Photo by Flickr user Joe Gratz

Having lived over 10 years in California I was finally selected for jury duty at the Martinez Superior Court in Contra Costa last week. Somehow I thought I miraculously managed to slip through the cracks, but the long arm of the judicial branch finally got me. On the one hand, having recently started a full time job I wasn’t eager to miss work, on the other hand I was curious about the experience, especially compared to my previous experience serving on jury duty for a civil trial in New York City in the nineties.

In order to maintain the anonymity of participants no names will be used.

The Waiting

This is probably the worst part about the jury duty process. With the advent of smartphones, iPads and Kindles it’s less painful than before, but it’s tedious waiting so long. After waiting in line to go through a metal detector I headed to the main jury duty waiting area on the first floor where inside I waited in yet another line to get an application where I put contact information as well as basic information about myself and family. In addition there was a questionnaire. After returning this documentation, I waited until my name would be randomly picked to visit one of three court sessions in progress that day. I was told that I may not even be picked at all, in which case my jury duty service would end that day (good for a year’s exemption). Alas after some hours I, along with 69 others, were picked to go to the third floor courtroom of a trial soon to take place.

70 of us got to the third floor and were warned by the bailiff not to be late when the session starts in the morning and after lunch. Meanwhile, we waited a long time until we were finally called in.

The Courtroom

I was randomly select as one of the first 18 potential jury duty participants, so I got to sit in a plush chair in the jury box in the back row off to the side of the courtroom, six seats in front, six in back. There were dozens of chairs in the back of the courtroom where the additional 50 or so jury duty members waited to take the place of the 18 that got “released” over time.

The Attorneys

The prosecutor was a young middle-aged man Contra Costa District attorney while the defense lawyer was a young female public defender who looked to be in her thirties.

The Judge

When the judge, a man looking to be in his 60s first entered the courtroom from his chambers, the bailiff announced that we had to stand. I was bracing for a tyrant based on past experiences, but he was really a nice and fair judge to everyone, including the jury duty participants as well as the attorneys. He cracked jokes every now and then to keep things light, and was especially interested in letting us know the reasoning and historical background for the entire process.

The Process

Before entering the courtroom, all 70 of had filled out a questionnaire concerning a large degree about law enforcement, the mental health field, and mental illness, as it related to us personally, and people we know. This would give the attorneys a better idea about those who could be eliminated immediately, for example when obvious biases were present, and when deciding who and what to question.

As the judge explained, and what I could surmise based on what the attorneys mentioned, the case revolved around a young woman who committed a violent crime who had pleaded “not guilty by reason of insanity”. This case would be to decide whether the woman should be forced to be placed in a mental health institution. As the judge explained over and over again, the burden was on the prosecutor to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she did meet the criteria such that she should be forced to stay in a mental institution.

The Strategy

There are two strategies here, one by potential jurors trying to get out of serving (it was explained that although this would be a short case, it would last most of the next week to be completed), and the strategy that the attorneys would employ to try to weed out jury duty members who would support the opposition.

As far as the strategy of the attorneys was concerned, a lot of hypothetical questions were posed in order to ascertain whether we would be inclined to believe an “expert”, presumably a mental health professional, compared to be disinclined to believe someone with “cognitive disabilities” Some of the hypotheticals given were:

• A 12 year old child versus a police officer witnessing a crime
• A woman dropping off her kids at school versus a traffic engineer (concerning traffic)
• A senior computer engineer with many years experience versus a junior engineer who just started their job (concerning a technical recommendation)
• A neighbor versus a meteorologist (concerning the weather)
• A mental health expert versus a cognitively disabled person (probably the real issue)

As I listened to the answer given by jury duty members, in the back of my mind I was wondering whether they were answering honestly, answering in order to please the questioning attorney or answering in order to displease the questioning attorney so as to be dismissed. When one jury duty member, the head of technology at a computer firm replied to the district attorney that he would be just as inclined to believe a junior engineer as a senior engineer, I was definitely wondering whether he replied in order to get released. Sure enough, he was indeed released by the prosecutor.

Personal Information

The judge mentioned that if any jury duty member was uncomfortable disclosing personal information in front of 70 odd people, we could have a private “sidebar” conference with only the judge and lawyers involved. I only witnessed this happening once. Due to mental illness being important to the case, anyone who answered that they did know someone with mental illness (and there were quite a few), were questioned intensely by both the judge and attorneys in front of everyone. Some situations were quite sad as people noted parents, children and other close family members with mental illness. In some cases they had been in and out of prison throughout their lives, committed brutal crimes to family members, while in other cases nothing dangerous was evident and with medication they were going on with their lives normally. Frankly it felt awkward listening in on such discussions.

One attorney questioned me when I mentioned my mother was a therapist. I gave a vague answer and luckily was not questioned further.

The Actor

There was one potential juror, someone with multiple DUIs, who was so incoherent he either should be awarded an Oscar for trying to get out of service, or needs some serious help. I was smiling when the attorneys mentioned cognitive disabilities because I was more worried about having a juror with a cognitive disability serving with me more than the a witness with a cognitive disability. Ultimately this potential juror was released no doubt to the relief of many in the courtroom.

The Question

Throughout the procedure I don’t think I made a particular impression that leaned either pro-prosecution or pro-defense. It was getting to a point where I believed I had a good chance that I would serve as a juror. Then the public defender asked me a question and I knew this was it. Either way I would be honest, but I knew I could answer in such a way as to make it more likely that I would serve, or I could answer in such a way that would make it less likely. The question posed to me was, “Would you be less inclined to believe a person with a cognitive disability [compared to a medical expert]?” To me this was analogous to others being asked whether they would be less inclined to believe a twelve year old child over a police officer with many years experience witnessing a crime. Personally, as long as there wasn’t a reason to believe otherwise, I would be more inclined to believe the police officer. To me that’s common sense and reasonable.

I asked the attorney to repeat her question. She restated it mentioning that she was concerned about asking a double negative (which got a laugh), and I answered loudly and clearly, “Yes”. I added that it would depend on the degree of cognitive disability. Although I have no idea what was on the prosecutor’s post-it under my name, I’m assuming he marked me as a “clear” so I wouldn’t be “released” by him after hearing my answer. On the other hand I knew that I was going to be marked by the public defender for potential release.

The Decision

I made it through quite a few rounds as people who sat to the left of me, to the right of me, and others near me were let go and replaced. Eventually though, the public defender  announced my number, and I too was let go with relief knowing I could get back to work the following week, but also wondering what it would have been like to serve on a criminal jury in California and how the trial would have ended.

Given that my replacement no doubt answered that they would not be less inclined to believe a cognitively disabled witness, the public defender was doing her best to stack the jury with people who would judge expert witnesses and cognitively disabled witnesses equally, just as the public prosecutor was attempting to stack the jury in the opposite way. Of course that means that plenty of potential jurors leaning one way or the other would get released on both sides.

Compared to New York Jury Duty

The difference of the California jury duty selection that took place in Martinez with the New York jury duty selection process that took place in Queens back in the nineties is like night and day. I don’t know if it was due to suburbs versus city, criminal versus civil, personalities, or cultural differences between the coasts, but it comes across as a good representation of life in California versus New York.

The judge in New York was looking to finish selection as quickly as possible. Whenever a potential juror attempted to explain their answer to an attorney’s question, the judge would immediately cut them off and tell them to answer, yes or no, period. The judge in California allowed people plenty of time to explain their answers. In fact he didn’t cut off anyone (although there were times I wish he did).

The judge in California seemed interested in informing us about the historical significance and importance of serving on jury duty. Whenever issues that might not be understandable arose he took the time to explain what they mean in easy-to-understand language. The judge in New York explained jury duty service in a minimal way.

The judge in New York was extremely harsh to the attorneys. It sounded like he was talking down to them many times. That being said, one of the attorney’s cell phones went off during the proceedings several times and the judge threatened him with contempt of court. He yelled at him so loud you could feel the vibrations in the jury section. The judge in California seemed to get along with everyone including the attorneys.

The attorneys in New York raised objections left and right. The attorneys in California rarely raised objections.

 Conclusion

Although the waiting was annoying, and I was eager to get back to work, performing jury duty was a great experience especially due to the judge’s even-keeled behavior and thoughtful explanations throughout. I learned a lot about the judicial process and enjoyed analyzing the attorneys tactics as they attempted to get a jury to ultimately support their side. That being said, I’d be happy if I don’t have to do this for at least 5 years.

Has anyone else performed jury duty? How was it? How would you answer “The Question”?

6 Comments