless driving by eluding a police officer.  There was both a felony and a misdemeanor charge.  Listening to the defense attorney you might think this was the defendant's first brush with the law.  But according to the database, in the last 12 years alone he has been convicted or plead guilty to two counts of Driving Under the Influence, one count of grand theft auto, one count of grand theft burglary, one count of wife beating, and one count of resisting arrest and interfering with a police officer.  He's just not a really nice guy.
2. I have to really admire people like the defense attorney.  Unlike the jury, he had to know all the history on this criminal and still defended him, sat next to him as if he really did like him, and never let on what a creep he was.  Even the rest of the actors in court (and they were all acting to some degree) were giving the defendant more respect than he has given society.
3. Just as in the jury room, people I talk with about the jury deliberations seem to fall into two groups - the law is black & white and the law is all shades of gray.  I guess that's pretty typical of how people see life though, isn't it?
4. Maybe we don't pay our police enough. Here, this lone CHP officer chases and stops a truck carrying two convicted felons.  By dropping his microphone he has lost contact with dispatch so he can't even expect that backup is on the way.   The driver has acted irrationally from the start of the chase and at the end jumps out of the truck shouting, "I don't want to go to jail!  I don't want to go to jail!"  With good reason to fear for his life, the cop calmly cuffs and arrests the driver.  He spends another two to three hours filling out paperwork because of all the traffic infractions, the chase, and impoundment of the truck.  And he still isn't finished.  Between preliminary hearings, depositions, trial, and other meetings with attorneys and supervisors he probably spent another 50 to 75 hours on this case.  And what thanks will he get?
5. The courts have gone a long ways toward respecting the time and service of  jurors since the first time I was called.  If there is still a problem with the system it is that some people get a summons every 18 months and others go for years.  That should be evened out.  Probably there should also be a way to give credit for those who serve more than 3 days on a jury and those who spend a month on a jury should be exempt for life unless they volunteer to be called up.

Jury Duty parking

Parking was less traumatic than I feared.  I should have had more faith.

First: If you get there before 7:45 the regular jury lot has lots of spaces.  It is convenient and close to the courthouse.  It is even convenient for handicap parking and access.

Second:  Sometime between 7:45 and 8:00 the regular lot will be determined full and a sign will be hung denoting that.  Then and only then can you try the alternate lots.  Or you can still go in the regular lots because there will probably still be 6 to 10 spots available.

Third:  The two-story county lot just west of the courthouse and north of the county administration building is really ideal.  BUT, there is one caution for handicap access - there is no direct access from the second floor to the street level sidewalk.  To get to the courthouse that is only 50 feet away, you must take a ramp to a street overpass which takes you to the plaza in front of the Admin building.  You must then go through the building and across another plaza to a ramp which takes you down to H Street.  From there, you have to cross two streets and travel almost two blocks to get back to the courthouse doors.  Suggestion: park on the first floor of the structure.  There is an easy, convenient access exit to the street level sidewalk.

Down to the wire

Disclaimer: This case has been completed and the jury released from the judge's admonition not to discuss the case.  

When we didn't even start on real deliberations yesterday, a couple of us were worried that this case could go on forever.  But immediately after the bailiff locked us in the jury room, the jury foreman called the group to order and began laying out his "game plan".  Now we're getting somewhere, I thought.  Forty-five minutes later he was still laying out his game plan.  Finally, to get things moving I interrupted with a request that someone else speak.  We started going around the table and it soon became evident that the foreman planned to comment on each comment and take twice as long as the original commenter.  I suggested, kindly but plainly that he needed to talk less so others could talk more.  Fortunately, he accepted my suggestion and I only had to remind him once other time.

At a point in our deliberations when some people were saying the law was not "black and white" we decided on a poll around to room for everyone to give their opinion about whether it was a black and white issue.  The count was 8 to 4 in favor of black and white.  (This referred to the unmistakable nature of the vehicle code.  All participants in this case were white.)  A poll shortly after this revealed that 2 of the "gray" proponents favored the felony charge and the other two, the misdemeanor charge.

We broke for lunch with everyone wondering whether we could ever come to an agreement.  But after lunch we had a couple hours of good discussion about whether laws are or can be shades of gray.  The two nay votes were coming around to see it more black and white which would change their vote.  About the time we would have had a break we took the final vote showing us unanimously in favor of guilty to the felony charge.

It still took an hour to assemble the lawyers, the defendant, and the alternate juror so that we could go back into the courtroom and render our verdict.  I noted with some relief that the guard on the defendant had been doubled for this occasion although in fact he showed no emotion when he heard the verdict.

The judge thanked us and as we all checked out we said goodbyes to the other jurors with hugs and handshakes.  I think it was  ultimately a good decision and everyone on the jury felt good about it.

The case heats up then winds up

Disclaimer: This case has been completed and the jury released from the judge's admonition not to discuss the case.  

I had misunderstood just how far we had gotten on our case after one day.  Turns out that the defense had not even started presenting their case.  And testimony was delayed about an hour while the two atttorney's addressed the issue of a CHP officer who assisted in preparing the report.  When both sides finally agreed as to what the officer would have said if he could have come to witness, we began the court activities again.

To insure that the jury got the message from the defendant's brother, the prosecutor called the Private Investigator who interviewed the brother shortly after the incident.  His testimony was basically the same as the brother's.

The defense recalled the CHP officer and tried again and again to show how his statements were inconsistent and therefore couldn't be relied on for information.  Again and again he tried to make the officer take responsibility for reports he hadn't written so he could show that there are inconsistencies.  It got to be a big turn-off.

Finally, the judge announced that we would hear closing statements.  There were almost identical  with the opening statements except that now we were more familiar with the facts of the case and could see how everything fit together.

Following the prosecutor's last words, the judge read the instructions to the jury - a 20 minute exercise.  We were then escorted to a completely different floor and part of the building where we were introduced to our deliberation room.  After a short break we were locked in the room and told to do our thing.

The first order of business for a jury just starting deliberations is to choose a foreman.  Because I had said I had been a CEO one woman nominated me.  I agreed to serve if chosen.  Another man in the group nominated himself, giving as his reason, his experience being a jury foreman in two other cases.  I agreed he had more experience than I so I would have no problem supporting him.  He was then selected by acclimation.

With less than an hour to deliberate, the foreman suggested we use the time to introduce ourselves and get to know one another a little better.  I'm sure I wouldn't have thought of it but it really was a good thing to do.  It made future discussions much more fruitful and less adversarial.

Opening statements - first witness

Disclaimer: This case has been completed and the jury released from the judge's admonition not to discuss the case.  

Overnight the courtroom had been rearranged.  The 6 chairs for the alternate  jurors had been removed and two set up on a platform by the side of the jury box.  A 4 foot ramp had been placed next to the jury box so that though I still wouldn't be in the jury box, I could be raised up a step and feel more like part of the jury.

To begin the trial, the Judge read us a Statement of Information.  This is pretty much what it says it is, a statement about the time, date, and overall circumstances of the case before us.  We learned that the case revolved around an alleged automobile chase of the defendant by a CHP officer.  Because of the number of traffic infractions, the People (prosecution) were asking for a felony conviction of "willful and wanton disregard for the safety of people and property".  There was also a lesser, misdemeanor charge of evading a police officer which we could find the defendant guilty if the prosecution hadn't proven the greater charge.

Next the prosecution again summarized the facts of the case and an outline of how she expectedto present it.  Her statement is not to be considered evidence and my in fact be untrue.  The defense then has the same privilege.  I found it difficult not to hear the statements as truth although somehow it was easier to discount the defense than the prosecution.

Then the fun began.  I was very impressed with the people's case.  The Assistant DA presented the evidence logically, in order, and comprehensively.  At that point there was no doubt in my mind.  She had laid out what evidence was needed to establish the facts which would meet the definition of the felony reckless driving charge.  Then by interviewing the CHP officer who had made the arrest, she established all the necessary facts.

As the defense began, I tried not to hold it against him that he appeared less prepared, poorly organized, and seemingly random.  It wasn't really a surprise since he had warned us in voir dire that his presentation might not be as organized as the prosecution.  He even warned us that his cross examination of witnesses could be pretty harsh.  What he didn't warn us was that they might be nonsense or irrelevant.  As the case progressed, I began to wonder if the defense attorney was really inept or simply wanted to give us that impression.  Sort of "dumb like a fox".  Later I was to find out that I wasn't the only one with such questions.  The defense attorney also conceded that the defendant was guilty of the misdemeanor charge.  It felt like he had tried to plea bargain and was still trying after the prosecutor had refused to go along.

The defense attorney attempted to raise questions in our minds about the officer's ability to judge the speed or another vehicle or even tell the truth on a report.  For me it had the opposite effect because most of the criticisms, if met,  would have made the case even stronger.  But it was clearly a case of "he said - she said"  The cross examination of the people's main witness, the arresting CHP officer, took longer than his original interrogation but finally it was over.  I felt great sympathy for the harrassed officer.

The people called one additional witness, the defendant's brother who was in the pickup truck as they were being chased by the cop.  This brother is considered a hostile witness.  The  prosecutor established that even a hostile witness would present damaging testimony for the defendant.  She also got him to explain how many felony and just how much trouble the defendant was in.  The she rested her case.  The defense, claiming no case had been made, did not present  a case.  It was late in the day so the judge called a recess.

Selecting a jury

Disclaimer: This case has been completed and the jury released from the judge's admonition not to discuss the case.  

My previous post described part of the process called "voir dire" where the attorneys for each side as well as the judge get a chance to individually question each juror for the purpose of determining their fitness to sit on the jury for this trial.

As we had registered for our jury duty we had filled in a short questionnaire which asked for example about employment, education, and prior jury experience.  This questionnaire helped the attorneys and the judge focus their questions.  Knowing a peace officer or belonging to the ACLU doesn't disqualify you but it does flag you for additional questions about whether you might be prejudiced for or against the defendant.  The judge started out asking specific jurors specific questions but quickly moving to more general questions of the whole jury.  For example, "Does anyone know an attorney or have been involved with legal issues?"The prosecutor likewise asked questions more generally. The defense attorney was specific all the way which had the effect of not asking some jurors anything.  The most frequent question centered around the "innocent until proven guilty" concept.  The first person the judge dismissed and a couple dismissed by the defense had trouble with that concept.

The prosecutor and defense lawyers traded turns inviting people off the jury until all six alternates had replaced six original jurors.  Then six more alternates were selected, sworn in, and subjected to voir dire.  Two additional jury panels had to be called before the attorneys stopped challenging the jurors.  I was still in my original chair as Juror #12.

Out of the pool - Voir dire

Unlike a couple of jury summons' I have served where it seemed like I wasn't even going to be called on a panel for questioning, I was called on the first panel called the morning I registered.  I can't give a lot of detail at this point as the trial is still underway and the judge was quite specific about things we could and couldn't talk about.  Even numbers might tell more than we should.

My panel, the one called to Department 12 that morning, was called out of the pool in alphabetic order.  But by the time we reached the Department 12 courtroom, the list had been once again randomized so that it wasn't just the A's and B's that got to sit in the jury box.

I was interested in whether my handicap would make a difference in the courtroom.  It did.  Although my selection number was such that I was part of the jury, I had to sit in my power chair some distance from the jury, closer to the attorneys than to the jury box.  That made me a sort of "invisible man" in the court.  Both attorneys tended to focus just on the jury box.  Even the presence there of an obviously empty chair did not seem to remind them I was there.  During the jury challenges when each side can dismiss jurors for cause or otherwise.  I noticed one of the attorney's clients pointing out that the attorney had not asked me a single question.The attorney jumped  up and asked the judge if he could reopen the questioning because he had missed me.  He then apologized to me and expressed hope that I wasn't offended.  Hoping I wouldn't get in trouble, I replied in my best stage voice, "Yes.  As a matter of fact I feel very offended -- NOT"  There were chuckles all around the room so I guess I'm not in troublel

The first day - into the pool

One of the reasons I was interested in being a juror this year is that 4 or 5 years ago I had also received a summons but was in one of the groups whose service wasn't needed.  I never even made it down to the courthouse or the jury parking lot.  

Of course I never really enjoy driving downtown so I was pleased to see that the prime parking lot is on the northwest corner of the city.  It's really convenient to Carmichael.  The drawback is that the lot usually fills up by 8:00 each morning.  Thus if you're in a court which starts at 9:00 you have a choice of getting there an hour early or traveling to one of the alternate sites.

I worried about being on time my first day.  I needn't have.  Although they started registering potential jurors 30 minutes before we needed to be there, there was still a line 45 minutes later.  Registering consisted of having your summons or your badge scanned so they would know that somewhere in the process you had actually been on site.  Believe it or not, only a hour after I registered there were 3 people missing.  

When you checked in you were also asked to complete a one-page, 4 copy questionnaire with basic questions about your connection to law, legal systems, police, crime, and your career choices.  I'll explain later how these answers were  used to select a jury.

I would guess there were probably about 100 of us potential jurors concentrated in the two jury assembly rooms but also scattered through various hallways and waiting rooms on the second floor.  We were informed that we now constituted the "jury pool" and may be in and out of that pool several times in the day.  However, if we were in the pool at the end of the day, our jury service would be over for another 18 months.  

We then watched a 9 minute film about the importance of juries in our system of democracy.  In case you'd like to watch the clip without getting called to jury duty here is the link.  Judge Van Camp (star of the film) even favored us with a personal visit and further explanation of how important jurors are.

Waiting for the assignment

What did we ever do without computers?  The chart above is a good example of using computers to randomly assign jurors to various days so that the time for a potential juror to sit around with nothing to do is minimized while the courts all have sufficient jurors for their cases.   You may want to click on the chart to get it big enough to see.

I was assigned group #318 which the chart told me would report Tuesday morning.  Sometimes groups are told to check Monday evening, then Tuesday noon, then Tuesday evening, etc.  This could go on all week but in normal runs it doesn't happen that way.  Usually after two changes in check-in times, they're  usually given a free pass like groups #324 & #325.   

Summoned for Jury Duty

I got this in the mail the other day.  I think it would be safe to say that almost everyone dreads getting one of these in their mailbox so you might be a little surprised that I was delighted, well maybe not delighted but at least happily looking forward to the experience.

You see, this is the first time when serving on a jury would not be a royal pain - virtually all my service is voluntary and can be easily covered by someone else.  And conversely, this may be the last time when my health will allow me to serve on a jury without really special accommodations such as a bed.  

The unknown, of course, is that nowadays when you get your summons (at least in Sacramento) you are told that you will serve for one day or one trial but you don't know right away which day  you start and if you'll be on a trial or not.