Don't you hate those two words?
Well, perhaps not, but it seems that most people do. Jury duty can be a royal pain, especially if you're a homeschooling parent who is looking at the possibility of having to leave your children for a solid day - or perhaps multiple days if the case goes long.
But I served yesterday - oddly enough, in four truancy cases - and I'm thinking that homeschoolers owe it to themselves to serve at least once. I've served before, mind, and it was while the boys were still at home; I just scheduled things so that it wasn't a problem for them to be on their own while I was gone. Both times, I've found the experience fascinating, if at points boring.
The fact is that most people will never get a good view of the justice system at work unless they are on one side of the wall or the other (meaning in a trial or serving as a jurist for a trial). If you have a teen court system in your town, I highly advise getting your teens involved with it (If I remember correctly, the judge who presided yesterday is the one who originated that whole program.), but if you don't have that option, then take the chance to serve on a jury. After you have done so, you can really help your young students understand how courtrooms operate - even from the perspective of those who gather in the back room to decide someone else's fate.
For the benefit of those who don't have that chance right now, I'll share my experiences from yesterday. This will be LONG, so only read it if you've never served and are curious about how the process works.
First, I made sure I was dressed appropriately (Yeahbuddy, READ the guidelines they give you in the summons - some judges care a LOT about whether or not you abide by them.) and then I arrived about fifteen minutes early. Even arriving that early, I ended up in one of the few remaining seats. I was obviously not the only one who wasn't going to risk being late. When I arrived, the bailiff looked through my purse to make sure I had no knives, etc., handed me a two-sided sheet with information about jury service, and directed me to walk through the metal detector and then take a seat on the left side of the court room. Jurists on the left and others on the right - it meant there was no chance of us developing even brief relationships with those we might be involved with later.
Then I waited. I had a book with me, and I advise all who answer a summons to make sure they do the same - books, puzzles...anything to help pass the time. In theory, you could talk to the person next to you, but if you're doing your waiting in a courtroom you'll probably not feel overly comfortable doing that. They tend to be very quiet places.
While we were waiting, the DA, clerks, etc., were working on the day's cases. This meant waiting until the call of the docket (the list of people involved in cases that day - they answer roll call, essentially) to see who all had shown up for their trials (Several came in after the call of the docket and were sent elsewhere to post bond for failing to appear.). It also meant waiting until after a few lawyers had met with the DA and/or the judge either at the bench or in back rooms. It seemed to take forever, but in fact they were working on whittling the number of potential cases down as much as possible - so that they'd need as few jurors as possible.
Usually this period is long, drawn out, unbroken boredom. We were in a unique position yesterday, however, in that the judge totally 'gets' what it is to be a juror - how horrendously boring the long waits can be. Every time we hit one of those periods, he was talking to us. Some of it was educational, about the way the system works; some was almost activist, him sharing about his years in politics and how bad that whole arena can be (Elect the right people, people!); and some was flat out comedy (like him sharing about how his wife, after he PROMISED her that nothing would bite her on their trip to Africa, was leapt at by a giant python on their first day in the bush...ooopse).
Once they had it down to only needing two juries (12 people total, in this case) they seated us according to our juror numbers. I knew my number (which appears on your summons) was 24 and that a lot of people would have failed to appear, so I figured early on that I'd get pulled. Sure enough, even though I was #24, I was the 12th person put in line (meaning half of the people before me had failed to show) and even after all of the cuts were made I still got into the second jury.
Once everyone is in line by juror number, the prosecuting and defense attorneys (or people representing themselves) receive lists of the jurors and ask questions. USUALLY, you go through this process once, select the first jury, have the first trial, and then start the process over again to select the second jury and have the second trial - you really can hang around all day and never serve on a jury. The way this judge runs things, the juries are picked back-to-back, before the trials start.
I'm taking the long way to share my story. Please forgive me, but I'm trying to help you get a feel for the process, in case you've never experienced it yourself.
So they asked questions that were intended to help them determine who would be good and who would be bad jurists for their sides of the case. Interestingly enough, in this instance the prosecutor was the DA and he was "a product of homeschooling," as he put it. One of the first questions he asked was whether or not there were any homeschoolers in the crowd. He also told us up front that both of the trials would be truancy trials. He and the first person charged asked their questions, each was given the option of striking off three people, and then the first six of the remaining people were called out, sworn in, and sent to wait in the judge's chambers. Then he and the second person (these people were defending themselves) asked their questions and each of them was given the option of striking three names off the list, then the first six remaining names were called out.
I really expected one or both of them to strike my name because of the homeschooling. Frankly, had I been the public school mom, I would have, because I'd have figured the homeschooler to be too much of an unknown. Mine was the first name called, however, and I was sworn in with my five new friends, then we went to the judge's chambers to wait during the first trial.
Again, USUALLY we would have waited there until the first trial was completely over. Mind you, the wait was quite comfy. This is the judge's chambers after all (Yes, I suspect that we'd usually not have been in the judge's chambers - but as you've already seen, this is a unique judge) and that meant leather sofas, plenty of reading material, and coffee (water for me) if we wanted it.
Because the judge was trying to keep things moving as smoothly as possible (He had originally assured us all he'd have us out by noon - didn't happen), he actually called us in and started the second case while the jury from the first was deliberating. He told us up front that we would go through the case until the first jury reached a verdict, then we would trade places with them and wait in the deliberation room until the first case was completed before coming out to finish the second trial. We weren't in that room too very long, of course, because once the jury reaches its verdict things move quite fast.
So to the process...
The DA, and then the defendant, made their opening remarks. This is one of those places where you see the value of having a lawyer instead of representing yourself. There are specific things you can and cannot say during opening remarks.
After this, the DA called his first witness and asked his questions, the defendant asked her questions, the DA asked again... You've seen enough of that on TV to know how it works.
As a juror, you're really (should be) paying attention to everything. You may or may not be permitted to take notes (That's up to the judge), but you'll certainly be making mental notes. For instance, both the DA and the defendant asked for the clerk to let us know about her (the mom - the defendant) previous court appearances. Each of them had their own reasons for asking and I won't theorize what they were, but when these documents were read we jurors realized just how bad the truancy had been beyond the cases we were looking at. (I can't remember the term, but the mom was charged with failing to ensure that her children were in attendance). During the readings, various ones of us noted several things, which we discussed during deliberations. For instance, we noted how many convictions the mom had and that she had both paid fines and done community service.
Not to go into the details of the case here... I just wanted to point out how, as a jurist, you're going to be making mental notes to yourself. One of the advantages of having so many jurists is that each of you is making your own notes, remembering your own details, so when you put them together later you hopefully come up with a true picture of what has happened.
After all of the witnesses had been called and questioned, both parties made their closing remarks. The mom gave an impassioned plea that was quite moving, inspired to evoke sympathy on the part of the jurists. The DA gave a logical and well-reasoned ending statement that also countered some of the things she had said in her closing remarks as well as a few of the things she had said when she called herself as witness. After this, the judge read the legal stuff to us, explained exactly what we could and could not do, including directing us to send to him, in writing, any questions we may have. He assured us that he would show those questions to both parties and send back to us a written answer. Then he sent us to the room to deliberate.
Now, to tell you where my head was... I had prayed the night before that God would show me what I needed to see, would give me discernment, lead me to make all the right decisions, and help me act on those decisions in deliberation. I knew halfway through the proceedings that I would have no choice but to find her guilty, and as more and more evidence piled up (some of it hers) that choice was cemented.
My thought then was, what punishment? Yes, this was going through my head DURING the trial; we'd already been told this was part of our job, so I knew I needed to have a good idea about where I stood when heading into that room. The problem was that the only thing I'd heard had to do with money. Well, the only thing I heard before the reading of previous cases had to do with money; when those cases were read, I knew that she had paid fines and done community service at various times.
A lot was said during the proceedings and it was our responsibility to work through it all, to base our decision carefully on the facts.
I'm grinning here, and I'm about to date myself.
When I was a teen, I watched Happy Days. In one episode, Howard (the dad) and Fonzie were both serving on a jury. Most of the jurists were just doing time and wanted to get their deliberations over with as quickly as possible so they could get out and go home, but they couldn't come to a unanimous decision because Fonzie was holding out on the guilty verdict - something was bothering him, though he couldn't place what at first. After a lot of arguing, he finally realized what the problem was and demonstrated to the other jurists how it was impossible for the defendant to have committed the crime he was accused of. In the end, an innocent man went free because one jurist took his job seriously. Point made: When you're serving, take the service seriously; don't just try to do the job quickly for the sake of getting out in time for lunch.
(In case you're wondering, far from getting out by noon, we left there around 2:00.
So we all filed into the deliberation room and it became quickly apparent that we were in one accord about the guilty verdict. The problem was the fine; we ALL felt that a monetary fine was inappropriate. The mom didn't need to pay a monetary fine; she needed help. That whole family needs counseling or that mom and her kids are destined for a much harder life than any of us want to see them live. So we wrote a note, hoping that the judge would not share it with the DA and the mom (they would see instantly that we'd already found her guilty) because it was more a question of court procedure than anything else. We asked if we could instead require counseling or some other option, that we felt a monetary fine was inappropriate in this case. The answer we got back was short and to the point - fine the only option for court.
We sighed over that one. One of the other jurists works with people who do community service and she explained that the court did have the option, after we'd set the fine, of having her do community service instead. We weren't thrilled with this, but decided that it was better than either a hand slap fine (a token fine that wouldn't have sent any message at all - or would have sent the wrong one) or a huge monetary fine. So we set the fine at the highest we were permitted, figuring that with a fine that high she would be forced to request community service instead. (Well, that's what I was figuring; I don't know what was in the other jurists heads.)
So we filled out the jury paperwork and our foreman (Did I mention that? You appoint a spokesperson - your jury foreman, who does all of the talking for you) knocked on the door to let the bailiff know we were ready, then led us out. When the judge asked for it, she gave him our decision - guilty in all four cases with the maximum fine as the penalty. The judge then asked if the decision was unanimous and we all assured him that it was.
Then the judge thanked us for the note we'd sent out, saying that it showed we were a jury that genuinely cared (We did - do - I've prayed for them since), and he assured us that the court would do everything it could to see to it that the mother is given the help she needs. He then dismissed us. At this point, the DA said something like, "Your honor, the fine could be taken as-", but the judge cut him off, asking him to wait until the jury had left. That was rather funny, like walking out knowing you were not reading the end of a story. LOL!
I was one of the last in line and I paused in the lobby to pull out my cell phone. This meant I was still standing there a few moments later when the truancy person (Cannot remember her title) came running out, trying to catch us. She caught two of us, and second person called a third to come back, so half of the jury heard what she had to say. She shared with us a few things that they were not permitted to share in court, things that showed quite clearly that we did EXACTLY what we needed to do, right down to setting the fee high instead of giving a handslap. She also told us, which point was most reassuring, that the fine can be paid in counseling sessions instead. (Yes, I assume that this is what the DA was offering as we were walking out.) I don't know if the judge showed them all the note we sent and this is what prompted the move, but considering it was exactly what we were hoping for...I'm really glad I stopped to pull out my cell phone. I'd not have missed learning this, having the reassurance that our decisions were the right ones.
So that was my day. You see? It's nothing scary at all. Potentially boring, yes, and definitely a responsibility, but having experienced it I could share with my kids if they were still home, giving them a first-person account of how this part of the justice system works. Besides, if I'm ever in need of a jury myself, I definitely hope the right people show up to serve on it.
So the next time you receive a summons, even though your young children do make you eligible to bypass the opportunity, consider taking it instead. Maybe you can do it. Maybe you can't. Maybe you shouldn't even consider it if it's one of those courts that tend toward murder trials that go on for days. Just think about it for a minute before filling out the exemption form.
Celebrating Jesus!
Tammy C
