My adventure in jury duty fizzled yesterday.
Our group was quickly directed upstairs without the usual video introduction and other formalities because the trial was ready to roll.
A single defendant faced a charge of 2nd degree robbery in a trial expected to be finished within two days
The defendant was, his attorney pointed out during preliminary questioning of prospective jurors, the only African-American in the room.
Jurors names were drawn at random, first twelve, then additional names as jurors were dismissed for a variety of reasons. I think they had gone through 25 of the 36 people in our “pool” before the full jury and one alternate had been chosen. My name was never drawn.
I wasn’t quite sure whether to be disappointed or relieved.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So what’s the juror payment worth today? $ 30 and gas mileage ? Ka’a’awa 331.2 miles roundtrip. Be relieved, no jury duty, yea. But since you weren’t picked, that means they can summon you again? Boo.
Whoa buddy, if you’re taking 331.2 miles to get from Ka`a`awa to Honolulu you would deserve to be on a jury.
Having sat as part of the pool means Ian’s performed his civic duty for the time being.
Having been thru the jury selection process as both an attorney and a juror, I can say it’s one of the best, most importanty thing any citizen can do.
Really.
My niece got a summons when she was in middle school, and was really looking forward to getting out of school and getting a stipend.
My son got one when he was in first grade.
Ian,
You would have undoubtedly been rejected by the prosecutor. I am always bounced. I am not eager to serve, but neither do I think it proper to try to get out of jury duty. I think it is a civic responsibility. And it could even prove interesting.
But I am always challenged. The prosecutor does not want independent-minded jurors. They want “tough on crime” people who can be led along by the prosecutor’s explanation of the evidence. The last hing they want is someone capable of considering alternative interpretations of the evidence and instilling doubt in the mind of their fellow jurors.
Because I have been rejected several times without explanation, I no longer even bother responding to summons to jury duty. I would respect them if they treat me with respect. I will give up time from work to show up, but if they are just going to reject me without an explanation, why don’t they just put something in my file saying I am permanently exempt?
I have come to believe there should be many fewer challenges allowed both sides. For clear bias or conflict of interest, OK.
That’s a really disappointing post, Kolea, from someone whose opinion I really respect.
Not all jury trials are criminal cases and even the ones that are deserve a fair cross-section of the community. This isn’t about YOUR right to serve, it’s about the litigants’ right to a trial by jury of their peers, more or less.
So you didn’t get picked, repeatedly. That doesn’t mean you didn’t do your duty or that the litigants didn’t make the choice they are guaranteed. Get over it.
It sounded like you were initially looking forward to serving on a jury. My first experience was similar to yours. My BIL was in the same pool, and he was chosen; they never got to me. The judge was my HS classmate.
My last experience was on the grand jury. Let’s just say that first of all, I was appalled by the inability of some of my fellow jurors to think critically, much less stay on topic in deliberation. Secondly, there was one case with flimsy evidence that should never have gotten to us.
Finally, we got to see examples of the entire range of human bad behavior – from sexual abuse of children to greed and violence. Such horrendous memories this brings up, just writing about it.
A long time ago, I made up my mind that I was not ever going to serve on a jury because I don’t trust the system to do the right thing nor do I think that I am qualified & capable of making these kinds of judgements. I have never had my name drawn so I haven’t had to test my decision, but I assume that nothing happens – at least, it hasn’t to Kolea.
Another really disappointing post. Man up, brother, and give some poor bastard the chance you would hope to get were you in his shoes.
People are dying the world to over because they do not get judged by a jury or have the right to vote to elect their leaders. More people are dying to win these rights.
Quitcher bitchin’!!!
Best Answer: relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved ….
Ian wrote “The defendant was, his attorney pointed out during preliminary questioning of prospective jurors, the only African-American in the room.”
Well, of course, a defense attorney will try any tactic “on the record” to establish a basis for appeal in case his client is found guilty. That’s the attorney’s job.
But I’m wondering what Ian and everyone else thinks about this: (1) Would haole Ian be able to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence? (2) If the entire jury had zero blacks, would that by itself be acceptable as evidence that the (black) defendant did not get a fair trial? (3) I guess people feel more comfortable that a jury is fair if they see at least one juror of the same race as the defendant; but is that feeling rational, or is it in fact a prejudice to believe that people of different races cannot understand each other or cannot judge each other objectively?
Conklin — One anecdote doesn’t create reality, but: I was a juror in a criminal case involving a young African-American military male charged with sexual assault of a white female underage teenager. The jury had no African Americans, nobody with a current connection to the military, and was fully mixed in gender. We came to a unanimous not-guilty decision within an hour of going into deliberations (including selecting a foreman).
Proper response; Relieved.
Most of the people who have posted here are like those who don’t vote but complain about the outcome anyway.
If you don’t vote and respond to jury summonses, the credibility of your assertions about civic matters here and elsewhere is ZILCH, ZIP, NADA.
Ian, I’m not including you in this when I say: what a big bunch of crybabies, whiners, losers, period.
Ohia,
It has become clear to me that, in criminal cases anyways, the prosecution is not interested in having me serve. I am perfectly willing to serve on a jury. I recognize the right of defendants to have a jury of their peers. I just realize I am never going to be chosen and decline to waste my time showing up. Forgive me, but I think it is the system at fault here, not my reluctance to waste my time since I know I will not be accepted.
You are correct that I might be picked for a civil trial. That gives me pause. In criminal cases, the prosecutor clearly wants compliant sheeple. In civil cases…? I’m willing to give them another chance. But if they waste my time again, I’m gonna grumble to you!
Had the same thing happen to me a few months ago the first time I was ever called for jury duty, having lived most of my adult life abroad. I actually found the whole selection process entertaining, to say the least. One prospective juror said they did NOT believe in “innocent until proven guilty” while another admitted to thinking the defendent looked guilty.
Wow. As a clerk to a judge for 5 years who handled criminal and civil cases, I’m appalled at some of the comments here, although not shocked. It is our duty as American citizens to participate in our judicial system, the only time other than a draft that the government can command you appear. Yes, prosecutors look to fill the jury with people who can commit someone to jail because there are many people who admit they could not. And yes, defense attorneys look to fill the jury with people who think they can make up their own minds without following the judge’s instructions and listening to the evidence.
In talking to each jury after their trials, every single one said they enjoyed the experience, learned something new and felt they performed a good service. This includes those that served one day, one manini trial and those that served months and months on murder or complicated civil trials. (This does not include grand jury service which I never experienced.)
Please think about this people: if you ever needed to have a jury decide your fate either criminally or civily, wouldn’t you want someone like yourselves to judge you? Because it looks to me like the only people that actually want to serve on juries are students, retired people, the unemployed and homeless.
Leinanij,
I have been willing to serve. Not eager, because sometimes the trials can take a long time and I have other responsibilities. I think it is fair to say I have not tried to get on, or tried to get off, a jury. I DO think it is my responsibility as a citizen.
But why should I continue to show up when I know with a high degree of certainty I will be challenged? If I thought such challenges were a proper means for ensuring a fair trial, well, I would just take my limps as my peculiar way of playing my part in the process.
But I do NOT think these challenges are proper, except in clear cases of bias or conflict of interest. And I think they work more in favor the prosecution than the defense in a criminal case.
Imagine a randomly selected potential jury pool with people whose opinions span the spectrum from those skeptical of cops and the prison system on one side to those who believe the cops are almost always right and we need to “throw more people into prison and keep them there longer.”
With a jury of twelve people, randomly chosen, you are likely to get a couple of folks at the “lenient” end of the spectrum, a few “lock ’em all up” types and the majority somewhere in between. The prosecutor knocks off 3 of the lenient, skeptical folks, the defense challenges 3 he figures are too pro-prosecutor.
“Fair and balanced”, ne? Except the defense only needs ONE person skeptical of the prosecutor’s case in order to get an acquittal. So the ability of the prosecutor to eliminate two or three people he suspects of having a “pro-defense” orientation has much greater impact on the likely result than the ability of the defense to challenge two or three “tough on crime” jurors.
So the entire notion of the right to trial by a jury of one’s peers, requiring a unanimous finding of guilt is grossly undermined.
If I were to show up ten times for jury duty and be challenged all ten times, would you forgive me for not wanting to waste my time? I can guarantee you, with a certainty approaching a 100% that the prosecutor will always move to exclude me from the jury.
And I REALLY believe I could be a fair juror, capable of sending someone to prison for a long time if I thought they were a threat to their fellow citizens.
You and Ohia fix THAT part of the court system and I’ll report for duty. Until then, I will not waste my time.
OK Kolea, let me try to clarify your situation. I am not an attorney but with years involved with hundred trials, my question to you is this:
When you are dismissed, are you dismissed after the attorneys have had a bench conference/recess or after the prosecutor has used one of his/her peremptory challenges? Think very carefully because it will answer your question.
If you were dismissed after a bench conference (or a recess in which you were not privy to listen to the arguments of counsel), the JUDGE agreed with the prosecutor that you would not make a good juror because of good cause (like bias, religious beliefs, you knew any of the parties).
If, however, at the end of your void dire (questioning), you were allowed to sit in the jury box until the time peremptory challenges are made and the prosecutor said “The Prosecution would like to thank and excuse Mr. Kolea for his service today.” This would mean he/she could not convince the Judge that you were biased or other and felt that you were one of the least sympathetic jurors for the prosecution.
Another note: In some cases (like high profile ones with media attention or murder trials), the prosecution runs criminal checks on all jurors in the pool. Copies of those jurors with a criminal record are given to all parties, including the judge. So if a potential juror is asked “have you ever committed a crime?” and answers no, that person would be let go in a heart beat. If they answered truthfully that they had, the judge could determine that the juror could be fair for a particular case.
Hope this helps. There are groupies who sit in Court every day just to listen to trials because they find them fascinating. And some just sit there to get their face on camera on the news. But even if you are not selected, Kolea, you can still feel good that you performed your civic duty and got paid for it too (even if it was a measly $30 plus mileage).
Hi Ian,
I was in the jury pool with you.
This is the second time I’ve been selected for a jury. What I took away from the experiences is that the decisions that individual jury members made had little to do with following the logic of the attorneys’ arguments, and had almost nothing to do with following jury instructions. For the majority of the people, their decision to vote guilty or not guilty seemed to boil down to a gut feeling about whether the defended deserved to be “punished.” Yesterday our jury came to a unanimous verdict, via very different routes of logic.
My sister works as a prosecuting attorney. She said that she understands that’s what happens in deliberation and the best they hope for is for one or two people to have been paying attention and for those one or two people to have some power of persuasion. Also, she says the most common time for a verdict to be reached is just before 4:15, pau hana time. We reached our verdict at 4:05.
If someone is not a registered voter, does not hold a valid driver’s license, nor owns property, how does his or her name appear on the jury pool list? What other sources of information are used to create a master list?
Why are some people who are registered voters or hold driver’s liceenses or own property never called to serve whereas other names been pulled again & again?
OHIAFOREST3400: What individual post-ers here do you think are not registered voters and don’t participate in elections?
Or are you attacking me because I leave ballots pukas blank rather than voting for The Least Worst.
This November, I will be voting for the US Senate, Governor/Lt.Governor, several Board of Education candidates, and on various Constitutional and Charter amendments.
However, I’m taking a pass on the US House Second Congressional District and the State House & State Senate for very specific reasons – including that I do not vote for Republicians because we share very different values and there are no Green Party candidates running for these three offices. In fact, one of the three candidates made it very clear that my vote and my support were not wanted.
I am, however, involved in three State House races outside my District – including a high-risk Democratic seat – and the First Congressional District race as a low-level campaign volunteer sign-holder. I also made small donations to each of the these four candidates.
Because I don’t vote for particular individuals in particular races does not mean that I do not take part in the electoral system.
CWD, as I’ve posted earlier, my son got a summons when he was in the first grade. I believe that was because tax returns had been filed for him.
OTOH, my mom never got one until she was retired, and she always voted and had a driver’s license all her adult life. Go figure.
and like I said earlier,
Best Answer: relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved relieved ….
Relieved of a process and a discussion that is too often ridiculous. 🙂