Jury Duty, Emphasis on Duty

I had jury duty this week. Queens works a little differently than the other boroughs (I think) in that everyone's on telephone standby. So beginning last Friday, I called in after 5:00 pm to see if I needed to report the following business day. I finally had to go to the jury room yesterday (Friday), on the last day I was eligible. Bummer, man.

Jury duty gives me mixed feelings. It's a time suck and tedious, but it's also a fascinating study of your fellow community members and a glimpse into the system (which I just accidentally typed as "symptom," a potentially interesting Freudian slip, if I'd had enough coffee to examine it).

This was Civil Court of Queens County out in Jamaica. Non-New Yorkers should be aware that Jamaica, Queens has little relation to the island of Jamaica, except perhaps that both are populated primarily with people of African descent. Jamaica, Queens (and there's just no other way to describe it) sucks. Especially once you venture off the main artery on which several court buildings reside, it's just not a place you want to be. Go to a Popeye's in another neighborhood if you've got a hankering for Popeye's.

Mostly you sit in the jury room with hundreds of other people who don't want to be there. In Jamaica they play movies. Over the course of the day I saw parts of Father of the Bride II, Sister Act, and Batman Returns. I'd say that this is an improvement to sitting through daytime TV, except that movies are actually harder to ignore. And even though Batman Returns is rather enjoyable, I was trying to use the time productively, and the movies sort of pissed me off.

Shortly before lunch, I got called as a potential juror. About 25 of us or so were to be interviewed by plaintiff and defense attorneys so that they could determine whether or not we'd be fair and impartial in deciding the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit.

The two lawyers embodied why lawyers have such a bad reputation in our country. The plaintiff was disorganized and (I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to put it) stupid. The defense was aggressive and smarmy. Both lawyers also wore the ugliest wedding rings I've ever seen. I could barely keep my eyes off of them, and I never did come to a decision about which one was uglier. I wonder what this says about me as a potential juror.

They drew names out of a wooden BINGO spinner, and I was the second person chosen. (They interview six at a time.) The plaintiff's attorney (who I will now call Repeat Questions, Esq.) asked each of us many questions, often more than twice each. His questions were unclear and vague, and I think he kept repeating them because our answers were only as clear as his questions. Repeat Questions, Esq. was asking us questions off of four different pieces of paper, like these were the questions some other attorneys had asked their potential jurors and had then provided Repeat Questions, Esq. with copies. By the time we broke for lunch he had gotten only through the first two of us.

After the lunch break it all continued. By this time the room was pretty hostile to Repeat Questions, Esq.

I sat on the jury of a civil trial about six years ago. We found for the defense. (The jury agreed that the woman probably had a case, but her lawyer hadn't done a good job of proving it. So we felt bad but we did our duty as the law required.) Repeat Questions, Esq. didn't ask me specifically about the case (maybe he wasn't allowed), but he asked if money damages were awarded in the case. I said no. He never asked if it was because we found for the defense, but based on the repeat questions Repeat Questions, Esq. asked me, I'd guess that he thought I was somehow in favor of tort reform.

This is where it started getting ridiculous. He'd mention (repeatedly) the idea of tort reform. Honestly, I think the vast majority of the room didn't know what tort reform was (the women on either side of me didn't). But he didn't actually ask me what I thought of tort reform. I'm against it, which I think he'd have liked. Instead he asked, after mentioning tort reform, if I had a problem awarding money damages based on the merits of the case. I said no each time. Then he'd ask someone else a repeat question, only to turn back to me and say, "So we've mentioned a little about tort reform..."

I was practically begging him to ask me my opinion of tort reform, but in spite of Repeat Questions, Esq.'s repeat questions, he never did.

Every time the lawyers left the room to confer, people would turn to me and say, "What is it with you and tort reform?" "I have no idea. He's not even asking if I'm for or against it."

It was exceptionally frustrating, and all I could think was that the plaintiff was truly screwed. Through stupidity and tediousness, Repeat Questions, Esq. was alienating his potential jurors. When Repeat Questions, Esq. finally finished with the first six (a couple of hours later, and I'm not exaggerating), the defense attorney (Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.) took over.

Now I'm under the impression that they're not allowed to argue their cases in front of us during jury selection during which a judge is not present, but Smarmy Aggressor, Esq. spent most of his time disputing the claims of Repeat Questions, Esq. He even disagreed with Repeat Questions, Esq.'s interpretation of the blindfolded lady holding the scales of justice outside the building.

Finally, Smarmy Aggressor asked each of us leading questions to which there was only one right answer (e.g. "You can do that, right?") and spent a little time buttering each of us up.

On my turn, for example, he said, "Your wife is a music therapist, right?"
"Yes."
"Have you seen her at work?"
"Sure. Actually, I'm not sure." (Sessions are, after all, confidential and private.)
"They do amazing--AMAZING!--work. I have a disabled son, and his music therapist has worked MIRACLES! with him."

Sounds nice, right? The problem is that I can't quite capture Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.'s tone. It was smarmy and aggressive. So I quietly agreed with him that yes, the missus does amazing work.

"You really have to--HAVE TO!--watch her work some time."
"OK." (I didn't mention that sessions are confidential and private.)

A moment of levity during Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.'s questioning: He was trying to make sure that the jury wouldn't be prejudiced against a medical expert who was being paid to take the stand. "If you understand that the medical expert is being paid for his TIME! and not his OPINION!--being paid for his OPINION! is WRONG!--would you have a problem with his testimony?"

The woman sitting next to me, a fellow Sunnysider to whom the question was not directed, muttered, "Is he getting more than forty bucks a day?" (That's the daily juror's payment, in case you don't get it.) Smarmy Aggressor, Esq. laughed, although he did it in a bit of a smarmy and aggressive way.

Once they were done interviewing the first six of us, they went into the hallway to converse. They're each allowed three dismissals without explanation. So if a Klan member is suing the insurance company for damages suffered to his burning cross, the Klan member's attorney can dismiss the black juror and doesn't have to say that it's because he's black. This gives the lawyers some latitude to follow their instincts and prejudices.

When they returned, they pulled my juror card (and one other) out of the paper clips on their clipboard and dismissed me. "What'd I do?" I asked. They didn't answer. I'm guessing it had to do with tort reform, not that I was ever once asked about actual tort reform. I took my stuff and went back down to the jury room to await the next potential trial.

And it never came. It was about 4:00 pm at this point on the Friday before a holiday weekend, and the next time my name was called it was to dismiss me from jury duty for the next six years. I called in for four days, served one day, and that's my duty.

Heh, I said duty.