The jury is either out or in

[hrj]

At some point in my life, I would like to actually serve on a jury. And yet, every single time I get a summons, I end up thinking, "Oh man, I hope they don't need me because it would be so inconvenient at this particular time." Since my wishing has no effect on the process, I won't bother feeling guilty for it. I get summoned for duty fairly regularly -- not quite every year, but certainly every two years on average. Perhaps half a dozen times in my life I've actually had to go sit in the jury waiting room, on-call. I think three times total I've been sent to a courtroom. Only once have I gotten far enough in the empaneling process to be chosen, and then the defense attorney decided to plea-bargain. (A good idea, in my opinion. It was a DUI case with a positive blood alcohol test. It was clear from the initial questioning that the defense was going to attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of blood alcohol testing in general.)

The time I came second-closest to being chosen led me to do a lot of soul-searching about what is officially asked of jurors in terms of mental process. "Can you judge based solely on the evidence presented in court without bringing in any outside knowledge, experience, or research?" What does that even mean? If I refused to apply any existing knowledge to the deliberations, I'd have to require the attorneys to define every single word they used from scratch. I'd have to require them to explain the systems, mechanics, and causal relationships of every single concept they introduced. Don't be absurd, you say, that's not at all what they mean. But where is the clear and bright dividing line between being allowed to bring an understanding that if a person points a gun and pulls a trigger and a bullet subsequently goes through a body causing fatal damage, and not being allowed to bring an understanding that the statistical correlation of specific environmental carcinogens and certain morbidities is not the same as a specific and direct causal chain for a particular individual's diagnosis? (If I'd paid more attention to late night tv, that particular empanelment process would have been more cut-and-dried, because if I'd gotten to the point where they asked me whether I was familiar with the plaintiff's law firm, I could have said, "Oh, you mean the ambulance chaser who advertises that he'll get big settlements for mesothelioma?")

I got a jury summons over a month ago, scheduled for today, at a time when there was no reason to believe it would be at all inconvenient. When I scheduled an out of town vacation for the last week of May, it seemed unlikely to be a problem. Even if I were chosen, it would either be a quick case and over by then, or a complicated one and they'd probably have a break between empanelment and the start of the trial. And then, two weeks ago, I got put on an intensive and critical project at work, for which I was one of the two lead report writers. (It's going to be tight enough to be done with my part before I go on vacation.) And yet, if I'd been empaneled, it would have ben ok. Someone else could have done the job.

The system strung me along to the max: not called up for this morning, but I still had to call in at lunch. And then I was off the hook and the project lead gave a sigh of relief. It simplifies my immediate life, and yet…at some point in my life, I do want to serve at least once.

Comments

[mg4h.livejournal.com]

I was on a civil jury last year, it was over an insurance claim for a fire. The insurance company was attempting to prove that the contractors were at fault for the ignition of the fire, the three (!!) contractors were busy trying to explain what happened, point fingers at the painter that was there that day (that no one interviewed nor deposed for the trial (!!!!!)) and there were two different fire marshals called in to testify.

It lasted four days, I think? There was a lot of eyerolling by us on the jury when one side or the other tried some particular grandstanding tactic, especially when it was a repeat, and we just took notes and shook our heads. It was fascinating but man, jury shows are more laughable now because some of the craziest things DO happen, but other things just don't at all.

They bought us lunch when we were deliberating. We didn't finish eating before we'd persuaded the one unsure person to make it unanimous (civil requires 10 of 12 to agree only). The poor bailiff had sent all the lawyers home, including one that was at the other end of downtown, so we had to wait another half-hour for her to come back.

In the end there was not the right kind of, nor enough, evidence to find for the insurance company, so they weren't going to get the premium paid out back from the contractors. We on the jury all have a new appreciation for how crazy contractors doing work can be, and I am never ever having anyone do major work that I can't be home for, inspect, and ask questions about.

And I may never have recessed lighting and cellulose insulation in a house I live in, because... *shudder* The pictures. Oy.

As for what we brought to the table, everyone I talked to had some random bit of knowledge or experience that influenced how we examined the evidence as presented. For my part it was very hard to not go and look up what the weather was that day, because the sides were arguing whether or not the painter needed to turn on the lights to see or if it was sunny or not. I *know* this sort of historical data is kept, I *know* I could have looked it up, but I waited till after the trial was done to confirm which side was right.

And it really didn't matter whether or not the dislodged recessed light was on or off, because it wasn't where we saw the burn marks. Which really was what killed the insurance argument - if the fire started at X location but the burn marks were five feet away at Y position, more than a joist over? Didn't hold water. Now, five feet up the same joist, then they could have argued but, nope.