Jury Duty Day 2
January 13th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
What can I say about day 2? Lots was more of the same. You want the short version? I got called in and interviewed for a case. I did not get picked. I’m done for 6(?) years now.
And the gory details: I got there in great time this morning, and with coffee. Since our arrival was supposed to be a bit later (9:30 as opposed to 9 sharp) the parking garage was a bit more full, but no trouble finding a spot. I settled down in my seat in the main jury hall at just a couple of minutes past 9, and in doing so avoided the bulk of the security line.
Attendance was taken by scanning the barcode on “Part C” of the summons-y thing got in the mail, AKA the Juror Identification Card. Yay, this was computerized. Pretty much the only part of the process that was. Everyone still sort of pushed and shoved to be first to scan in, proving that you can automate but never change people’s behavior, heh.
Around 11AM I was part of the second or third new group called (some previous cases had reconvened already by that time). The 50 or so of us crammed into elevators in a couple of batches and headed up to the third floor, escorted by a court officer. At all points during this selection process there was a lot of herding and directing. I guess it really throws off their organization if someone steps the wrong way. Either that or they hire way too many personnel and they have to give them something to do?
In any case, the courtroom was beautiful and modern. Shout out to Gary for the “In God We Trust” on the wall behind the judge (and “…so help me God” in the oath we agreed to) bothering me so much. At least the saying was posted in pretty, silver, sans-serif letters? We were escorted into the benches normally reserved for observers of the proceedings and began the screening process after oral attendance was taken. I cannot say too much since this case will actually be going to trial (without me!) but I think I can outline some of the process.
It was a criminal case. The judge gave a speech telling us some of the specifics of the case (charges, geographic area in which the alleged crime occurred, etc.) and some general things about serving jury duty. He followed this with a series of questions, something like:
- Do you think you know any of the people involved (defendant, lawyers, assistant D.A., witnesses)?
- Do you have any connection to the place which the incident allegedly occurred?
- Do you have any close friends or family who have been victims of, witnesses to, or convicted of a crime?
I think there were a couple more of these, but this is what I remember. The last question I found particularly generic, but I suppose they have to be thorough. After all the questions were asked, anyone who had a “yes” answer to any one of them was to raise their hand and get in a line to speak with the lawyers and judge in private. It looked like about 2/3 of the group of 50 did this, myself included. Inside the private room I explained which question I answered yes to, and was asked if that would factor in to my being able to come to a fair decision. I didn’t think it would and answered accordingly. Each interview went pretty fast.
Once we got through all of the “yes” people, about 30 were excused, leaving 20 of us. We then moved in to the jury box (with overflow sitting in the first row for observers) and prepared for the next round of questioning. In this round the judge explained some basic legal principles such as:
- The defendant is presumed innocent.
- Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt/the burden rests on the prosecution.
- Every witness, including police officers, are assumed to have the same amount of credibility (as in, don’t necessarily believe the police officer because he/she is an officer).
After each, he asked if we could accept these and use them in our decision. Nods all around. The next round of screening began in which we were handed a typewritten (wow), xeroxed list of questions. They were something like:
- What neighborhood do you live in?
- What do you do for work?
- Are you married, if so, what does your spouse do for work?
- Do you have children, if so, what do they do for work?
- Have you served on a criminal case/civil case/grand jury before?
- Do you have relatives/friends in law enforcement (defined broadly)?
- Again, do you have relatives/friends who have been victims of, witnesses to, or convicted of a crime?
- What do you do in your spare time?
(Wow, good memory me). We went around the room and answered one at a time. I felt things got pretty interesting here. Not only did I observe the diversity (neighborhoods, accents, professions) of my fellow jurors, but some curious crowd behavior. Certain ways of reading the questions – whether people answered in full sentences, for instance “No I do not have any children” vs. “No” or how they read the numbers off “Question 1,” “Number 1″ were sometimes picked up by others when a precedent was set by one, as well as some of the answers themselves. Half the crowd must have said they do “reading” in their spare time after the first woman did. Most people answered the question about previously serving on a jury with “That does not apply to me” (incorrectly phrased!) instead of “No” once a precedent was set. I also noticed here that some had a much better grasp than others of the judge’s instructions about answering and the actual wording of the questions. Some of this may have had to do with the language barrier experienced by many in the room.
To almost everyone the judge would ask a follow-up question to a yes or no answer – usually along the lines of “will your experience with or background in that affect your judgment in this case?” - that sort of thing. About halfway through the twenty peoples’ interviews it was time for lunch. We had an hour and 15 minutes this time. I ate healthy again, chatted with Warlock, charged my phone a little, and was told not to sit on the ledge in the main lobby. 
At about 2:30 we were called back in from the jury hall to the courtroom to resume our interviews. More communication problems ensued. After completing that round, the prosecution and defense lawyers were allowed to question us. This part felt very “led” like they wanted a certain answer. Almost grade school-esque. More details were asked for about people’s potential identification to the topic of the case. Hypotheticals were posed, also tricky for the weaker English speakers. Most copped out and answered questions with a broken, “well I would have to see what the evidence was,” not a real answer at all. The defense pulled out the old “don’t judge a book by its cover” right off the bat. We could sort of see where this case was going. After being spot-questioned as a group by both lawyers it was time for them to trim the pile of jurors again.
We recessed, the judge said for 15-20 minutes. Everyone was out in the hallway. I observed patterns of who struck up conversations with who. I thought for sure I’d be picked. I chatted with Warlock and Gary. After about 45 minutes (more?) we went back in. Names of people to be sworn in as jurors for the case were to be read. I expected a list of twelve. Four were read, not me. The 16 not read were told we were DONE done, we would not have to return the next day and we would receive our statements of completed service in the mail.
I was so excited! I’m done! While it would have been interesting and provided more blogging fodder to serve on a case, I’d rather be back to my usual (and not not spending $13 a day on parking). So that’s that! If this ever actually comes up in a search result, o random visitors, feel free to ask questions in the comments.
Tags: jury duty, nyc
Word count: 1,370