Watching injustice

Last week I found myself in a courtroom for jury duty.  After they randomized my number for the jury pool I was to be in, I knew I was too far away from the number of jurors they needed even after the strikes and most likely after the people still trying to get excused.  So, I decided to mainly observe the lawyers during the voir dire.

The lawyer for the prosecution was a man of middle age.  His client was suing for damages for negligence.  The questions the attorney asked were the standard questions and aimed at the jurors who had had the experience asked for in the question.  That particular method is a gross waste of time, and doesn't really get anything to surface that he needed to hear.  People don't volunteer information if they think they want to be home in 2 hours and raising their hands prolongs their stay just that much longer.  The defense lawyer's method was efficient with time, but didn't garner the information she needed.  She used whole group questions, only receiving answers from a few prospective jurors who wanted to volunteer only enough information to salve their consciences.  Most of the time, she had to call jurors by name to get any answer at all.

The two lawyers' mannerisms were really predictable.  That doesn't garner a high degree of cooperation nor respect for the system everyone in the room was supposed to be upholding as a great way to judge others.  The defense lawyer unnecessarily broke the rules a couple of times, mustering an objection from the defense.  She showed a lot of inexperience in trying to break her way of thinking in redirecting questions to fit the rules.

The prospective jurors were also pretty typical in their responses.  Three of the pool decided they wanted to talk a lot.  There are different reasons for this, but mainly these prospects wanted to impress the defense attorney in particular how well qualified they were to judge this type of case.  6 others were factual in their responses.  That usually signals cooperation but the terseness of the facts really showed the opposite.  Then there were the 4 utterly silent ones.  Two of them paid attention to the proceedings, but two didn't.  Two of these people were picked as jurors on the case, which is a real mistake on the attorney's part.  It should be an attorney's rule never to have a person on his jury panel that he didn't make contact with during voir dire except in Federal court where the rules for voir dire are a little different than state rules.

Of course, I was dismissed after the voir dire.  I didn't follow up on the proceedings.  But, I could see how it was going to go.  50% of the jurors picked had actively identified with the plaintiff's attorney.  One more had reacted against the defense attorney.  One of the prospects that had not answered a question was one who had not been attentive during voir dire.  The other silent one had paid attention, but had seemed less involved with the defense attorney.  I would imagine it was a verdict for the plaintiff.

I am always brought back to some sobering news after reporting to jury selection duty.  People observe how we react even if we don't know they are watching.  That's not new news for me.  But it is always sobering news to me.  I need that reminder to keep me from becoming stagnant and complacent.