The other day I started reminiscing about my experience on jury duty. Now ever since I was 13 or so I have been interested in juries. I couldn't wait to be called to jury duty. I just found it very interesting: the idea of hearing all the details of a case and coming to an impartial decision. The fact that twelve individuals with varied backgrounds, experiences, and opinions had to put that aside and come to one decision.
I love watching courtroom movies like 12 Angry Men, A Few Good Men, and Runaway Jury. When 12 Angry Men opened on Broadway (put on by the Roundabout Theater Company) I knew I had to go see this production. I also found a Russian version of 12 Angry Men on the IFC channel (more on that at another time).
It took a long time for me to finally be called for jury duty but it was worth the wait. I went in on a Tuesday and spent the entire morning kind of bored waiting in a large room. I had brought a book with me but for the life of me I can't remember what it was. I feel like it might of been Camus The Stranger but I'm not certain. Anyway eventually I was called to for a voire dire session. The details of the case were given very vaguely- all we really knew was that it somehow involved a road rage incident between two cars. Then the prosecutor and defense attorney began asking each of us questions. Now as they were asking questions of the others I was thinking about the little bit that I knew about the case I as much as I wanted to be on a jury a thought crossed my mind. I didn't think I could be impartial. Meg's accident (a totally different scenario) boiled down to a very basic fact that someone used an automobile recklessly and she was hurt. So as I sat looking at the defendant I felt like I couldn't be impartial because to me his reckless behavior was just as dangerous as the old man who recklessly backed up and hurt my sister. Feelings of anger and fear were still fresh in my mind. So when the defense attorney asked me if I could be fair and impartial I answered honestly. I said "No." He asked me to explain. And I did. I told him that because of my sister being a pedestrian in a car accident due to negligent behavior I felt I couldn't be impartial. I didn't think I could see past someone being irresponsible in a car. The judge also rephrased the question and re-asked it but I repeated my answer to her that I felt I could not be impartial. I was mad. I thought this was it. I had missed my chance and it would be years before I would be called to jury duty again. But then to my surprise I was not one of the people dismissed. Despite my saying out right that I felt I could not be impartial they had left me on the jury.
Now the people who were dropped were all people who mentioned that they knew or had law enforcement members in their family. But at that point I didn't know why that mattered to the case. But somehow my outright admission that I didn't think I could be impartial made me more appealing than people who had connections to law enforcement. Maybe they thought I was just saying that to get off the jury. I wasn't. And had I wanted to get off the jury I suppose all I would have had to do was mention the summer I spent working at the FBI office in Manhattan. Whatever their thinking was I went home a little mad that they had picked me. Maybe mad is the wrong word more like disappointed that a potential juror who said they couldn't be impartial was selected. Wasn't my reasoning that I couldn't be impartial more of a reason to dismiss me then just knowing a law enforcement agent?
The next day I returned to the court in order to hear the details of the case. Now the saying goes there are three sides to every story. In this case: the defendant, the prosecutor, and then somewhere in between is the truth. The prosecution's version was that the defendant was driving his cement truck. After being passed by a man in a red sports car he yelled racial slurs and then pulled up so close to the open convertible that the cement shoot above his truck was hanging over the trunk and seats of the open convertible car. So that the driver of the sports car was afraid for his life as he was followed by the massive truck for several blocks.
The defense told a different story. The driver of the sports car had been honking at the cement truck driver for not starting fast enough after a light turned green. Then the driver of the sports car pulled around to the left of the cement truck, despite the fact that this was a single lane road, and cut the cement truck driver off after driving into the oncoming traffic lane at an intersection and nearly causing an accident. He had yelled but not racial slurs and he did not drive right up behind the car. He did stop near the car but that was the result of a large truck needing time to stop.
Once both sides had finished presenting it was up to us to debate and find the truth. There were six of us and one alternate. We went back and forth over the different details. What did the road look like? How many lanes? What time was it? What was traffic like at that hour on that day? How long did the whole event actually take?
What about the vehicles? How much time would a truck that size need to start and stop? What roads was a truck that size allowed to take? What about the convertible how was it's speed and handling?
We talked about what we would have done in that situation. Putting ourselves in both drivers places. We tried our hand at profiling trying to figure out what is the personality of someone driving a sports car or someone driving a truck for a living.
We asked for clarification about what was needed to give a guilty decision on the charges, parsing the language. We seriously discussed the instructions given by the judge and how that effected what decisions we could come too. We voted a couple of times.
We didn't come to a decision on the first day of deliberating and had to return on Friday. One of the jurors knew the area where the incident had taken place and another had driven by there after we left for the day.
We looked at the behavior of both drivers. And in the end we found the defendant not guilty of the charge. The defendant may have gotten mad. But the driver of the sports car had driven in to oncoming traffic to pass the large truck on the left because a concrete truck just can't start as fast as a sports car. We definitely believed that the concrete driver got mad and yelled. But we didn't believe the race of the sports car driver caused his anger. Finally there was the claim that the truck driver harassed the sports car by following him for blocks. However with the weight of the truck and the restrictions in the area the concrete truck had nowhere else to go. That was the road he was allowed to drive on. There was no evidence that said he went out of his way to follow the sports car and he most likely would have driven the same exact route whether he had met the sports car or not.
We returned to the court and our foreman read the not guilty decision. Then we returned to the jury room before leaving. As we left the prosecutor and defense attorney were waiting for us in the hall. They asked us what took us so long in deliberations. I don't know if that was normal or if they just thought it wasn't that hard a case. But I do know that big or small if I were ever in need of a trial I would want a jury like mine. We took the matter seriously and our duty seriously. We voted and debated methodically and reasonably. We didn't need to call each other names or disparage each other even though we didn't agree. Each side presented their opinions and we came to a unanimous decision.
As for me I started on that Tuesday thinking I couldn't be impartial. By Friday I knew I could. And I am glad for it. I mean it helped that both drivers were reckless at one point or another. But during the details of the case it came out that victim was a FBI agent. Now I knew why those who had family in law enforcement were removed. And now I knew that had I thought of mentioning the summer at the FBI I probably would have been removed for sure. But I got the chance to prove to myself I could look at facts of a particular circumstance and come to a decision regardless of outside details.
Overall it was all I could have hoped for from being on a jury and I look forward to the next time I am summoned.
No comments:
Post a Comment