IMAGE CREDIT: Judicial Council of California
I just finished my jury duty for the year and it was a fascinating experience.
I am proud to serve on jury duty, which is one of the only things our country requires every citizen to do for the good of the nation and our community. It’s always an interesting glimpse into a diverse cross-section of my city, from all walks of life. In the room with me during jury selection there was a meter maid, a make up artist, a stay at home dad, a couple of grad students, an investor, a special ed teacher, and many, many engineers for tech companies.
For this round of jury duty, I was called for jury selection (“voir dire”) on the first day of my service. About sixty of us were packed into the gallery of an old court room of the criminal court house on 850 Bryant. Over the course of three days, smaller groups were called up to the jury box to try and get to a full deck that the judge, prosecution and defense could all agree on.
It’s fascinating, and a little concerning, getting a peek into each person’s personal view of criminal justice and the court system. There were folks who didn’t trust the system. There were folks who idolized the police. There were folks who thought that the accused was “probably guilty” just because they were there.
There was lots of fumbling and hemming and hawing from prospective jurors. When do you get asked to explain your own personal views on justice? When do you get asked to talk about any possible biases you might have? Oh and you are on the mic, being interviewed by a black-robed judge sitting high above you, in front of a huge group of strangers, while the court reporter writes down every word you say. Very intimidating!
I also loved the challenge of just being present and attentive during these proceedings, without access to my smart phone or other devices. It was hard for me, and it must be even more so for younger people who are almost constantly on their phones. I am glad I remembered to bring a notebook and pen!
I was reminded about the enormous difficulty it must be to find twelve people (and two alternates) who can (1) critically evaluate and weigh evidence, (2) put their personal biases aside, (3) follow the judge’s instructions, and (4) work together to come to a verdict. That courtrooms around the country do this every day kind of blows me away.
I was not chosen for this jury, and honestly am a little sad about that. I would like to believe that if I was selected, that I would do my best to be the fairest possible juror for everyone involved.