In The Ordinary World
Posted some shots from the last month up on Flickr!
I spent this week on jury duty, in Shoreline district court north. It was my first time on jury duty, and it was a very difficult, and educational experience.
MONDAY
All jurors called showed up at the court at 8:30am. Immediatley, 5 of us were sent home, because they only needed 24 of us. Lesson Number One: district criminal proceedings only need a six person jury!
The 24 remaining jurors sat at court almost all day, waiting sometimes for an hour or so at a time between updates. We were dismissed and told to begin calling in on Tuesday morning at 9:15am.
TUESDAY
I headed to work early Tuesday. Started calling the jury hotline at 9:15 and called every half hour until 11:45, when the message finally changed, instructing us to return by 1:30pm.
When we arrived at court, we sat around in the jury room for an hour before we were called into another court room, where we went through jury selection. The prosecutor (a very young woman) and the defense (similarly young man, a bit bumbling) asked us a number of questions about domestic violence and our ability to fairly consider the case. It became clear from the questions that the defense was going to try to raise an issue of whether or not a woman can be guilty of domestic violence, and as a gay woman I was secretly amused by his repeated questions about whether the woman in a partnership could ever be the aggressor.
My juror number was selected for the 6 seat jury, and after jury selection, three of my fellow original jury members were swapped out for others, but I remained. Our final members were two women, one black, and three men, all white.
Jury selection took all of the day Tuesday, so we were released.
WEDNESDAY
We arrived at court a little late on Wednesday, because our courtroom was in use for other matters early in the morning. We heard the case all day. During opening statements, we learned the facts of the case:
A couple in their 50s and 60s, have been together for 8 years. Back in June, after a dinner party at their home, and a stop at a bar, a fight in their home led to a 911 call. The city was bringing the case against the woman's wishes.
When the woman testified, it was very clear that she didn't want to be there. She was crying, nearly hysterical. She also clearly didn't want to implicate her (still) boyfriend, and so she "forgot" many of the details of the evening, and took upon herself the blame for instigating the incident.
We heard the 911 tape (redacted in some parts, it turned out later, to remove all mention of previous incidents in the same household), in which the man sounded eerily calm, and the woman sounded high as a kite.
We heard from two police officers, who responded to her call. They arrested the man, based on the 911 call and the blood on her face when they arrived. And, we heard from the man. By now we'd heard a few versions of the events and timeline of the evening.
The couple had been drunk, the woman had been on heavy medications AND drunk. She had fallen asleep in the car on the way home from a bar, and he had left her in the car while he went in to sleep. When she awoke hours later, he had locked the doors and she had to go around to the back patio door to wake him up. When she got in, she got a drink of water in a heavy glass, then threw the class at him. Things get fuzzzy here, but at some point in the next few minutes, a table gets knocked over, and the woman's nose begins to bleed. Then she called 911, the cops arrive and arrest him. Aid is called for her, but she does not go to the hospital, instead brushing her teeth and heading to bed.
Our day ends leaving only closing statements, and we are told to return to court the next morning to finish the trial. During the course of the day we are sent away for several recesses, and throughout the entire day and overnight, we are warned NOT to speak to each other or others about any details of the case. It's pretty hard not to talk to each other about the details we've just heard or seen, but luckily we're all voting Obama and so we bitched about politics for a good hour or two back in the cramped Jury Room.
THURSDAY
Returned to court early in the morning for closing statements. Both attorneys make me want to hide my head in my hands... making up facts that weren't heard in the previous day, or confusing facts that were. The defense attorney strikes me as incredibly condescending, at one point telling us we can ignore a paragraph of the law describing Assault in the Fourth Degree, because it will probably just confuse us. I am tempted to let him know that my reading comprehension is probably up to the task...
FINALLY, we are allowed back into the Jury Room to discuss the facts of the case amongst ourselves. We spend the first 45 minutes agreeing with each other that the man in the case is probably a complete jerk to live with, and that the woman probably isn't a gem, either. More than one Juror mentions the desire to offer relationship advice to both of them (as in: "knock if off!").
After the frustration over lack of information (we were dying for some more history) and evidence (we were given only the tape and photos, but not allowed the officers statement) wore off, it took all jurors quite a while to settle ourselves with the results of the case.
I had come in Thursday more or less convinced I would vote Not Guilty. Not because I didn't think the man had hit the woman, or that I thought he even deserved to feel exonerated, but I just didn't feel comfortable with the details and that good old 'reasonable doubt'. Ultimately, the rest of the jurors agreed, although it took us several hours to work through the emotions around a Not Guilty verdict.
I think for all of us, the trouble was that no one wanted the couple to remain together, and no one wanted to suggest that what had happened that night hadn't happened, or that it was acceptable. But when faced with the requirement to determine that the man had intentionally caused harm, while not acting in self defense, we eventually felt we had no choice.
When we returned the verdice, the judge asked each of us to agree that Not Guilty was indeed our individual and united decision. Then, he talked randomly about how they used to give out certificates, but don't anymore due to budget cuts, and we were let go.
Afterward, we were allowed to speak with the attorneys, and ask more details about the case that had not been admitted into evidence. This is when we learned that, as suspected, the couple had indeed been involved in a domestic violence case in the past (he had gone to jail for a month last time). She had been on more drugs even than we were told about. And we learned about the redacted sections of the 911 tape, which was enormously helpful in clearing up why the 911 operator had somehow clarivoyantly known that the woman was bleeding (a big point of mystery during our deliberations).
Even after learning many more details in the case, I don't think I would have voted a different way. That doesn't make me happy about the case -- although I understand how our justice system works, I do wish that the jury actually had the power to do more than return a Guilty/Not Guilty verdict... The jury members had some really great counseling and anger management suggestions for the two of them. But in the end, I think I just had a peek into one night in the lives of two very messed up people. And the thing is, jail can't fix the root cause of that one.
I spent this week on jury duty, in Shoreline district court north. It was my first time on jury duty, and it was a very difficult, and educational experience.
MONDAY
All jurors called showed up at the court at 8:30am. Immediatley, 5 of us were sent home, because they only needed 24 of us. Lesson Number One: district criminal proceedings only need a six person jury!
The 24 remaining jurors sat at court almost all day, waiting sometimes for an hour or so at a time between updates. We were dismissed and told to begin calling in on Tuesday morning at 9:15am.
TUESDAY
I headed to work early Tuesday. Started calling the jury hotline at 9:15 and called every half hour until 11:45, when the message finally changed, instructing us to return by 1:30pm.
When we arrived at court, we sat around in the jury room for an hour before we were called into another court room, where we went through jury selection. The prosecutor (a very young woman) and the defense (similarly young man, a bit bumbling) asked us a number of questions about domestic violence and our ability to fairly consider the case. It became clear from the questions that the defense was going to try to raise an issue of whether or not a woman can be guilty of domestic violence, and as a gay woman I was secretly amused by his repeated questions about whether the woman in a partnership could ever be the aggressor.
My juror number was selected for the 6 seat jury, and after jury selection, three of my fellow original jury members were swapped out for others, but I remained. Our final members were two women, one black, and three men, all white.
Jury selection took all of the day Tuesday, so we were released.
WEDNESDAY
We arrived at court a little late on Wednesday, because our courtroom was in use for other matters early in the morning. We heard the case all day. During opening statements, we learned the facts of the case:
A couple in their 50s and 60s, have been together for 8 years. Back in June, after a dinner party at their home, and a stop at a bar, a fight in their home led to a 911 call. The city was bringing the case against the woman's wishes.
When the woman testified, it was very clear that she didn't want to be there. She was crying, nearly hysterical. She also clearly didn't want to implicate her (still) boyfriend, and so she "forgot" many of the details of the evening, and took upon herself the blame for instigating the incident.
We heard the 911 tape (redacted in some parts, it turned out later, to remove all mention of previous incidents in the same household), in which the man sounded eerily calm, and the woman sounded high as a kite.
We heard from two police officers, who responded to her call. They arrested the man, based on the 911 call and the blood on her face when they arrived. And, we heard from the man. By now we'd heard a few versions of the events and timeline of the evening.
The couple had been drunk, the woman had been on heavy medications AND drunk. She had fallen asleep in the car on the way home from a bar, and he had left her in the car while he went in to sleep. When she awoke hours later, he had locked the doors and she had to go around to the back patio door to wake him up. When she got in, she got a drink of water in a heavy glass, then threw the class at him. Things get fuzzzy here, but at some point in the next few minutes, a table gets knocked over, and the woman's nose begins to bleed. Then she called 911, the cops arrive and arrest him. Aid is called for her, but she does not go to the hospital, instead brushing her teeth and heading to bed.
Our day ends leaving only closing statements, and we are told to return to court the next morning to finish the trial. During the course of the day we are sent away for several recesses, and throughout the entire day and overnight, we are warned NOT to speak to each other or others about any details of the case. It's pretty hard not to talk to each other about the details we've just heard or seen, but luckily we're all voting Obama and so we bitched about politics for a good hour or two back in the cramped Jury Room.
THURSDAY
Returned to court early in the morning for closing statements. Both attorneys make me want to hide my head in my hands... making up facts that weren't heard in the previous day, or confusing facts that were. The defense attorney strikes me as incredibly condescending, at one point telling us we can ignore a paragraph of the law describing Assault in the Fourth Degree, because it will probably just confuse us. I am tempted to let him know that my reading comprehension is probably up to the task...
FINALLY, we are allowed back into the Jury Room to discuss the facts of the case amongst ourselves. We spend the first 45 minutes agreeing with each other that the man in the case is probably a complete jerk to live with, and that the woman probably isn't a gem, either. More than one Juror mentions the desire to offer relationship advice to both of them (as in: "knock if off!").
After the frustration over lack of information (we were dying for some more history) and evidence (we were given only the tape and photos, but not allowed the officers statement) wore off, it took all jurors quite a while to settle ourselves with the results of the case.
I had come in Thursday more or less convinced I would vote Not Guilty. Not because I didn't think the man had hit the woman, or that I thought he even deserved to feel exonerated, but I just didn't feel comfortable with the details and that good old 'reasonable doubt'. Ultimately, the rest of the jurors agreed, although it took us several hours to work through the emotions around a Not Guilty verdict.
I think for all of us, the trouble was that no one wanted the couple to remain together, and no one wanted to suggest that what had happened that night hadn't happened, or that it was acceptable. But when faced with the requirement to determine that the man had intentionally caused harm, while not acting in self defense, we eventually felt we had no choice.
When we returned the verdice, the judge asked each of us to agree that Not Guilty was indeed our individual and united decision. Then, he talked randomly about how they used to give out certificates, but don't anymore due to budget cuts, and we were let go.
Afterward, we were allowed to speak with the attorneys, and ask more details about the case that had not been admitted into evidence. This is when we learned that, as suspected, the couple had indeed been involved in a domestic violence case in the past (he had gone to jail for a month last time). She had been on more drugs even than we were told about. And we learned about the redacted sections of the 911 tape, which was enormously helpful in clearing up why the 911 operator had somehow clarivoyantly known that the woman was bleeding (a big point of mystery during our deliberations).
Even after learning many more details in the case, I don't think I would have voted a different way. That doesn't make me happy about the case -- although I understand how our justice system works, I do wish that the jury actually had the power to do more than return a Guilty/Not Guilty verdict... The jury members had some really great counseling and anger management suggestions for the two of them. But in the end, I think I just had a peek into one night in the lives of two very messed up people. And the thing is, jail can't fix the root cause of that one.
posted by -m at
9:28 PM
1 Comments:
An interesting peek into the way other people live. Makes you feel pretty competent, doesn't it?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home