Judge and jury duty
My column on Sunday on jury duty (I didn't make it on a jury deciding a drug case) drew a couple of interesting responses from readers. One man thought I went after the judge because I got struck from the panel, and another thought I must have been engaging in sarcasim when I talked about thoughtful jury deliberations (Baltimore Circuit Courthouse is at left, in a picture by The Sun's Gene Sweeney Jr).
Neither is true. The column was not about "me" as the reader suggests nor was it about me complaining I couldn't serve. It was to explain the process and I threw everything into the pot -- the judge's troubled history making comments that a judiciary disciplinary committee felt were demeaning to women (and the fact that the newspaper I work for wrote many stories on the topic) and my knowing both the defense and prosecution attorneys.
I would've like sit on the jury but I know it would've been too complicated and wrong. Neither side would've wanted someone to serve who knew what I knew about the judge, and neither side would want somone to serve who they know is going to write about the experience later. It was a sound decision to keep me off the panel.
But I'm still disappointed.
I do think that juries have meaningful discussions. That doesn't mean they're always based on the law or on facts. Part of our process makes biases a part of the decision making process. It's silly to cull 12 ordinary citizens and then tell them to only look at the law and this case. We want them to do that, yes, but we know they take their life experiences into that courtroom. Being a past victim of a crime, they may decide it's natural for the victim in their case to tell different stories in the heat of the moment; having a neighbor's son locked up on drug charges, they may see the suspect standing before them in a more sympathetic light.
One reader wrote to me that he's a lawyer and served on a jury and couldn't believe the discussion:
"My case was interesting, full of ethically questionable behavior on the part of the lawyers and outright lying on the part of some of the witnesses, but I was confident that the average juror (or citizen) would see through at least the latter. I couldn’t have been more wrong. Deliberation consisted of some of the most crazy-assed reasoning I have ever heard. The jurors said things that literally made no sense and based their decisions on them. Decision theories unknown to recorded history dominated. I came away from the experience more convinced than ever of Learned Hand’s dictum that “as a litigant I should dread a lawsuit beyond anything else short of sickness and death.” As you might expect, I never get seated anymore."
Even if this is the norm, it's important to know that and do deal with it. Lawyers are always trying to figure out juries and they hire consultants to help (see the ongoing Mayor Sheila Dixon trial). I simply wanted to be a part of that discussion to see what matters people on the panel. Do they really want to acquit? Do they believe the police? What was missing? It's important to know this because in the end these are the people responsible for deciding the freedom of many of our citizens.
Here are the two letters:
It sounds like you are still mad that you didnt get onto jury duty. For whatever reason it appears that you think that Judge Nance precluded you from being on the jury and that's why you chose to add those things in about his past. Hey stupid, if you have covered so much of the courtroom and police as you say you have then you would know that the attorneys or at least one of them made a request to the Judge to have you excluded from duty for some reason that would make for an unfair trial.
I am willing to bet that when you started taking notes and the issue came to the attention of the Judge, both attorneys wanted you booted. Nance is a tough Judge, as they should be in the City, but he will give a defendant and the State a fair trial. If the defendant loses, he will get the appropriate ( and usually serious) punishment. SO get off your high horse. it wasnt all about you. It was about the State and the Defense who did not want your stupid, self centered foolishness on the jury.
JRBichon (11/22/2009, 12:42 PM )
I assume that the next to last line in your story “I bet jurors engage in thoughtful discussions about drugs and the violence ripping apart our city,” was intended as sarcasm. I was seated on a jury many years ago, when I first arrived in Baltimore, and had a chance to see the deliberation process up close.
At the time I had practiced law in Boston for a few years, had tried a few cases to a jury, and was curious about what went on behind closed doors. I had read stories about jury deliberation and was familiar with the social science literature on the subject, but I wanted to see the real thing first hand. My case was interesting, full of ethically questionable behavior on the part of the lawyers and outright lying on the part of some of the witnesses, but I was confident that the average juror (or citizen) would see through at least the latter.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. Deliberation consisted of some of the most crazy-assed reasoning I have ever heard. The jurors said things that literally made no sense and based their decisions on them. Decision theories unknown to recorded history dominated. I came away from the experience more convinced than ever of Learned Hand’s dictum that “as a litigant I should dread a lawsuit beyond anything else short of sickness and death.” As you might expect, I never get seated anymore.
I used to think it was because of my practice background, but a lawyer friend subsequently told me the real reason. He said no lawyer wants a law professor sitting in the jury box grading his performance. It turns out that some lessons of law school never die.
On a slightly unrelated note, did you see the story of the New Jersey lawyer who was seated on a jury and wrote about the experience in a Bar Journal? The defendant’s lawyer used the article as the basis for successfully setting aside the conviction. It’s probably lucky for the state that you weren’t seated. You would have written about the experience and caused everyone to have to do it all over again (this time without you).
Bob Condlin
Categories: Courts and the justice system
