LA Law: Jury Duty, Part III, Day 2

After receiving the summons, I called in as required. I reported to the courthouse as instructed, was placed on a prospective jury panel and we were told when to call back again.

Thus, I called on the evening they indicated and was told to report to the courthouse.

From what I had heard, panel A was 75 prospective jurors, panel B was 75 prospective jurors and panel C was 50 prospective jurors. I was on panel B.

After taking roll, we filed into the courtroom. The clerk reported to the judge which jurors had not shown up. The judged issued contempt of court citations to those who missed the roll call. In the end, I think those citations were removed when those jurors eventually arrived later.

The judge addressed the big elephant in the room: I am pretty sure no one has volunteered to be here to be on a case that may last 60 days. He tackled the subject head on by saying jury duty is a responsibility of citizenship. He stressed that there are military personnel who risk their lives and their families endure long separations which are truly huge sacrifices.



Thus, in comparison, jury duty service pales in comparison. He said an opportunity would be provided for prospective jurors to make their hardship situations known but current practice was that few would be granted.

He also said that California law requires that prospective juror privacy be protected as much as possible. Thus, each juror will be identified only by the last four digits of their juror identification number found on the badge.

The judge then turned the floor over to the prosecution and the defense lawyers to briefly describe the case. The prosecutor described the crime the two defendants were alleged to have committed. The first murder occurred by gunfire when one of the defendants was accused of firing into a crowd of young people killing one and wounding several others. The second murder occurred by multiple stabbing where both defendants were alleged to have joined others in the murder of a gang member whom the gang thought had cooperated with the police's investigation of the initial shooting. The prosecution cited that the murders were committed with special circumstances and if the jury finds that defendant number one guilty with one or more of the special circumstances, they would seek the death penalty.

The was a faintly audible reaction among the prospective jurors as the prosecutor described the brutal murders. Additionally, in some cases, there was visible discomfort on some of the faces of the prospective jurors.

The attorney for defendant number one gave only a brief statement saying indeed the crimes described were awful but that the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client committed the crimes as described.

The attorney for the second defendant also spoke briefly saying that the story was more complicated than the prosecution described. He emphasized that his client was charged only with the second murder and that in the context of the gang, his client was present at the scene due to coercion.

The judge spoke about the history of the death penalty in California. He pointed out that there was a time when there was no death penalty in California. But in the 1970s the voters, by initiative, restored the death penalty. The law made the option of the death penalty available only if special circumstances were demonstrated. Additionally, the law mandated that only the jury could impose the death penalty. The judge said in all other criminal cases, the judge decided the punishment. Thus, the case would have a trial phase where the prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were guilty of the crimes and if the defendant committed the crime with one or more of the special circumstances. If special circumstances were found, the second phase would be the punishment phase where the jury wwould decide life in prison with possibility of parole or the death penalty.

The judge continued, I have asked the attorneys to describe the case briefly because we are now going to ask you to fill out a 30+ page questionnaire. Because you now know some of the circumstances of this case, the questions will make sense to you. Please fill them out as completely as possible and be as honest as possible because your answers will be provided to all the attorneys and will guide all three parties (judge, defense and prosecution) in the jury selection phase with an examination process called voir dire. Jurors will be excused from this case by one of three methods: (1) a genuine hardship is recognized by all three parties; (2) for cause that is recognized by all three parties; and (3) by peremptory challenges from either the prosecution or the defense.

We went outside and filled out the 30+ page questionnaire. It covered a wide range of topics including: impressions of law enforcement, experience with gang members, viewing of crime dramas on television, sources of news, opinions about psychology, role in supervising others at work and as expected, numerous questions pertaining to the death penalty.

We turned in the forms and were sent home from day two of jury duty service with a date to return to continue with jury selection.