Yes, I was notified by mail that for the next three months I would be required to report for jury duty. I was displeased about this. I am a busy girl, I don't have either the desire or the need to go sit on a jury. I am blessed with friends who are attorneys so my first call was to one of them. I said, how does one get out of this and they said....you don't. Turns out I had no reason to be excused, apparently lack of interest and busy schedule don't qualify you.
So I reported for jury duty and discovered that I have not only been placed on jury duty, it's little pretend jury duty. We can't decide anything more than $400 and only misdemeanors. The only big thing we can do is decide if someone is competent and assign a guardian. Excuse me, but who on earth thinks I am competent to judge someones competence?
So I went for orientation and I really thought the judge was gracious and kind. He pointed out that regardless of the charge or the circumstances they deserved the same treatment as those with bigger matters. I agreed with that and thought it was pretty profound. I tried to swallow my impatience and frustration and take it on as a civic responsibility. Okay, no joy in this civic responsibility but I would do it faithfully.
Then I went to jury duty. It started off okay. I said here to roll call and they said they would be calling 12 of us and heck, there must have been 35 people. What were the odds they would call me? I noticed the deputy had been sitting in the last chair of the jury box and I remembered vaguely wondering if it was a jury seat or an extra one, thought it probably wouldn't matter to me anyway, only the first person selected. I must have communicated the thought to the deputy because I notice him push it back in line with the others. Yep, one of the jury seats. I hear the announcement about random selection and then they call my name. First. I almost laughed. I didn't though, I just strolled up there very naturally and sat in the chair recently realigned. Before long others joined me, a very sweet lady sitting next to me who seemed to know me from somewhere. I find this disconcerting a little because I have no idea who she might be. Before long there are twelve of us up front. I am feeling slightly panicky too when I realize that I know the prosecuting attorney and the police officer who will be testifying. I remind myself that this is Mayberry RFD and everyone knows everyone and I just need to say I know them and I am going to remain unbiased. Until they ask.
First I raise my right hand and promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth which I am sure I can do. Then we are introduced to the defendant and she stands and we are asked if we know her and I do not. Then her lawyer stands and though she looks just like Melinda Kelly from 7th and 8th grade, I do not know her. Now we move to the next table and one of my attorney friends stands and I agree I know him and I am asked if I can remain unbiased and I say yes, I believe so. However, no one else agrees they know him at all. This is disconcerting. Next the police officer stands up, and I raise my hand that yes, I know him, but none of my fellow jurors admit to this. Now I am beginning to feel a little more uncomfortable. I tell the judge the officer and I go to church together and say I believe I can be objective and he pushes the subject a little and I say I do not believe my relationship with him will effect the case. I am so sorry I raised my hand to promise that truth stuff now.
I am a little peeved with the man from my church sitting in jury chair 12 who is acting like he has never laid eyes on any of those people in his life. Oh well, I have told the truth, responded honestly and now the lawyer I know stands. He asks questions of the whole group and I answer all that apply to me, but few do. Then the lawyer I don't know begins to ask questions. First she goes after a lady sitting in front of me, juror number 8. I realize 'go after' is a highly inflammatory expression, but that is what she does. Jury number 8 has said she doesn't know the defendant but it turns out they graduated together. She says she doesn't recognize the name or the person but when told the lady's maiden name she recognizes her and then is berated until she says she would rather not serve and she is dismissed in tears from the courthouse. I wonder what is going on. Why is the jury on trial?
I am the next under the microscope. I am asked if I am sure I am unbiased and I say yes. She asks again how I know both individuals and I repeat it again. I am asked in the most aggressive manner if I am sure I am unbiased and I say yes, I believe so. She then begins cross examining my education and background and out of the blue asks me about a 'negative'. She asks me to tell her about a negative. I am now completely lost and say in terms of accounting? Accounting isn't about negatives, it's about balance. She says just in general. Can you prove a negative? I say....prove a negative....theoretically? and now she is getting peeved with me and says yes, in theory can you prove a negative? I am absolutely stunned. I finally say that I would say that perhaps you can't prove something didn't happen, in terms of my faith. She turns and jumps on juror number 8's replacement asking him the same question. He decides you can prove a negative and then she makes the rest of the jury raise their hands to say if a negative can be proved. No one moves, no one even understands the question. It is a little like Alice in Wonderland. She goes on to berate several other jurors, confusing a sweet little old lady so much I want to smack her. She finally turns back to me and says isn't it a remote possibility that since I go to church with the police officer I might let that bias me and I agree, yep it's a possibility. She then says would I understand if I was dismissed and I assure her absolutely and she says would I take it personally and I said no (as if I were not taking personally the cross examination). And I gather my stuff and wait to be dismissed, only I am not. Cruella Deville sits down again and I remember how much I didn't like Melinda Kelly and called her Jelly Belly Kelly.
My attorney friend stands, asks some follow up questions and says, Mrs. Engle, I don't want to beat a dead horse but can you be unbiased? And I say, yes I believe I can. Jelly Belly stands and asks a number of provocative questions and I think we are about done when she turns to me again and begins another assault. Now I have lost my patience and when she attacks, I respond assertively. She implies I have changed my answer and I respond she has changed her question. I lose my patience and correct her twice. I think well at least now I will be dismissed only not quite yet. Yet another break and finally I am free. I cannot get out of the courthouse fast enough and I am furious that I have wasted an entire morning to prove something. Sheesh they told us over an over there was a presumption of innocence but only for the defendant and they were the only person in the court that had been arrested.
Please someone tell me how it is that this is justice? I will have to say that by the end of the discussion I was severely prejudice not in favor of those I know but against Jelly Belly Deville. In fact I was trying to find her car so I could let the air out of her tires and leave a note under the windshield wipers questioning her legitimacy and heritage. I thought that juror number 8 and the other jurors who had been abused could gang up on her and tp her trees and fork her yard and encourage skunks to take up residence in her garage. How could that serve her client? Why did the judge allow that?
I got a phone call from juror number 12 who kept maintained silence and learned he had been on the final jury only to have the case declared a mistrial. Then the bell went off in my head. She was stacking the deck from the get go, trying to get something, anything to use for a mistrial and she finally got it. Did you remember I said this is baby court? If she was found guilty it could only result in 30 days in jail, maximum. Why on earth would Cruella gear up for that?! I think it had to be she has other more serious charges or has already been found guilty of something else. Or else, Jelly Belly Deville is just so doggone mean by nature that she can't turn it off.
I think this is more than an irritation for little old me. I cannot imagine one normal person on earth who wants to give up an entire day for all the abuse you can handle and $12. This, so a person can be judged by their peers. A person who is certainly presumed innocent until proven otherwise but since it's appeared highly likely there is enough evidence of their guilt to move beyond reasonable doubt, all there is left to win the case is to try to create a legality. Sacrifice whatever it takes to create an opportunity for appeal. It's a nasty system and I am confident there must be a better way. I am sure it's better than many others countries, but surely it can be improved.
Meanwhile, can someone please take my name off the list?
No comments:
Post a Comment