Jury Duty
Some might think that I’m a bit weird that I think Jury duty is interesting, I recently served and became $52 richer. This is not my first time, actually third time, and second time for this county. My first time was in Queens County, in Jamaica courthouse, Jamaica, NY. I was only in my early 20s and we had to show up at the court house at 9 am and stayed till 5 pm for a week regardless of being picked for a case or not. The jury assembly room is huge; I think it’s over 300 jurors called at one time. This one is a lot smaller, there were only about 65 of us in the jury assembly room, and I only had to serve for 3 days, and then dismissed.
Some might ask why trial by jury. Why call men and women away from their affairs to help try lawsuits in Court? Why not have a judge, or several judges, to hear and decide all cases? As stated in the United States Supreme Court, speaking of trial by a jury said:
“Twelve men of the average of the community, comprising men of little education, men of learning and men whose learning consists only in what they have themselves seen and heard; the merchant, the mechanic, the farmer, the laborer; these sit together, consult, apply their separate experience of the affairs of life to the facts proven and draw a unanimous conclusion. This average judgment thus given it is the effort of the law to obtain. It is assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of life than does one man, that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions from admitted facts, thus occurring, than can a single judge.”
Of course, time has changed, the language in the United States Supreme Court needs to be revised to reflect the current state that we’re in, as the judge of this case that I was sitting in during the juror selection process is a woman, and the jurors are men and women.
I was selected for the criminal case, what came to mind is a murder trial, but this is not it at all, and it was the case of check fraud which is now considered a criminal acts. The jury selection process is long and redundant; it took almost 6 hours to select 12 jurors, and 1 alternate juror. When they got to the alternate juror, I was so sure that they would dismiss her, not because of who she is or how she answered her questions but the information is a bit out there. First, she told them that she is not working, and is on disability since 2003, then her husband is also on disability and his last job ended in 2003. Her daughter was arrested for shoplifting and she is currently trying to get on disability and has been in the defense attorney office in the last months or so trying to get disability for her daughter. Some of us looked at each other; I’m beginning to think that disability is a name of a company or something a long that line. When the defense attorney said, ‘your honor, we’re satisfied’ it was like music to our ears.
When I reported back Thursday morning, the jurors that were selected for the case were in the jury assemble room, which only meant that they deliberated the verdict, and I thought to myself, that was a quick one.
Came to find out, the man that was accusing this person of writing bad checks died last year, and the jurors only heard 5 minutes of the evidence, went back to the juror room, then the judge dismissed the case. This really surprised me that the case has came thus far and no one has checked before it was presented before the judge and jurors.
One of the things that I learned that I thought is interesting is that in criminal cases the State is always one of the parties and the person charged with crime the other. In criminal cases, since it is society in general charging an individual with breaking a criminal law, the charges against the person is to be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and then the juror must not hesitate to declare this person guilt, this is clearly written in Handbook for Jurors, and also stressed by the plaintiff attorney. I always thought that it’s “beyond a shadow of doubt” but that is not the case anymore, might be that it’s impossible to prove that.
I’m glad that it’s over, for a brief moment, I was a juror, serve as an officer of the Court along with the lawyers, and judges, a part of the judicial system of our state, sound so grand, but I’m glad to return to my normal life.
I know that many Americans see jury duty as the absolute top in democracy and civilian participation. IMO, unfortunately, it is mostly based on wrong assumptions and leads to many mistakes and even injustice.
It may be society charging an individual with breaking a criminal law but why the heck was a system created that makes laymen decide such important sentences? Ordinary people are simply not well-trained enough to make an accurate decision with little bias because, first of all, most do not know the law system nor do they fully understand it, or really want to look into a particular case without being led by their personal (pre)judgements.
In Europe, it takes about 9 years to become a judge (including a 4/y LLM degree) because it is extremely important to remain objective and within the framework of the law.
One of the side-effects of your jury duty is the disproportional amount of black people incarcerated, even in the light of a larger percentage of black people committing crime. What do you think the odds are when you are on trial when the jury is filled with bigoted white or black people? Chances are heavily skewed towards incarceration or other punishment, I believe.
That is Exactly the reason why jury duty should be abolished and the law should be handled by professionals. A system of experts may not be perfect either but at least it is not as seriously flawed as juries consisting of laymen.
Padek wrote: I know that many Americans see jury duty as the absolute top in democracy and civilian participation.
I hate to tell you this, but this time you’re wrong, believe it or not, most people (9/10 that I spoke to) hate jury duty, most want to get out, but they would fine you $50 and might be put in prison, depending on the judge. I can’t say that I agreed with how things are run, and one of the reasons that it took so long for juror selection process is the lengthy interview by the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney as to eliminate bias individual, the questions are so intimidating and too personal IMO, but I’m seeing the trend of what they are trying to do, they only select the ones that most likely will vote in their favor, and in the jury room, I would imagine that those that are not as opinionated would be brain washed by those dominated individual, more as pressure to agree with the majority of the jurors, because all have to agree to reach a verdict. In the case that I described, it’s obvious that there is so many flaws in the system and the lack of communication, and it’s our tax dollars at work here we’re talking about.
I guess there is no jury duty in Europe then.
I knew few people that have court duty and all of them absolutely hate to do it.
Professional juror would be a good idea but as long it is human there would be bigotry.
Ah, thanks for enlightening me about most people hating the jury duty. However, do they hate the “duty” part of it or do they simply not agree with the system, I wonder?
And, Dallas has a point when he said “when there are people, there is bigotry”. That being said my view is that especially the US is saturated with bigotry and conservatism. People are highly individual, stick to themselves and see guns as legitimate means to defend their rights and properties. This breeds a certain mentality (eye-for-an-eye) that won’t work well in court. Objectivity is lost.
When the office of a judge is institutionalized, which insulates him from corruption to a high degree, and his verdicts are systematically analyzed by peers, then this would deliver a higher and more professional guarantee that bigotry and other prejudgments are diminished.
The actions of one to three judges in court could be scrutinized much easier than an ever changing group of laymen that are mostly not interested in law and perhaps even stressed out by it.
When you are sick you go to a professional (doctors). Violence is delegated to professionals by society (military, police). Why would you leave such an important issue as (criminal) law to non-professionals? Beats me.
And nowhere in Europe there is a court that embodies a layman jury.
Padek wrote: However, do they hate the “duty” part of it or do they simply not agree with the system, I wonder?
I think might be both, most people have to work and their employer are not that understanding when it comes to something like this because certain high profile cases can drag on for weeks, and in some cases they can’t even come home. You can’t discuss the case with anyone because they don’t want someone else to influence your decision (which makes sense,) but I think this can be very stressful for some people. In certain situation, when a case is drawn out, the jurors are tired and pressured to agree and think like other jurors, and then I think they just make a decision based on what other people think just to get it over, and here it’s deciding on a person’s life. I would not feel comfortable deciding on someone’s innocent or guilt even if I have enough evidence in front of me because I feel that things are not what they seem, they only present to you of what they want you to see and certain evidence only drawn to certain conclusion, the burden should not be on lay(wo)men to decide on someone’s life. Then they tell you, you have to accept the law according to what the judge (her/his honor) gives you, and not what you want it to be, and for some of us, the language of the law is very confusing.
When I told my boss about my jury duty, he asked me if I would try to get out from it, he said that it’s stupid, and that it’s a waste of tax dollars. I think the Jury trial might have worked in the olden days, but time has changed and I do agree with you that they need to be abolished and the law should be handled by professionals such as several judges deciding on the case, or panel of attorneys. Here I’m a Buddhist and have to swear on the bible to tell the truth, I’m not sure what they are thinking.
Dallas, you can only be called every 2 years. I’m surprised that some Americans that were there said that this is their first time, and they are in their 50s and 60s. Some of my co-workers over 30s have never served before.