
so, jury duty. yeah. wow. not what i expected at all. i suppose i let everyone else's feelings rub off on me: hassle, boring, waiting, the exact opposite of fun. but really, it was extremely fascinating. but i have a feeling i got lucky. what happens is you show up and hang out in this gigantic room that looks like an airport terminal honestly, but better, because there's wireless internet and tables and comfy chairs everywhere; tv's, cafeteria and a smoke porch, too. after about an hour of waiting and a short orientation, someone starts calling out 60 random names in alphabetical order for jury pools. this group of people is sent to a specific floor and courtroom. i was sent to the 11th floor c43. the bailiff and the court clerk come outside and call out your names, assign you numbers and then they call out 18 random numbers to sit in the jury box. the rest sit in the courtroom waiting their turn [maybe]. at this point, the judge summarizes the case. mine was a criminal case involving trespassing, burglary and criminal threats. at this point the judge asks each potential juror in the box if they can sit through a 3 day trial or possibly check if they can hear well, understand english, etc. depending on these answers, the judge dismisses some and then fills in their seats with jurors from outside the box. this continues until the box is filled with jurors able to sit through the trial. at this point, the bailiff takes out a big board of questions which include:
1.) what do you do?
2.) are you married?
3.) do you have children?
4.) have you ever been the victim of a crime?
5.) have you ever served on a jury before?
6.) do you have any friends or family in law enforcement?
6.) have you ever been convicted of a crime?
7.) has any of your family been convicted of a crime?
each juror must answer these questions, and depending on how they answered any given one, the judge may ask them to elucidate on some points. then he would ask if each juror could give a fair trial or if they had any biases towards african americans. once all 18 have answered, the defender, prosecuter and judge leave the room for a bit, then return. the defender and prosecuter seemingly are allowed to dismiss 3 jurors each, but are given turns. basically, this process goes on until 18 people are left in the jury box who answered "no" to the majority of the questions. then the attorneys dismiss 4 of 6 possible alternates and the jury is left with 14 [2 alternates]. we take a break and come back and the proceedings begin.
specifics of the case as per the prosecution: a young african american man [i'll call him J] is charged with trespassing, burglarizing and threatening a residence occupied by a family visitor [we'll call her M] who is laying/nearly asleep on the couch. J seemingly pushes the door open [because it was slightly ajar already] and runs into the house yelling "where's mark?!" while banging on walls. J runs into a bedroom and starts opening drawers, moving beds and then the bathroom, while still yelling for Mark. M on the couch speaks no english [though understands it, supposedely] is trembling and cannot move. according to M, J stayed there for 30-45 minutes threatening her life, her family's life, and this mark's [M's nephew] life if he was not paid $2,000. M saw someone downstairs and assumed he was an accomplice of J, so she did not run. J told her he would be back that night for the money, and if he was not paid, he would kill her and her family. throughout J's time there, M said he kept reaching under his shirt as if he had a gun. M says J was wearing jean shorts and a loose normal t-shirt, but in the police report she said he had been wearing a gray sweatshirt. J left and M did not call the police, though the permanent resident of the apartment [her niece] called and M told her to call the police and send a spanish speaking officer to the apartment. while M waited, J called back twice [his number recorded on caller ID]. the first time he called he left his number with M for mark to call him back. all of this was explained to us on the witness stand by M through an interpreter. she could not understand the english of the attorneys and her answers sometimes were very confusing. she was extremely upset and times and cried quite a bit. J was in the courtroom throughout the entire trial, by the way.
at this point, the spanish speaking officer took the stand and it turns out in his original report on the day of the incident, it said nothing about J threatening M. but his report after a phone interview with her a week or so later, the threats were included. on the day of the incident, M picked out J in a photo line-up.
next, M's niece took the stand and recounted the phone call she made to her aunt and we got to hear the niece's call to the police. threats were mentioned in this call. the niece sounded very calm. the defender asked her if she had ever been convicted of a crime and she had been convicted of drug running or something 10 years prior. [so law and order! :P]
before the start of the trial we were informed that basically J would not take the stand because it was his 5th amendmant right and it's the burden of the prosecution to prove he was guilty, blah blah blah. so when the jury came in from lunch break only to see J on the stand, it was very exciting to be honest, because the case at that point really only seemed to me to be going one way [guilty].
specifics of the case as per the defense: J is a mortgage officer [or whatever those hustlers who do cold calling are called] and is well spoken, very tall and very thin. he met Mark and hung out with him [and even paid him to do some spanish cold calling for work] half a dozen times before Mark informed J of an "unbelievable deal" involving the purchase of marijuana. J gave Mark $250 to buy some and he drove him to the place of purchase. J claims he waited nearly 4 hours in the parking lot of this apartment complex for Mark. he never returned. after a week, Mark had not returned J's calls and had seemingly disappeared with J's money. on the day of the incident, a mutual friend of Mark and J called Mark and J took the phone, Mark immediately hung up on him when he heard J's voice. the number he called was at the residence of the incident, so J drove there with the mutual friend to catch Mark. Mark most likely left so fast he didn't close the door and J knocked on the door, which made the door open. J, assuming Mark was there, entered the residence asking where Mark was to M. he went to the bedroom that Mark kept his things and searched for him under the bed, in the closet and in the bathroom. upon not finding Mark, J informed M that if he did not hear from Mark by midnight, he would know "what the business is" [clarified by him as meaning he'll know whether Mark had stolen from him]. he was there for no more than a minute and left. J called the residence a few minutes later to check if Mark had returned and left his number with M so Mark would know where to reach him. J says he was wearing a wife beater shirt that day [because he was dressed for work and had a dress shirt on, which he took off and had an undershirt on], which clings, so there was no way he could have had a gun [according to him, of course].
the next day the spanish speaking officer went to J's residence [found by cross referencing the man chosen in the photo lineup and the caller ID] and J denied being at the residence or ever knowing Mark. the prosecuter kept asking J why he didn't call the police when Mark stole his money, which, to me, is ridiculous. the money was for drugs, the cops wouldn't do shit. but she's the prosecuter and her case was honestly very weak, so this was an important point for her.
while sitting through the closing arguments, i was thinking to myself: "god, i hope i'm not the only one who thinks he is only guilty of the trespassing charge. i don't want to be the one who makes this a hung jury!" but once we got into the deliberation room [exciting because we can finally talk about the case!] it was very clear that every single juror was on the same page as me. the key points that brought it home being: the first police report not including the threats, M claiming J had been in the apartment for 30-45 minutes [which really just couldn't be possible], J calling the residence after the incident and leaving his number [which shows J's clear intent] and M seemingly not understanding english at all. we deliberated for no more than 45 minutes and that was that. not guilty of anything aside from trespassing. thank god. i didn't want to punish anyone, really. :/
but yeah, it was a great experience and i'm glad i got onto a case that wasn't boring and was quite cut and dry. one of the most fascinating things to me was how young the attorneys were. i mean, i know most attorneys start working was public defenders and such, but wow, they were babies! less than 30 for sure, at LEAST.
it's fascinating being in this insulated environment with your fellow jurors, you form a very interesting [albeit weak] bond with them. we all got along very well and none of us disagreed on any particular point. i'd say i definitely got lucky.
juror number seven signing out,
xoxo,
lia. :P