At Least It Was More Enjoyable Than The Pauly Shore Movie

I had jury duty a couple of day ago, and while I don't mind doing my civic duty, I do wonder why I get called so often. I know plenty of people who have never been called, yet I'm back every 366 days. Each time I get the questionnaire in the mail, I think that surely it's too soon. As I read, I come to the question: "Have you served jury duty in the past year? If so, you may be excused." Calling up the court's Jury services office, I explain that I'm not exactly sure of the date I last served but it hasn't been very long. The woman on the other end of the line explains, "Nope, you can't be excused. We waited until the first day you were eligible again and then immediately sent a summons. You just do such a good job of sitting in a room all day that we wanted you back. See you in a couple weeks."

Since I had to serve again recently, I figured I might as well share some thoughts I had during that time. For those of you who have never had jury duty (and judging by how often I'm called, that would be most of you), the process consists almost entirely of sitting around in a room full of strangers and wondering which of them is the unshowered one smelling up the waiting area. This time, after we had waited for a bit, we had a judge come in to explain the importance of jury duty. He stood at a podium and began to orate on the greatness that is the American judicial system. After a while, he proceeded to explain to us how important we all are as potential jurors and that people around the world wish that they could have the privilege of serving as jurors. As I sat there with my fellow potential jurors in row upon row of chairs staring at the man preaching from the podium, I was overcome with the feeling that I had stumbled into a church where, rather than preaching the importance of God, we extol the values of our nation. I almost expected someone to ask to be baptized after he finished.

After he completed the sermon, we were treated to a wonderful film explaining the court system and once again reminding us that we were extremely important. It reminded me quite a bit of the type of filmstrips we had to watch when I was an elementary school student. All it really lacked was an intro by Troy McClure: "Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from such educational films as 'Two Minus Three Equals Negative Fun' and 'Firecrackers: The Silent Killer.'" Instead we had an NBC new correspondent introducing and narrating the film. Maybe I'm cynical, but as soon as he introduced himself I started wondering what he had done that caused him to have to do this as his community service. My official guess was DUI, but maybe skipping jury duty was a more logical choice.

Before the film ended, we were interrupted by an announcement that several groups needed to assemble in the hallway. My group was one of those called, so I collected my belongings and moved into the hallway.¹ After we milled about in the hall for a few minutes, someone came out and began calling names to make sure that we were all there. After we established that none of us had attempted to sneak away, we were taken to a courtroom where the judge and both attorneys could determine which 14 people would best make up the jury. They called people one by one to fill the positions in the jury box, and as I waited for my name, I couldn't help wondering how one obtains the job of gate holder and if this woman's only job was simply to hold the gate open for potential jurors and excused jurors going in or out.

The process of the jury selection was not exactly like you see on television shows, in that on television you typically are not left feeling like both attorneys are something short of intelligent, and they also typically do not lay out their plan for the entire trial in the questioning of the jury on TV. The judge asked a series of basic questions about knowing any one involved in the case, health problems that would interfere, etc. and excused anyone who would potentially be a problem. Each excused juror was replaced by another of us still sitting in the back of the courtroom waiting to hear our names. After the judge completed questioning, each attorney was able to ask a series of questions and dismiss jurors based on responses or other non-specified reasons. The questioning process was a bit strange. Actually, let me give some examples.

Prosecutor: Juror number 3, do you ever watch The Simpsons?
#3: On occasion.
P: Do you happen to remember the episode where Homer decides to become an inventor? If so, do you remember the makeup gun he invents, and then shoots Marge with, causing her to state that he had the gun "set on whore"? ²
#3: Yes, actually. I just saw that rerun a few days ago.
P: Excellent. Would you agree that the defense attorney looks as if she purchased said gun on eBay?
#3: Umm...yes. Sorry, no offense intended ma'am. ³

Defense: Number 9, do you think the Prosecutor is fooling anyone with that crew cut? He seems to think it would project an image of a guy who's tough on crime and distract us from the fact that he has crane his neck to look at Tom Cruise.
#9: I kinda like the crew cut. He looks like he's trying out for a stage version of Stand By Me. ⁴

P: Juror #5, Mr. Smeeth, is it?
#5: It's pronounced Smith, just like it's written.
P: Very well, I'll make a note of that. Now, do you feel that you could convict someone and send them to the gas chamber for running a red light even if we have no physical evidence?
#5: I'm not so sure.
P: Let's say, hypothetically, that the defendant ran a red light. We have no physical evidence, but we have a witness who claims to have seen him run that light. If you, hypothetically of course, believe that witness, would you be willing to follow the law and sentence him to death?
#5: I guess if you put it that way, I don't have much choice.

D: Number 7, do you believe that all people who are not my client are pathological liars?
#7: Some might be.
D: So how would you tell who is telling the truth? If you have two people telling different versions of the same story, how could you tell who to believe?
#7: Body language? Look them in the eye?
D: Oh, so you're an expert now?
#7: No, but...
D: The defense would like to dismiss juror number 7.

D: New number 7, are you aware that you could not possibly be as smart as I am?
#7a: I'm sorry, what?
D: Your mere mortal brain is weak and powerless compared to mine.
#7a: Is that a question?
D: No, not really, just an observation. Do you believe that the prosecution's idea of charging my client without physical evidence is idiotic? I mean, has he never watched CSI? ⁵
#7a: Physical evidence would be nice. Helpful even.
D: Do you believe that without Gil Grissom, the prosecution has no case?
#7a: Their case is certainly weaker, but then again the evidence could just be buried under all your makeup.

P: Juror 1, do you think that you can make a decision between my witness and the defendant and say that the defendant is guilty?
#1: I haven't heard any testimony yet.
P: The defendant will tell you his story, in which he is innocent. My witness will tell you another story, in which the defendant is decidedly guilty. We have no evidence on either side. Will you vote guilty, because I'm not putting you on the jury unless you say yes.
#1: Did I wake up in the middle of Rashomon this morning?

Fortunately for me, I never made it up to the jury box, I simply sat in my seat until both attorneys were satisfied with the jurors. With the jury picked, they released the remainder of us with a pat on the back and a lecture from another judge about how important we were. The final tally, 4 hours of time, $12.50 coming in the mail and $2.50 paid out of pocket for parking. Considering the nature of the case, I probably would not have been chosen anyway, but the nature of the case also made me glad that I didn't have to deal with it.

I was exhausted at that point, even though I had done nothing but sit. Since I couldn't justify not going in, I returned to work for the rest of the day and accumulated even more stress. At the end of the day, I certainly didn't feel like making or even waiting for dinner, so we ordered food from Chili's that we could just pick up on the way home. It was then that we discovered an issue of even greater judicial import: When you pick up food from a place like Chili's where one person handles taking the order and assembling it as well as handling the transaction, do you tip or not tip?

Until later...

¹ It didn't really fit with the narrative a this point, but I wanted to mention something that I noticed. Before moving out to the hallway, I realized that this might be my last chance to use a restroom for a few hours, so I took the opportunity. That was the least vandalized public restroom, I've ever seen. I guess when they are not only in a courthouse, but in the jury area where they keep a list of who is there and who isn't, vandals don't want to press their luck.

² If you're counting, that's two Simpsons references in a post about court.

³ And yes, she did.

⁴ I know none of them had crew cuts. The closest was Vern ⁶ and it was more of a buzz cut. You got the point didn't you?

⁵ CSI was actually brought up by the prosecuting attorney, as was Wheel of Fortune. This is how he chose to question potential jurors.

⁶ Am I the only one that looks back at the movie and is shocked that Vern was played by Jerry O'Connell?