I was bumped off the jury.
I arrived at the Temple Street courthouse yesterday at a quarter of eight in the morning, relieved that I'd made it on time (my husband had set the alarm for six; it went off at 6:30). I'd speed-walked the many long blocks (at least a half mile, I'm guessing) from the juror parking lot on Olive and 1st, but I wasn't out of breath--probably a result of my new five-times-a-week workout with Denise Austin. Thanks, Denise.
After passing through security, I took the elevator to the fifth-floor jury assembly room, where a hundred or more of us potential jurors listened to instructions delivered by a no-nonsense dark-haired woman who was followed by a buxom woman in a sparkly green sweater. She had long, black hair that bounced when she talked, and a sense of humor.
Step one, she told us, was fill ing out the forms we'd received in the mail and had been told to bring with us. There were three versions, she said.
"If you have the pink form," she began...
I was sitting in the front row. To my right was a Yahoo copy-editor who yearns to return to her freelance journalistic roots and find a project that will help children around the globe. Her husband works for the Associated Press. She had never served on a jury and was hoping to be picked. To my left was a dental hygienist. She teaches dental hygiene and practices it. She is also an avid mystery fan. (She loves Michael Connelly. Who doesn't?) She had postponed jury duty once and was resigned to being picked.
"We need an emergency contact," the instructor was saying. "Write the name and contact information on your form, and your relationship. One juror wrote, 'Rocky.' We're not interested in the gory details."
We laughed.
She talked about proper courthouse attire, something I'd heard the night before when I'd phoned the jury office and listened to the recorded instructions.
"One guy showed up wearing a T-shirt that said, Guilty," she told us.
More laughter.
Against the wall facing us was a young woman, talking on her cell phone, wearing flip-flops. The recorded instructions had proscribed beach wear or flip-flops. Now our live instructor repeated the admonition.
"Call the flip-flop patrol, " I said, sotto voce to the dental hygienist. We exchanged a smile. Flip-flop woman didn't seem worried. Her cell-phone was at her ear.
"If you're picked for a jury," the instructor said, "you can expect to serve from five to seven days."
Not good. This was Wednesday. I had scheduled an on-line video chat next Tuesday with a library in Lima, Ohio. And the week after that, I was scheduled to be in San Diego.
"If you need to postpone jury duty, you have to let us know before you're picked."
I deliberated, and decided to take my chances.
The instructor impressed upon us the need to be on time. "If you're on a jury and you're late, the entire trial is late," she said. "Time is money."
She told us about two women who had used their hour-and-a-half lunch break to shop at the nearby Macy's. They had a successful shopping spree--and showed up late. The judge fined them each $150.
Not so successful after all....
Based on my experience last year, I had come prepared for a long, tedious wait. In my black bag were two sudoku puzzle books (both by Will Shortz), an advanced reading copy of Jeff Cohen's forthcoming Aaron Tucker mystery, As Dog Is My Witness, an "evil" grade sudoku puzzle I'd copied from the Web. For nourishment I'd brought a plastic bag with almonds, which I supplemented with a cup of coffee and a banana from the snack bar.
Note to the city: I understand charging for snacks, but please consider providing free coffee for people doing their civic duty.
During the first call for jurors, I listened for my name and wasn't surprised when I wasn't called. Last year I'd sat the entire day and hadn't been selected. I finished my coffee and tackled the "evil" sudoku puzzle. Three times I thought I was making significant headway. Three times I had to erase and begin again. (Later that night, I gave up. Whatever.) Several rows behind me I heard someone explaining the puzzle he was doing--sudoku.
Another call for jurors. This time I was called. With a quick goodbye to the Yahoo copy-editor and the dental hygienist, I left the room with a handful of other jurors and took the elevator to a seventh floor courtroom, worrying about my Tuesday on-line chat and my San Diego event.
We sat on uncomfortable benches lining the hall outside the courtroom until the bailiff ushered us in. It was a fair-sized room, but not enormous, and had all the requisite players: The judge, a tall woman with curly blond hair, was sitting behind her elevated bench. To her left behind a desk was her assistant. To her right, a handsome court reporter who reminded me of an actor whose name I can't recall. He always plays bad guys.
Standing in a respectul but somber welcome were two suited men--the defendant and his attorney--and a young woman, the prosecutor. The defendant was wearing glasses and a cream-colored suit.
We filled the rows of spectator seats. When my juror number was called, I stood and took a seat in the jury box. I was juror 10. Clipped to the seat was a steno pad, labeled Juror #10, and a pen.
This was real.
The judge introduced herself and the others. She told us the defendant was charged with domestic violence against his spouse--two counts of battery. There would be an interpretor and six witnesses. She expected the trial to take at the most two days.
Two days was fine, I thought. Minutes before, worried about my commitments, I had hoped to be excused. Now I was eager to stay.
The judge conducted a voir dire, asking us one by one our city of residence, occupation, marital status, number of children (if any), previous jury experience (and if so, whether a verdict had been reached). The occupation of spouses or ex-spouses, children.
"I live in Los Angeles," I said when my turn came. "I'm married with six children."
The judge asked me theire ages and occupations. Then, "Your occupation?"
"I'm a writer."
"What do you write?"
"Mysteries."
I had worried that this wouldn't sit well with the prosecution or the defense. I glanced at them, but could read nothing from their expressions.
"Are there crimes in your mysteries?" the judge asked.
"Yes." And bodies, I refrained from saying.
"In your fiction, have you ever written about domestic violence?"
"Yes."
Dead Air, one of my Jessie Drake mysteries, deals with domestic violence. Speak No Evil, a stand-alone legal thriller, centers on date rape.
"And do you think what you've written would prevent you from being an objective juror in this case?"
"No."
The judge then addressed several questions to the entire jury:
"Do you all understand that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Juror #16, an Asian UCLA microbiology instructor, voiced a concern about the vagueness of "reasonable doubt" and didn't seem completely satisfied by the judge's promise that she would be issuing jury instructions at the appropriate time which would explain "reasonable doubt."
He'll be bounced, I knew. So would Juror #1, a man with an accent I couldn't identify. He told the Court that if the defendant was on trial, he was probably guilty.
"I was on trial once," he said. "I was guilty."
The judge asked whether any of us had relatives or friends who were in law enforcement. Some did. The judge asked them more questions, always ending with: "Would this relationship prevent you from being objective...?"
Next question: "Do you ever have occasion to talk to the police?"
I raised my hand. "I contact detectives for research."
"Would this relationship prevent you from being objective...?"
"No."
The judge said, "Has anyone here been a victim of domestic violence, or know someone who was a victim, or who was convicted or charged with domestic violence?"
There were many hands. I listened as Juror #5, behind me, revealed that during an ugly custody battle, her ex-husband had accused her of abusing and sexually molesting their daughter.
"One time the police put me and my daughter in a squad car for half an hour," she said. "They knew he was lying. They didn't care."
"Do you think your experience would color the way you viewed testimony by police?" the judge asked.
"I don't know."
Juror #13 told the Court that a cousin had served time for domestic violence. Juror #15's ex-wife had been raped. The rape, he said, had destroyed their marriage. Other jurors spoke of their connections to victims or perpetrators of domestic violence. I was surprised by how many people have been touched by domestic violence in one way or another. It was eye-opening, disturbing.
When the judge finished, it was the turn of the defense attorney and the prosecutor.
The defense attorney remained seated. In a soft voice, he asked us whether we understood that it was the prosecutor's duty to present evidence that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client was guilty.
"I'm ready to be convinced your client isn't guilty," said a juror.
"That's not my duty," the defense attorney cautioned. "I don't have to present a case. I don't have to call any witnesses. It's the prosecution's job to convince you that my client is guilty. Are you comfortable with that?"
It's the law," the attorney added.
It may be the law, and I believe in the presumption of innocence. But if the defense presented no case? If the defense didn't rebut the allegations and evidence presented by the state?
The prosecutor approached a podium. "If the alleged victim doesn't want us to prosecute the defendant, if the evidence proved that the defendant was guilty of domestic violence, would you be able to convict? Or do you think that the State shouldn't be involved in domestic issues?"
This raised some disconcerting views. More than one person questioned the necessity--or authority--of the state to poke into private matters.
"Do you think that domestic battery is less of a crime than battery against a stranger?" the prosecutor probed.
"Couples fight," said Juror #15. "And a fight doesn't mean something's going to turn ugly. If someone's killed, then of course, the state has to step in."
"So you think the state should wait until there's a dead victim?" the prosecutor asked.
"Yes."
I don't think Juror #15 picked up on the prosecutor's sarcasm, which was subtle. And I don't think he meant to say exactly that. But he did say, and he was seconded by Juror #14, that "a slap" shouldn't bring the police. "If that's the case, you'd have to station cops in every home. My girlfriend slapped me, " he added. "An hour later, we went out to dinner."
The prosecutor posed another question. "Would any of you find it difficult to view photos of a woman with her female parts exposed?"
The juror whose ex-wife had been raped admitted that he would. "But it wouldn't affect my objectivity," he said.
The prosecutor informed us that a child would be testifying. "Would you have any difficulty believing the testimony?"
A number jurors said they would have difficulty. "Children are easily manipulated," they said. "They want to please their mother. They're gullible."
Not surprisingly, several jurors were excused "for cause." Next came the peremptory challenges. Jurors 1, 5, 14, and 15 were thanked and instructed to return to the juror assembly room. Other jurors--some who hadn't said anything that rang alarms--at least, to me--were excused, too.
I had made the cut.
The judge released us for a twenty-minute break. When we resumed, new jurors filled the vacated seats and were questioned first by the judge, then by the attorneys.
I eyed with anticipation the spiral steno pad clipped to my seat. From the opinons expressed about domestic violence, I sensed this would be an interesting and challenging case.
So I was taken aback when, fifteen minutes later, the prosecutor said, without looking up from her yellow pad, "The State thanks and excuses Juror #10."
I was bumped. I picked up my bag, stood, and left the jury box. I nodded at the bailiff as I headed for the door. He nodded and smiled.
Behind me, I heard the judge.
"Do you think this would prevent you from being objective in this case?"
Recent Comments