Musings About Jury Duty

This week Ken once again has jury duty. Some people never get called, but Ken repeatedly gets called--- not just to jury duty, but to jury duty at the Cook County criminal courts where all the nastiest murderers, gang members, and drug dealers are tried. He is hopeful that, once again, his number won't be called and he'll come home a free man at the end of the day.

I've also been on jury duty several times, but only once at the criminal courts. It was way back in 1971 when I was a young, naive, single teacher living in a trendy city neighborhood. Preparing for jury duty was a real bear since I had to leave sub plans.....for a non-Spanish speaking sub.....for two full weeks!

Lesson planning finally done, I arrived at the criminal courts, found the jury room, got my number and waited for the juror orientation. That was the first shock. Aside from the usual information about bathrooms and schedules, we were informed that there were two juror waiting rooms - one for men and one for women. In all seriousness, the bailiff informed us that the sexes were kept separate to prevent hanky-panky and save marriages! It had never entered my mind that jury duty would be my big opportunity to make out with some stranger and subsequently ruin his marriage. To think that in those days I actually went to bars with the goal of meeting men. How stupid! All I needed to do was break into the mens' jury room at the court house!

I spent the first two days grading papers and catching up on correspondence. (We actually wrote letters, on paper,using a pen, back in those days. We did have ballpoint pens, however. I had thrown away my quill.) I met some pleasant women, chatted about what they were making for their husbands for dinner, played gin, and wondered what kind of wild poker games were going on over in the mens' jury room.

On day three my number was finally called. At least a hundred of us filed into the huge old court room to find out that we were going to be questioned as potential jurors for the trial of a notorious gang leader. Hmmmm, this was getting interesting! Presiding was a well-known judge and at the lawyers' tables were nattily dressed attorneys and an equally elegantly dressed defendant. In fact, the defendant looked like he had just stepped out of Gentlemen's Quarterly.

In groups of twelve, jurors were then called to be questioned. After listening to about five jurors, I knew that I would never be called for this jury. The defense would love me - I was young, naive, and liberal. Heck, I even read such seditious literature as Time Magazine and lived in Lincoln Park. The prosecution, however, was dismissing any potential juror who gave the slightest inkling of actually being able to listen and understand testimony or come to a conclusion based on evidence. Nope, it was clear the prosecution was seeking jurors who would pre-judge this case based solely on the defendant's race and reputation.

Of course, that is exactly what happened. After spending five agonizing days in court- having to sit and do NOTHING but listen for six hours a day - I was finally questioned. After about three questions that proved that I was a teacher (meaning I was at least somewhat intelligent), read the horrible liberal press, and lived in the notoriously free thinking 60614 zip code, I was given the figurative heave-ho. After a couple more days in the female only jury room, I was released, paid my $5.00 a day stipend, and sent back to the normalcy (!) of the junior high.

I don't know how the case was resolved. It was a minor offense for this particular defendant, so the case didn't make the news. I know that eventually the prosecution must have run out of pre-emptive challenges and had to take some - yikes - liberal, intelligent jurors. I presume the judicial system worked as it should have.....but I don't know for sure.

In later jury duty assignments I was able to sit in a jury room with men - gasp! I actually sat on a jury for an interesting case related to a traffic accident. It is good to know that the judicial system has modernized tremendously since the dark ages of 1971.

The concept of being tried by a "jury of your peers" is still somewhat troubling, however. I was once not accepted for a jury in a DUI case because I had donated to MADD. So, someone who - horrors! - is against drunk driving shouldn't be allowed on a case involving a drunk driver? On the traffic accident case, we submitted to several days of testimony about the severe injuries and suffering of the plaintiff. After we rendered our judgment that, in spite of our sympathy for the plaintiff's suffering, the defendant had not caused the accident, the judge told us that we were a "tough jury". In other words we had rendered a fair judgment based on the facts, not on the sentiment--and that surprised the judge! We see pictures all the time of really horrible people who come to court looking like a million dollars.

I guess all that is fair and I do know we have the best judicial system in the world, but it still makes me think "What if I ever was a defendant?"

Of course, my biggest worry is being judged by a jury of my peers. Who would ever want to be judged by 12 junior high school teachers!!!!!!!!!!!!