I don’t have a hidden agenda nor am I eager to convict someone; I just wanted to be involved in the process as part of my civic duty.
I wish I had had a hidden camera in the waiting room in which we sat off and on for four days. Has Dateline or 20/20 ever done a story on juror apathy?
Most everyone said they resented being there and it made me question whether fair verdicts are reached. They had their theories on how to get dismissed—“carry a newspaper, be in the medical field, demonstrate intelligence, mention financial hardship, say you have young children.”
They complained about parking, walking, waiting. They had an irreverent demeanor.
I bet if these people didn’t serve, however, they would be the first ones to complain about guilty persons running free.
Many thoughts crossed my mind: Would these uninterested citizens pay attention? Would they hurry through deliberation because they didn’t want to be there? Were people on Death Row put there by these types of people?
To want to serve your civic duty is certainly not liberal, said a friend of mine, who I complained to about the types of people who get selected. “To show respect for the court and the system in general is not liberal. It’s just plain American. To want an intelligent jury of your peers is fundamental to our system of justice.”
Don’t get me wrong, the American judicial system is the best in the world and I don’t have a better idea for choosing jurors.
What was most shocking was how many of the 12 in the jury box being questioned with me were victims of a crime—five. The prosecuting attorney said robberies were most common.
Six in one group of 12 said someone in their family had committed a crime—sons, brother, father, cousin, stepchild.
I could understand emotion coming into play in these situations, if you were related to the defendant, a victim or law enforcement handling the case, but acting like you don’t understand the Fifth Amendment on purpose to get released puzzles me.
Some potential jurors didn’t want to send an 18-year-old person to prison and thought a mandatory life sentence was too severe because of its cost to taxpayers. I know we all have different views, but surely they were just skewing answers to get released.
The judge said to not take it personally if not selected. A co-worker made me feel better, saying maybe I didn’t get picked because I wasn’t the defendant’s peer (if he was carrying a gun when he wasn’t supposed to be, as was implied).
Perhaps they select the people who are reluctant, so as to prove a point and demonstrate their authority over them, said my cousin. “Bureaucrats love wielding their so-called power.”
The standing joke is that when you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. I think it is the other way around; you are foolish and selfish if you do not want to be chosen. Wouldn’t you want conscientious people judging you?
In 2023, I saw a WSJ letter to the editor that had an attorney thinking the guy carrying the WSJ should not be picked because all he cares about would be the stock market. There was some mistakes in who he chose due to a quick time constraint and the guy ended up being foreman and voted to help the lady who was suing over her car warranty not being honored.
