| Who gave the eProps? |
|---|
  2 eProps from:
Lolypup
|
|
| | My Civic Duty
In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
Law & Order has it partly right. There are actually three parts to the criminal justice system. The third part is the jury. Twelve (or six) ordinary citizens, chosen at random, impartial and fair, beyond reproach; to judge the defendant in a case.
Yesterday, I was called up for jury duty … and let me tell you, it was one of the most interesting experiences I've ever had. The process for being picked for a jury actually began back in August. I received a letter from the Multnomah County Courthouse saying my name came up to be a juror and asked me to attest to my eligibility for service beginning in late September – no, I haven't been on a jury in the past 18 months; and no, I've never been convicted of or served time for a felony or misdemeanor. Okay, I'm eligible. Only thing left was to check the little box requesting a sign language interpreter and mail it back. The trial I was initially chosen for was predicted to last six weeks, so I was kind of looking forward to that. Then a couple weeks later, I got another letter. Because of my request for an interpreter, I received a deferment to October 23. No problem. So two or three weeks ago, I got an identical checklist and filled it out the same as the first letter, and sent it back.
On Monday, I called them, asking to confirm that there will be an interpreter waiting for me during my service. Then yesterday morning, I got up butt-early and arrived at the courthouse at 7:45am, as per the jury selection instructions. At around 8:30, a judge got up and reminded us that serving on a jury is a civic duty we should all take very seriously, yadda yadda. After another 20 minutes, someone from the jury selection office got up with her laptop to read off the names of the first batch of people who were selected for a trial. Those not selected would stay in that very large room until they got called up — if at all. The rule for jury service is (at least here)" one day or one trial." Which means if you get chosen for a jury, you stay with the trial until it's over, regardless of whether the trial lasts a day or a month. If you're not chosen for a jury, you don't have to worry after the day's over.
Surprisingly, I was one of those called first! So me and 14 others trooped upstairs to a courtroom on the third floor and took our seats in the jury box. We were told that only six of us would ultimately be chosen for a trial. Fine with me. Then the bailiff swore us in (to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) and asked us to identify ourselves, then give basic information like occupation, where we live, do we have family or friends who are police officers, do we drive, have we been victims of a crime, and have we ever been involved in a court proceeding before. We were a pretty diverse group – accountant for the Air National Guard, correctional officer, college professor, manager of a big cat sanctuary, a guy who likes to hunt, and so on.
Then came voir dire. Basically, the lawyers for both sides asked us all questions based on our answers to the judge's questions. Could those who are personally acquainted with police officers be impartial and not give any testimony by police officers extra weight than, say, the defendant's? Do we feel that a crime is a crime, or that "lesser" offenses should be given a pass when compared to murder, armed robbery, and so forth? After roughly 30 minutes of this, we were given 10 minutes to get some water, use the restroom, or whatever. Then we came back in the courtroom and the judge read off the names of six people. I was one of them! It was this point where we were shown our personal jury room where we'd deliberate or just basically hang out during recesses. The nine people not chosen went back down to the main room to wait to see if they'd be picked for another trial.
Then, the trial began. First, we were sworn-in as the jury for the case at hand. The charge: Driving with a suspended license. Apparently, the defendant had been charged with a DUII back in June and as a result of his Breathalyzer test, he was sentenced to a 90-day suspension. In the State of Oregon, a license suspension for any length of time is given 30 days to appeal or to find other means of transportation. 33 days after the initial arrest, he was pulled over. Apparently he was on his way home from his local Starbucks that he uses for the free broadband (why he drove only four blocks, none of us understood). A background check revealed he had a suspended license. So we listened to the prosecution and the two police officers he had as witnesses – those who arrested him for driving with a suspended license. All well and good. They did the check, compared his photo with the one the DMV's got on file, and it's the guy in the grey sweater. Then we recessed for 15 minutes. So it's me in a little 10X15 room with six other people and a bathroom to the side. Right off the bat, someone asked "So can we talk about the case?" Uh, no. So then we discussed the virtues of hunting big cats (like cougars and bobcats) versus, you know, leaving them alone. Given one of us thinks they should all be shot; and another helps run a big cat sanctuary (out in Gladstone, I think), you can imagine how heated it got.
Then it was the defense's turn. I was pretty openminded at this point. His story was basically, well, he called the DMV to see if his license was still "good" or if it had been suspended. And he even called his insurance agent to make the same call on his behalf to confirm that, yes, his license was still good. After hearing his story, my reaction was basically, well, anyone could make a mistake, right? Then the defense rested. I realized that the defendant himself was the only witness for the defense. That in itself raised a red flag. Then we broke for lunch, for about two hours. I went over to Chipotle with two of my fellow jurors, which was perfectly acceptable; we just couldn't discuss the case at hand.
Then we returned to the jury room and waited for the bailiff to call court back into session. Time for closing arguments. Prosecution: "He drove with a suspended license. He admits it. The officers testified to that effect." Defense: "It's all the DMV's fault!" While closing arguments on behalf of the defense was, to say the least, entertaining, I wasn't that swayed. We listened to the judge's instructions, and went back into that little room. First order of business was to pick a foreperson. Me! I was pleased. I didn't really need to do anything formal, we just discussed the case at hand and just let our perspectives bounce off one another. I wasn't the only one to note that the insurance agent wasn't called as a witness. If I had been in the defendant's shoes, I sure as hell would want someone else to back up my story. So why did his lawyer keep the insurance agent off the stand? Why wasn't there any independent record of the phone call to the DMV – phone records of the defendant; of the insurance agent; even a call log record from the DMV call center? We only needed to vote once. Guilty. I checked the box of the paper and signed my name in the capacity as foreman of the jury. Then we let the bailiff know we reached a verdict. 15 minutes later, we were in the jury box, and I stood up and attested to the fact that, yes, we've reached a unanimous verdict. I handed the judge the paper and he read it out. The defense polled us, and saw that it was indeed a unanimous verdict. We were then excused. Then I went home.
I gotta say, guys, that it was a really, really cool experience. Everyone should want to serve on a jury. Not only can it be interesting, it's also, well, one's patriotic duty, don't you think?
EDIT: In response to Lolypup's comment: You are correct that jurors are not allowed to discuss cases, but that rule only applies to when it's ongoing. If I blogged about, say, "my first day of a six-week trial", that would be a violation of the rules. However, the trial is over. The judge made it clear that once a verdict was returned, we'd be free to discuss the case with others. And notice that nowhere did I include any names.
As for the interpreter situation, my apologies. Two interpreters were waiting for me in the jury selection room as I expected (since I called to confirm that they'd be there) as well as a student interpreter for observation purposes. When my name was called, they went up with me and before jury questioning and spoke to the judge privately regarding line-of-sight issues and so on. I didn't face any discrimination, nor was I treated "differently" on the part of the judge or the two attorneys; the court treated me exactly as though I was "just another juror", as did my five fellow members of the jury. | | | Posted 10/24/2008 4:31 PM - 205 Views - 2 eProps - 2 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
|
