Day three of my jury service was my first day present at jury selection.
I was one of the 75 people of panel B. The day before, the jury selection started with the 75 people of panel A.
So when me and my panel B mates arrived, there were 18 jurors (6 alternates) in the box and the remainder of panel A in the seats.
Jurors can be excused by the following methods:
(1) By agreement of judge, defense and prosecution for hardship and by the judge for cause.
Of the hardship cases, in open court, it was granted to one juror who was the sole breadwinner of the family with a pregnant wife about to give birth. In another, the juror was hugely pregnant and presented the court with a letter from her OB/GYN.
There were probably other cases successfully made in the questionnaires. In those cases, at the beginning, the clerk read the juror ID numbers and those jurors left right away. I suppose some might have been excused for cause as well.
Excusal for cause came up after a huddle of the judge, prosecution and defense after all three parties had questioned prospective jurors 13-18 in the box.
Usually, these jurors fell into these categories: very strongly in favor of the death penalty, very strongly opposed to the death penalty or got very emotional during questioning.
The excused jurors from the jury box was then refilled.
If jurors were not excused for hardship or cause, then jurors could be excused at the request of the prosecution or the defense. At this step, the two sides alternate in making the request to remove a juror sitting seats 1-12. As each was excused, someone from seat 13-18 filled the newly vacated seat.
The 6 empty seats of 13-18 then gets refilled from the unseated panel of prospective jurors.
Excused jurors were in similar categories to those released for cause: strongly in favor of the death penalty, strongly opposed to the death penalty or got emotional during questioning.
It was hard to know which of those three conditions were so strong that the juror was excused for cause as opposed to being removed by peremptory challenges.
Additionally, at peremptory, jurors with law enforcement backgrounds or who had immediate family member in law enforcement were excused. Anyone who had direct experience with the criminal justice system or had such family members were excused. Since the case involved gangs, anyone who knew gang members were excused.
In most cases, it was fairly easy to guess a the possible reason why the defense or prosecution issued the peremptory.
By the end of day 3 of my service, I was prospective juror #18.
I was asked about my profession by the judge and whether I thought I could be a fair and impartial juror.
The defense lawyer for defendant #1 (the one who had the most charges) asked about who Dennis Prager was since I had written in my questionnaire that my views were influenced by Prager!
I said, he is a radio talk show host on 870AM. He talks about a variety of subjects and I heard him talk about the death penalty a few times.
He asked about my response to the question of whether I would trust the testimony of a gang member. I had written that the defendant being a gang member would be one factor of many factors in evaluating testimony. The lawyer wanted to know what I meant.
I replied that as a scientist, we evaluate multiple lines of information in our work. Thus, I'd look at how consistent the testimony was, does it track with the testimony of other people and whether there was physical evidence to support the testimony.
He then asked what if there was not supporting sources?
At this point, the judge intervened, I will be instructing jurors on how testimony should be evaluated. Move on to the next question.
The lawyer said, no further questions.
The lawyer for the second defendant asked about my profession just as the judge did. I gave bit more information about my work than in my first reply. He then asked, would it be a hardship to serve on this jury?
I replied that we depend on competing for grant money so it is like a small business and that to stop working in the lab for potentially 60 days would be challenging.
He said, no further questions.
The prosecution asked questions of prospective jurors 13-15.
Thus, ended day 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment