I blogged about this experience earlier in the blog. My first experience with the jury system was during my salad days in San Antonio. I was unemployed at the time with limited savings at best and this was an interruption to my job search. They pay you a nominal fee; I don't recall if it even covered my parking. After a long wait most of us in the jury pool were dismissed without ever seeing the inside of a classroom. But to this very day what I remember most is this self-important suited businessman raging he had better ways to spend his time, and they should staff juries from the ranks of the unemployed, who after all didn't have anything better to do with their time. I had to bite my tongue, of course, because he was talking about me, but my inner voice was thinking, "Dude, you had better hope you never get charged and find your peers are too important to serve on your own jury!"
Since then, I really hadn't gotten a jury summons (in decades), although I almost did by South Carolina or Arizona but had moved in the interim. When I finally got a summons recently, I wasn't thrilled because I had awaited 2 health-related procedures for some time and a longer trial could derail them. I was hopeful I could dodge it: the local county has a process where you call the night before or check their website in the late afternoon the day before your reporting date to see if your reporting number is required. I noticed the day before my reporting day all the prospective jurors were excused so I was hopeful. It wasn't the obligation so much as the personally inconvenient timing. But no such luck; my reporting number fell into the middle of the reporting range.
The potentially variable length of a jury pool commitment complicated my work schedule. For example, my timesheet was set up to allow jury leave one day at a time, with any additional days manually approved.
I hadn't been to the town center before. The summons came with a parking permit that allowed us to park on the roof of a 6-story public parking garage a few blocks from the courthouse. (It felt like you were driving forever once in the garage.)
I arrived early the first day {I attempt to be very conservative when I'm unfamiliar with the area). All of this is very slow, different than my San Antonio experience. We checked in (there were about 53 of us, all for the same case apparently) and issued minor stipends. We were shown some orientation clips and issued numbers; if and when you are selected, you are issued another number.
I'm only going to describe the case in general terms, and I don't claim my opinions extend beyond myself to other jurors. The case centers on a 9-1-1 call over the alleged erratic driving of the suspect, whose own license had been revoked and his registered car was supposed to have an Ignition Interlock Device installed. (Think of a breathalyzer linked to your ignition). He was eventually charged with DWI, under impairment, and 8 other charges involving 9-1-1 related traffic or driving license infractions. The suspect was arrested in the parking lot near his residence (they traced it via his car plate tag reported in the 9-1-1 call) within minutes of the call, after refusing a breathalyzer.; there were separately a local officer and a state trooper
So the judge goes through a litany of 28 questions designed to filter out juror bias, e.g., are you affiliated with MADD, do you have an ax to grind against the police, do you have any link to anyone involved in the trial, etc. So, they recorded the exceptions. One amusing note: one lady was so short they didn.t notice her standing up,
I think I was one of the few who never stood up. Almost everyone else had to go into separate discussions with the judge and attorneys. It went through the first half of jurors (I was in the first half) when I guess they had cleared enough. They then brought us up 4 at a time, and neither side questioned or struck me from the jury. So, I was now on the jury.
After the jury was selected, we had opening arguments, and then the state presented its case, mainly the 9-1-1 call, the officers were called to testify and clips of the officers approaching the suspect were shown. Neither officer saw the suspect driving the impeccably parked car. One saw the suspect in the driver's seat with the car lights on.
The state did not provide the 9-1-1 caller and didn't provide any corroborating witnesses or any other evidence documenting driving violations. There were issues with multiple elements of the 9-1-1 call, including the report of damage to the suspect's car, the suspect's physical appearance. The caller reported the suspect had stopped off at a liquor store but no evidence of relevant purchases. There were discrepancies in the officers' perceptions, e.g., only one reported smelling alcohol on the suspect's breath.
The judge stopped for the day after the prosecution rested.
When the trial resumed the next morning, the defense rested without having the defendant testify, not really surprising us. He really didn't leave us much to go by, like someone else was driving the car. We then went through closing arguments and judge instructions.
In deliberations we went through the 9-1-1 call and an extended officer clip. They collected lunch orders, and I ordered a cheesesteak sub (delicious) and diet cola.
I had visions of being a holdout juror for the defense but there was a surprising consensus the prosecution failed to prove the moving violation charges beyond a somewhat suspect 9-1-1 call.
And it was clear there was a failure of the prosecution to establish the suspect was intoxicated like those TV shows asking the defendant to walk a straight line. Maybe he was a highly functional alcoholic, but he seemed cooperative and in control. Oh, I know the young trooper reported his pupils were dilated, his speech was slurred etc., he's seen it a million times, but no sale.
The problem I had is the suspect is arguing with his mom on the clip (not that the prosecutor pointed it out) that he hadn't damaged the car So there goes the defense on license violations, including the need to install a Ignition Interlock Device. Finally, he was overheard admitting he had had a few drinks.
So, the impaired violation was a compromise consensus that the driver's road behavior was likely dangerous to others and he shouldn't have been on the road.
So not guilty on half the charges and guilty of the other half. I'm sure no one liked the outcome, although the prosecutor seemed happy. I was truly amazed that 12 people were able to come to an agreement. We don't know if the judge has sentenced the defendant; our part is over. But we took defendant rights seriously.
