|
Short Story by Diane
Payne
Anything But This
Creative Non-Fiction
Last week I was selected to serve for jury
duty. Unfortunately, this community service has left me feeling
disheartened with our legal system and beleaguered with a guilty
conscience. I declared the defendant guilty, but my vote was
ignored. I could have grabbed the pen, since it was my pen, and
checked the guilty box, but that didn't feel right to me either.
It's foolish to force a unanimous vote as the ruling decision.
If the court allowed a majority vote, it would be a more true
reflection of how the jurors honestly voted. Surely the attorney
who loses a case has to wonder why not one juror was persuaded
by the evidence presented.
This particular case was a relatively minor
ordeal. A woman was being charged with the intent to manufacture
meth. It was a case based on circumstantial evidence. Several
years ago, a close friend of my sister-in-law ended up in prison
for life for setting a fire in her sleeping teenaged daughter's
room. For my sister-in-law, I think the most difficult part of
that long, painful trial was that not one juror believed her
friend was innocent. Since it's a unanimous decision, one differing
vote would have meant her friend would be considered innocent.
Let's say it was a majority rule, and there could be a 10-2 decision,
by at least knowing there were two others who believed she was
innocent, even though she'd still have a guilty verdict, maybe
this would have been a more true reflection of this case based
on circumstantial evidence.
I have a feeling that in many cases there
is at least one juror who doesn't agree with fellow jurors, but
after deliberating all day, most jurors just want to go home.
Several of my fellow jurors were quite antsy for a cigarette.
One juror, a fellow who had slept through a large portion of
the hearing, stormed into the jury room ranting about how the
woman was innocent so we should hurry up and vote so we could
get out of there. When a few of us tried voicing our opinions,
he paced and continued ranting about how he's already had eight
hours of his day wasted. One man asked not to vote. After the
lady grabbed my pen to write that we had declared the defendant
innocent, even though my vote wasn't included in that collective
"we," the man who didn't vote mumbled, "You happy
there's going to be another meth house for your kids?"
The ranting juror yelled that he was going
to kill his kids and he better not "talk shit" about
his kids.
We left the jury room on that pleasant
note.
Had this irate juror not been in the room,
there's a chance others may have felt more comfortable discussing
the case. Still, it's unlikely there are ever twelve people who
agree with anything. So why force this unanimous decision when
it doesn't truly reflect the individual decision of each member?
If the jury can't reach a unanimous agreement, it's a hung jury
and the trial is basically a moot matter. Jurors don't want to
say they can't reach an agreement knowing the consequences of
that decision. Even if a majority decision makes the verdict
seem debatable, it's probably the more true decision since everyone
knows there are both unwarranted guilty and innocent verdicts
where some people are locked up unfairly and others are unfairly
set free.
My experience with the jury was not only
troubling because we made the decision within minutes even though
this was a case based on circumstantial evidence, which meant
there wasn't any absolute proof of guilt or innocence, but because
two of the jurors sitting next to me were sleeping. We had an
alternate juror. When the sleeping juror spent most of the day
with his head on his lap, it seems that the judge should have
dismissed him. Oddly enough, after all that sleep, he was the
one who was the most irate. The sleep certainly didn't restore
or refresh this man.
The judge never e-mailed me back after
I wrote wondering why they didn't place pillows before the jurors
instead of notepads and pens since I didn't see anyone other
than myself using the pen, but I did see plenty of sleeping going
on. I also mentioned to both the judge and prosecuting attorney
that I did say the defendant was guilty but "our unanimous
decision" was declared innocent. The prosecuting attorney
wrote: "Just for future knowledge, if a juror ever is unwilling
to listen or deliberate, please let the bailiff know."
I don't know how I would have discretely
written a note for the bailiff about the unruly juror without
having the note ripped out of my hand. Good advice for the future.
Perhaps the judge should have warned us about that prospect before
sending us off to complete our task. Or, perhaps they should
hire a mediator to make sure people discuss the case, not just
ramble on about person experiences when friends and family members
have been "screwed by cops" and to make sure all the
jurors have a safe opportunity to voice an opinion. My group
of jurors may have been a rare case. Friends have told me about
positive experiences serving on the jury. I doubt anyone from
our group went home invigorated, eager to share a positive jury
story. But, I also think that there are plenty of others who
have shared similar experiences.
Oddly enough, today I received another
summons for jury duty. This is my four-month's of being on call.
I have gone to the court five different times in the past five
weeks; the novelty of serving is wearing off. I can only think
about getting out of jury duty next week, but I have to come
up with an "extreme hardship." Surely the judge expects
some of the prospective jurors to have jobs, and he must know
missing work for that much time is considered an extreme hardship.
I could say knowing that I may get stuck in a room with that
irate juror is an extreme hardship. I'd really like to be excused
from jury service because I think the unanimous vote is a farce
and I don't want any part of it. How am I going to convince the
judge that forcing a unanimous vote is an extreme hardship? I
remember a prospective juror during the preliminary screening
saying he didn't want to be on the jury because he wasn't comfortable
voting on a person's guilt or innocence. The judge basically
made fun of him and said that wasn't reason not to serve. "No
one wants to make that decision," he laughed.
I'd like to face that same judge and let
him know, I, too, don't want to be responsible for a person's
verdict of guilt or innocence if the vote is a unanimous decision
because I suspect people are coerced into agreeing with the majority,
and on moral grounds, I don't want anything to do with this flawed
system.
That is just one flaw of the system.
Allowing jurors to sleep is definitely
another flaw.
I wondered if the attorneys were concerned
about the sleeping jurors or if they blamed themselves for putting
them to sleep. I figured they'd try to up their game and become
more theatrical, but I didn't notice much difference in their
performances. Finally, the prosecuting attorney passed out pictures
for us. I'm sure the sleeping jurors wondered why those pictures
of plastic water bottles were so important they had to be awakened,
but those were the pill soak bottles found in the freezer of
our meth case.
The prosecuting attorney tried moving all his evidence as close
to the jury as permissible, and I'm sure he was doing this hoping
the jurors would at least have a visual imprint of his evidence
since the odds many were actually paying attention was rather
slim.
After our lunch break, I returned with
a working pen. The judge had informed us we could return with
blankets if we were cold. I'm surprised people didn't return
with their bathrobes and sleeping bags. Perhaps I'm easily humored,
but I actually enjoyed listening to the witnesses and attorneys.
For me, it was like playing an intensive game of Clue, and I
was waiting for my turn.
Our defendant didn't have anyone testify on her behalf. The police
described her house as dirty and cluttered, and I got the feeling
they were being polite with their descriptions. Several years
ago, the woman got her RN license, but within a couple of years
her license was suspended for substance abuse. She rattled off
her list of health problems, which included heart disease, high
blood pressure and seizures. Then she told us that she not only
had that large container of salt in the duffle bag with the other
drug paraphernalia that she planned to get rid of, but she kept
a large container of salt in every room of the house because
she likes it on her food.
I kept rather copious notes and scrawled
questions I'd like answered. As a juror, I'm only allowed to
base my judgment on the statements that are presented. Whenever
the attorneys gathered around the judge and started whispering,
I was sure I was missing out on some of the most damning evidence.
It seems rather odd that the jurors are expected to listen to
endless testimonies but not allowed to ask questions. If we could
at least write questions down and offer them to the judge, he
could refuse to have them answered, but he could at least read
them so the parties involved know what information isn't being
addressed adequately. The jurors are going to declare the guilt
or innocence of a person; shouldn't we let someone know what
we feel needs clarification? Oddly enough, the jurors may view
things in a different light, and have gained some insight that
neither attorney considered. But no, we remain silent, and perhaps
sleeping, and then, before the closing statements are made, the
judge awakens the jury for one last break, hoping they'll eat
the proffered snacks and return refreshed enough to stay awake
during the closing statements so they'll at least get a brief
synopsis of all they slept through during the day.
I wonder if the length of case affects
the amount of time jurors spend discussing their verdict. If
our case had ended at two instead of four, would more jurors
have felt compelled to discuss it longer? I suspect cases involving
small amounts of drugs aren't really that important to many jurors,
and can only wonder if those decisions would be better made without
a jury. In the preliminary screening for jurors of drug cases,
I noticed the attorneys asked questions to the prospective jurors
about our personal beliefs regarding how we felt about people
spending time behind bars for drug use, if we thought police
lied about the evidence and they obtained, and if we thought
marijuana should be legalized. I live in a dry town and teach
at the local university. I'm not a drug user, but I do believe
marijuana should be legalized. There was no way I was going to
raise my hand in that court room to say I felt it should be legalized
because I felt it would only provide small town gossip and make
me appear suspicious to the police. I remember telling a colleague
that I ordered cases of wine over the Internet because it was
less costly and troubling than driving to the nearest liquor
store. She said, "Don't you know it's illegal to have more
than one gallon of alcohol in your house?"
Surely I knew it would be insane to drink
one gallon of liquor, but, no, I never even imagined there being
such a law (other than on some reservations). In times like this,
ignorance is bliss. Unless I end up being tried in court. I can
imagine the jury sleeping, then wondering why there were wine
bottles lined up on the counter next to a water bottle to illustrate
how many liters of wine fill a gallon container, and somehow
I'd be misconstrued as a bootlegger or maker of meth and declared
guilty of some heinous crime.
I realize screening all the jurors sitting
in the courtroom at one time is the most expedient method, but
I can't believe they truly think that we are answering their
questions honestly in that public format. One day the case involved
a pedophile and we were asked questions involving sexual abuse.
Who wants to admit those things in front of strangers?
Before we left the court to discuss our
verdict, the judge gave us verbal instructions, then a handout
detailing those instructions. He only gave us one copy. When
I started reading the section about how we were to base our assumptions
on the defendant, the sleeper started moaning that we didn't
need to "read that shit" because she was innocent.
Another juror seemed to have missed that the lab report pertaining
to the pill soaks didn't show up to have any controlled substances,
and when I started to read the trial information from my notebook,
my fellow jurors gave me a look that implied they'd like me to
eat my damn notebook. I reminded them we could give a note to
the bailiff, requesting that the judge provide us with a copy
of the evidence since they didn't trust my notes. I'm sure the
judge wondered how the jury didn't know the contents of the pill
soak bottles since the fact that the lab reports declared no
controlled substances were found was a rather crucial part of
the trial and repeated numerous times during the day.
When the bailiff returned with the lab
report, several jurors declared her innocent because of that
information. I tried to bring up that I didn't think our former
nurse was operating on a full deck, since by her account, she
was bipolar, and when she's manic, she "goes all crazy and
forgets everything that happened." She didn't learn that
the pill soak bottles didn't test positive for controlled substances
until during our hearing. I suggested to my fellow jurors that
she may not have followed the directions correctly, but she probably
intended for the pill soaks to have been used to manufacture
meth. Why else did she tell the police when they came to her
house, "What you're looking for is in the freezer?"
Some thought that since she had been trained as a nurse, she'd
know how to make the pill soak correctly. I didn't bring up all
the chemistry classes I had completed while studying to be a
nurse, and how I wouldn't have any idea how to make a pill soak.
The defendant's prescription drugs were in an evidence bag. The
jurors were impressed that she could identify her prescriptions
by name. I'd like to think anyone using prescription drugs could
identify their own medications.
Not a one of the jurors brought a pen or
paper to the jury room, so it was ironic that it was my pen that
was used to write "innocent" even though I had said
"guilty." Another woman mumbled something about this
being the second time she let a guilty person go free. When I
brought up the ludicrousness of the salt in every room and challenged
the defendant's integrity, one woman said she wondered the same
thing, but the rest kept saying, "The cops are always screwing
up. They should do their jobs right if they want to convict someone."
Oddly enough, a few jurors mumbled that the defendant was stupid,
and maybe now that she wasn't heading to prison she'd get rehab.
One police officer testified how he tried to convince this woman
to get rehab eight month's ago when she admitted to "getting
messed up with drugs again." I rather doubt a guilty verdict
would have landed her in prison. Regardless, within fifteen minutes,
we returned to the court with a verdict of innocent.
I rather doubt there are many times all
twelve people honestly feel the same way about any decision.
I suspect people are tired of the trial, tired of the jurors,
and many end up feeling bullied into agreeing with the majority
vote to just be free of this horrendous duty. A more true decision
would be to allow a majority rule because forcing a unanimous
decision is forcing people to be dishonest.
I'm sure the assumption is that people
will discuss and argue the case with more thoroughly if they
are required to reach a unanimous decision, but I suspect the
most assertive and vocal jurors will be the ones who get to decide
the final verdict.
I only ever said guilty, but in court,
the judge once again asked us if we all agreed with this decision.
I could have said I didn't agree, but after hearing one death
threat on someone's kids, and with the family of the defendant
staring at me, I wasn't going to admit that I was the lone juror
who said guilty. I live in a small town. I don't need trouble
like this. Had we not been expected to have a unanimous decision,
I suspect there would have been at least two of us saying guilty,
which would have been a truer reflection of the final verdict,
and she still would have received her innocent verdict.
Mark Twain had it right when he said, "We
have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world;
and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding
twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."
If a jury is allowed to sleep, we don't need a jury. If this
current system is going to continue, at the very least the courts
should consider utilizing mediators because they are under a
false assumption if they believe twelve adults are going to have
an articulate, educated discussion. The person who shouts the
loudest tends to get his or her way. To this day, I do not believe
all of my fellow jurors understood the meaning of "circumstantial
evidence." In general, I don't think the judges expect a
literate jury pool and that handout was probably written at a
sixth grade reading level so everyone could comprehend the definition,
but like taking notes, no one was interested in reading that
handout. I have a hunch my fellow jurors could have made our
decision before lunch break since the rationale behind "our
verdict" was that "the cops didn't have no proof"
she was going to manufacture meth, even though the defendant
even said she had put all the drug paraphernalia in the duffle
bag because it would make her look suspicious if the cops found
it and she planned on giving it to a friend, just like she was
going to give the pill soaks to a friend because she "suspected
they were used for drugs and didn't know how they ended up in
her freezer." According to the defendant, she had known
about the pill soaks for three days. I wonder why she didn't
dump everything in the trash instead of waiting to give it to
a friend if she was afraid of being caught? Doesn't matter, like
the prosecuting attorney, I didn't have the damning evidence
to prove she was involved with manufacturing meth. Oddly enough,
I'm one of those people who do think there are too many people
in prison for drug crimes, but I certainly wasn't going to raise
my hand and admit that during the preliminary screening. But,
on the other hand, in spite of my personal beliefs, I was expected
to only judge the material at hand and make an honest decision.
I tried.
Maybe the jury should consist of law students.
What a great practice for them. Surely the attorneys and judge
have to wonder about the validity of a decision when the verdict
is made within minutes of leaving the court. I assume law students
enjoy discussing and debating legal cases.
I hope I never have to be tried in court
with a jury. On the first day of being summoned to jury duty,
I noticed a large group of people waiting to be because of their
jobs. In the past, I was excused from jury duty because I was
a special education teacher and my superintendent didn't want
to risk having me absent for a long trial. When my daughter was
an infant and I was unemployed, I asked to be excused since they
didn't provide free day care and I couldn't afford a sitter.
But now that I have served on jury duty, I can think of another
reason to be excused. Integrity. I don't want to serve on a jury
where the decision must be unanimous and where the judge just
watches the jurors sleep.
Maybe the trick is to simply sleep through
the entire process. Let the bailiff return to the jury
room to find everyone asleep. The bailiff can place a check by
guilty or innocent. Who needs the jurors? He probably heard as
much of the case as the rest of us.
I think of all the anti-drug ads on TV. Perhaps the folks who
are interested in deterring crime could use ads showing sleeping
jurors to warn people to behave. "These people could wake
up and declare you guilty. Be careful what you do!"
As is, I'll try to find more useful ways
to provide community service. I have to live with my conscience,
and serving on jury duty only makes me question the validity
of our judicial system and my own integrity. Let me pick up cans
along the road. I'd rather be left with the stench of rubbish
than the stench of guilt and injustice.
Please, ask me to do anything but jury
duty.
|
|
