jury duty, day 2

So just as I thought, I had to sit through the rest of the defense attorney's questioning, then get questioned by the smarmy prosecutor. I'm too tired to even recall the questions asked--I know he asked about whether I was comfortable with one person being witness to a crime, i.e. the victim, which is what happens in domestic violence cases, and for some reason this question totally tripped me up and I was babbling on like a crazy person. Listening to the other juror's answers to the questioning made me feel really really young, which I suppose I was relative to them. A bunch of people were excused for cause, which is when the lawyers decide it's because they won't be impartial, like people who knew victims of domestic violence, for example. I thought I was getting really close to getting picked but then I realized that I was only being retained because everyone else was excused for cause, and I had no legitimate impartiality.

Finally I was excused as a peremptory challenge by the prosecution, which is apparently when you're excused without the plaintiff or defendant stating a reason. I wasn't chewing gum or giving lip or being deliberately outrageous, so I have to assume it was because I was young and probably seemed inexperienced compared to the others. Or maybe he just didn't like some of my answers.

So that was the extent of my jury duty. I have to say I got pretty far for my first try. And all the other prospective jurors are really nice to you. I guess it's because everyone knows they're in the same boat. About half a dozen people came up to talk to me during recesses to ask me about my post-grad plans and talk about Amgen or Baxter or offer me career advice (and hey, I got an offer to work at Anheuser-Busch...testing for microbes in beer, or something like that?), so that was pretty cool.

I did learn a lot about the jury selection process and I found it really fascinating. The lawyers are so meticulous and I found myself spending the entire time watching them to see how they'd try to manipulate you. Maybe manipulate is the wrong word, I don't know. I'd love to see how they work during an actual trial with opening and closing statements and evidence and all that, but that'll have to wait for at least another year I guess. They may have made the right call in excusing me, because as much as I want to be on a jury, I'd probably spend the entire time wondering how the lawyers were playing me rather than listening to the facts. The most interesting thing I learned was how everyone takes jury duty pretty seriously. You'd think you'd see people wearing Death Penalty t-shirts and pretending to racist or whatever, but during voir dire everyone is actually very rational and honest (I'm assuming). So kudos to the people!

I'm kind of sad now I won't get to see the case tried after hearing about it. I was definitely disappointed when I was excused but also a bit relieved too. It really is a pretty serious job and I would worry about whether or not I had properly weighed all the evidence and caught all the facts. Plus the fact that I'd actually be making a judgment on someone's innocence is a little uncomfortable. It might just be me, but if I were on trial I don't know if I would necessarily want myself to be on the jury. Not because I'm unfair or stupid, but because I have zero knowledge of the law. When you think about it, it's a little mind-boggling how we leave judgments of innocence and guilt to people who have no legal background (see: every single high- profile celebrity trial of the last ten years). Juries can be swayed by excellent lawyers with great skills of persuasion, which is why rich people tend to get off and poor people don't. And the entire jury selection is a bit shady anyway. If anything, this entire experience just shows how crafty lawyers are at picking through jurors. Too much knowledge of the law? Highly educated? Out and out. Easily persuaded (some might call this being open-minded). In. If I were guilty and on trial, I would definitely want the stupidest people on my jury. Plus, from everything I've heard, juries tend to be dominated by the most vocal people and they can spend a lot of time trying to convince people to agree with them. I know if I were the lone dissenter in a split vote of 11-1, I would feel a lot of pressure to back down even if I was adamant about my verdict. Not to mention all the obvious problems with jurors like prejudice and emotions and all that...

I'm kind of just shooting the shit right now, I don't know enough about the jury system to come to any decisive conclusion about it, and I certainly don't have any replacement system for it. I'm not crafting an argument against the jury system, but this is honestly what I was wondering as I was sitting there being grilled by the lawyers. I really wonder if serving on an actual jury would change my perspective on things. Ah, there's always next year.