![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The jury is either out or in
May. 14th, 2015 08:18 pmAt some point in my life, I would like to actually serve on a jury. And yet, every single time I get a summons, I end up thinking, "Oh man, I hope they don't need me because it would be so inconvenient at this particular time." Since my wishing has no effect on the process, I won't bother feeling guilty for it. I get summoned for duty fairly regularly -- not quite every year, but certainly every two years on average. Perhaps half a dozen times in my life I've actually had to go sit in the jury waiting room, on-call. I think three times total I've been sent to a courtroom. Only once have I gotten far enough in the empaneling process to be chosen, and then the defense attorney decided to plea-bargain. (A good idea, in my opinion. It was a DUI case with a positive blood alcohol test. It was clear from the initial questioning that the defense was going to attempt to cast doubt on the reliability of blood alcohol testing in general.)
The time I came second-closest to being chosen led me to do a lot of soul-searching about what is officially asked of jurors in terms of mental process. "Can you judge based solely on the evidence presented in court without bringing in any outside knowledge, experience, or research?" What does that even mean? If I refused to apply any existing knowledge to the deliberations, I'd have to require the attorneys to define every single word they used from scratch. I'd have to require them to explain the systems, mechanics, and causal relationships of every single concept they introduced. Don't be absurd, you say, that's not at all what they mean. But where is the clear and bright dividing line between being allowed to bring an understanding that if a person points a gun and pulls a trigger and a bullet subsequently goes through a body causing fatal damage, and not being allowed to bring an understanding that the statistical correlation of specific environmental carcinogens and certain morbidities is not the same as a specific and direct causal chain for a particular individual's diagnosis? (If I'd paid more attention to late night tv, that particular empanelment process would have been more cut-and-dried, because if I'd gotten to the point where they asked me whether I was familiar with the plaintiff's law firm, I could have said, "Oh, you mean the ambulance chaser who advertises that he'll get big settlements for mesothelioma?")
I got a jury summons over a month ago, scheduled for today, at a time when there was no reason to believe it would be at all inconvenient. When I scheduled an out of town vacation for the last week of May, it seemed unlikely to be a problem. Even if I were chosen, it would either be a quick case and over by then, or a complicated one and they'd probably have a break between empanelment and the start of the trial. And then, two weeks ago, I got put on an intensive and critical project at work, for which I was one of the two lead report writers. (It's going to be tight enough to be done with my part before I go on vacation.) And yet, if I'd been empaneled, it would have ben ok. Someone else could have done the job.
The system strung me along to the max: not called up for this morning, but I still had to call in at lunch. And then I was off the hook and the project lead gave a sigh of relief. It simplifies my immediate life, and yet…at some point in my life, I do want to serve at least once.
The time I came second-closest to being chosen led me to do a lot of soul-searching about what is officially asked of jurors in terms of mental process. "Can you judge based solely on the evidence presented in court without bringing in any outside knowledge, experience, or research?" What does that even mean? If I refused to apply any existing knowledge to the deliberations, I'd have to require the attorneys to define every single word they used from scratch. I'd have to require them to explain the systems, mechanics, and causal relationships of every single concept they introduced. Don't be absurd, you say, that's not at all what they mean. But where is the clear and bright dividing line between being allowed to bring an understanding that if a person points a gun and pulls a trigger and a bullet subsequently goes through a body causing fatal damage, and not being allowed to bring an understanding that the statistical correlation of specific environmental carcinogens and certain morbidities is not the same as a specific and direct causal chain for a particular individual's diagnosis? (If I'd paid more attention to late night tv, that particular empanelment process would have been more cut-and-dried, because if I'd gotten to the point where they asked me whether I was familiar with the plaintiff's law firm, I could have said, "Oh, you mean the ambulance chaser who advertises that he'll get big settlements for mesothelioma?")
I got a jury summons over a month ago, scheduled for today, at a time when there was no reason to believe it would be at all inconvenient. When I scheduled an out of town vacation for the last week of May, it seemed unlikely to be a problem. Even if I were chosen, it would either be a quick case and over by then, or a complicated one and they'd probably have a break between empanelment and the start of the trial. And then, two weeks ago, I got put on an intensive and critical project at work, for which I was one of the two lead report writers. (It's going to be tight enough to be done with my part before I go on vacation.) And yet, if I'd been empaneled, it would have ben ok. Someone else could have done the job.
The system strung me along to the max: not called up for this morning, but I still had to call in at lunch. And then I was off the hook and the project lead gave a sigh of relief. It simplifies my immediate life, and yet…at some point in my life, I do want to serve at least once.
