| | I went through the whole process of juror selection today. It started off as a really bad day. I woke up far earlier than I normally get up. I got turned around on the highways since I've never driven to downtown LA before and I guessed wrong as to which highways shared names. Then I couldn't backtrack because the highway I took to get back to downtown didn't have the same exit, so I had to drive through side streets to get to the courthouse. Then I discovered that I had forgotten my pen, despite specific directions to bring one. Then I realized that I had a bit of an upset stomach all day. It turned out that waiting in the juror room wasn't so bad because once the first batch or two of people had been called, there was plenty of seating. And since I was called in the 3rd batch, and because I was asked questions, there was plenty to do and think about for the rest of the day.
Right away after lunch I was sent to the selection for a criminal case relating to domestic violence. I was asked questions and then the prosecution "thanked and dismissed" me. The process was actually kind of interesting. Quite a few of the other potential jurors described how they had been victims of domestic violence or had witnessed it. Obviously it's a bit difficult to tell if the jurors were trying to get off the case or not, but some of them had a hard time answering questions straight. There was one person who said she was in law school but had a really hard time agreeing or understanding or something the statement "innocent until proven guilty", the judge even made some comment about how perhaps it was because she was still in law school that she didn't understand this... Based on those 2 minutes, I don't think she'll be a good lawyer!
When it came time for me to answer questions, I felt I said the things that made me most likely to be a great juror. I don't know any policemen or lawyers, and so because I didn't have much information to offer, the judge asked me some question about whether I think the courts should get involved with domestic violence. The prosecution lawyer later targeted me specifically with questions like "do you consider slapping to be domestic violence" or "kicking" or "where would you draw the line". Why oh why couldn't I come up with better answers until much later??? What I should have responded with was to ask whether she was asking my opinion of the law or whether she was asking about my knowledge of the law. Anyway, because I think I can imagine situations where slapping and kicking could be considered domestic violence, I agreed. She retracted her question regarding "drawing a line" after I said that I "honestly hadn't thought much about domestic violence because I've never experienced it".
There were 18 people sitting up there (I was #16), and so the procedure was that first the judge dismissed one of the jurors (she basically told the judge that she would tell her husband all about the case). Then, the 2 lawyers would alternate: each would be asked if they approved the panel. Anyway, the defense lawyer dismissed 2 of the jurors, with the prosecution accepting the panel 2 times, and then when I moved into one of the 12 official seats, I was the first person she dismissed. How can I not take it personally?? 
Actually, I think the process was kind of interesting in terms of who they accepted and who they rejected. I left right after I was dismissed, so I don't know what happened afterwards. There was a guy who couldn't speak clear english (the judge had to ask him to repeat almost every sentence), there was a guy who didn't even know what his wife did for a living, quite a few who had difficulty understanding what "reasonable doubt" meant (even after some jurors had been asked, others still couldn't get their answer straight). Anyway, I'll bet the prosecution figured out what "student", "chemistry", and "Pasadena" mean and didn't like the idea that too many independent thinkers were on the jury since she'd have to get a unanimous vote.
Hahaha... i'll flatter myself with that reasoning anyway.  I guess the process is interesting in that I don't think the lawyers are really trying to pick unbiased jurors, they are trying to pick jurors who they think will win them the case. It's like playing cards, but you get to stack the deck. The only reason it's "fair" is because both lawyers are doing it. Well, that's the impression I got anyway.
Apparently, the method of juror selection is new. If you don't get placed on a jury on your first day, then you are done for at least 1 year. Before you had to show up several days. So I am completely done. And it's time for a nap! |
| | Posted 7/18/2006 7:17 PM - 4 Views - 4 eProps - 5 comments
Give eProps or Post a Comment |
