For the second time ever, I was called for jury duty. But this was the first time I actually was empaneled and had to sit through voir dire (I took French in high school so this looks like "vwah deer" to me, though the judges & attys pronounce it "vore dyre".)
The conventional wisdom is that lawyers & law students don't sit on many juries and that was true today. The first peremptory challenge excused a lawyer from Kirkland & Ellis. The 2nd challenge excused me.
Why is this? Trial lawyers want the jury to buy into their version of events. That requires that the jurors have legally pliable minds. The lawyers probably suppose that a lawyer or law student is going to review the arguments more critically. Thus they are less desirable jurors. They might also be disproportionately influential in the deliberation room: either by seizing control, or from other jurors passively deferring to them.
Part of me would've enjoyed sitting on a jury, and witnessing a whole trial. Part of me was bored to tears at the subject matter – a contract dispute among partners in an LLC about who holds title to certain real property. The judge estimated it would take 10 days to present the evidence. I mean, if it was an injury case with drama and recriminations, that might've been worth staying for. But this is the kind of thing people ought to settle out of court.
Of course, to paraphrase Sartre, hell is other jurors. The highlights included:
• The gentleman above, who napped at every available opportunity outside the courtroom, snoring loudly.
• The TV crewman who said that due to his prior experience on "America's Most Wanted", could not be objective in a civil case, which he said he presumed was about "greed and ignorance".
• The graphic artist who claimed she couldn't be effective because as an artist, she drew conclusions based on visual communication, and oral testimony & written exhibits just wouldn't hold her interest.
• The tatooed psycho with a fauxhawk / mullet and baseball cap who, after approaching the judge at sidebar and being denied an early exit, hissed "FUCKIN' RIDICULOUS" into the courtroom.
I guess the joke's on me, because the last 3 of these folks were excused for cause. If you're looking for an easy out, try one of those techniques, it's less costly and time-consuming than 2 yrs of law school.
The whole of my voir dire interview:
Q: So you've finished two years of law school?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you familiar with summer clerkships?
A: Yes.
Q: Is there a reason you're not doing a clerkship?
A: [pause] Because I didn't want one.
All the attorneys in the room got a good chuckle out of that, for reasons that are unclear.
05 Jun 06
I just finished testifying at a trial in NYC. The jury found the defendant not guilty (only 4/12 in favor of conviction) of stabbing another man in central park. The ADA said the judge almost fell out of his chair when he heard the verdict. The ADA talked to the jury afterwords and here were some of their observations:
1) a number of jurors said that they didn't believe my story that I was an independent witness because "nobody would go out of their way to get the police if they didn't know anybody involved."
2) two jurors stated that the only evidence they believe is evidence uncontradicted by the other side - therefore if there was a disagreement between the prosecution and defense they disregarded the evidence.
3) one juror said that there was no way he was going to convict anyone because the police are "assholes."
4) a number of jurors believed everyone (including myself) was drunk even though toxicology on everyone involved showed no alchohol in anyone's system at the time. When reminded of that evidence they responded "how can you be sober on New Year's Eve?"
5) One of the most important things discussed in the jury room was the absence of DNA from the suspect on the knife (the knife was covered in the victim's blood so DNA would have been impossible). And I quote: "on CSI they always have DNA evidence . . . they must not be telling us something."
6) The jury found the detective to be "unreliable" because he made a mistake on the stand about how long he had been a detective.
I was a little surprised when I read your juror post last week but now it doesn't seem so surprising.
As another 2L, well I guess almost a 3L now...I am entirely envious of your jury duty experience. Why didn't you want to do a summer clerkship?
Posted by: azulskies at June 8, 2006 10:28 PMI like money as much as the next guy, but I know myself well: I would've been bored to tears by the work, irritated by the hierarchy and dismissive of the pretend socializing. In short, I would've been fired.
Posted by: MB at June 8, 2006 11:43 PMthat's precisely why I'm not clerking at a firm...
Posted by: azulskies at June 13, 2006 08:45 PM