So Tuesday I was called for jury duty. It was in Newburyport, which is an area I'm completely unfamiliar with. Most of the trip there was done on the highway, but once I got off the highway I realized that I was in the land that time forgot. I drove past what most have been a mom and pop store, except mom and pop couldn't agree on what to sell because it was "Gordon's Sewing Machine and Vacuum Cleaner Store". As I looked at the outdated, rural, and poorly kept surroundings, I realized that there was probably a 75% chance that the trial at the courthouse would be a dispute involving a pig.

I showed up at the courthouse and checked in. We had all been given random numbers, and my number was one, which meant I was fucked and would definitely wind up on a jury. For those of you not familiar with the Massachusetts court system, jury duty actually isn't bad at all. We were the first state to adopt the "one day, one trial" system. What this means is that you are assigned a day which you can move once, no questions asked, to any date you want in like the next 12 months to make sure it's not an inconvenience. When you show up for court, you are there for that day. They can keep taking you to different cases if you aren't selected to serve on a particular jury. Once you are selected for a jury, you serve for that one trial for its entire duration, and that trial only. If you can go the entire day without being impaneled then you get to home and your service is done for at least three years. If you live in one of those states where jury duty is a month long chore, you're probably pretty jealous.

Anyway, I wind up on the jury and we start hearing the case. The two charges are driving under the influence and disturbing the peace. The prosecution called its first two witnesses, one at a time of course, and questioned them for probably five minutes each or so. The defense attorney, however, spent an hour with the first and two hours with the second just asking the same questions over and over again. The intent was to get them to change their story, particularly details like distances and lengths of time and such. This got old VERY quickly, because clearly the witnesses were fucking idiots. Time and space where a total mystery to them, so it wasn't hard to confuse them in any way.

We got to break for lunch at this point, and I decided to drive to a Burger King I had seen on my way there. I made a wrong turn and turned into the parking lot of a Richdale's convenience store to turn around. I then realized that the events that were being described in the trial took place in a Richdale's parking lot, and since I had never heard of the place before it hadn't occured to me that it was some sort of chain. I looked around and everything seemed to match the descriptions we had been given. I was ecstatic thinking I had just stumbled upon the scene of the alleged crime and thusly would be able to disqualify myself from service. After lunch I went back to double check and realized that I was in the wrong town so this couldn't possibly be the actual place. Disappointed, I went back to court. The session continued uneventfully, but it did not conclude so I had to go back yesterday.

Yesterday I showed up at court and we heard the defense, as the prosecution had finished on Tuesday. The prosecution had done a terrible job and while I thought the defendant was guilty as sin, I also thought there was no evidence so there was no way to convict him. Then he took the stand, I thought he hung himself. He freely admitted he had had two bottles of sake (the equivalent of 4-5 shots of hard liquor, depending on the size of the bottles he was being given) at dinner. You would think it's good that he drank while eating, but this was at 7:30 and he hand't eaten anything since before noon. And the drinks came before the food. And he had just been in a steam room and was admittedly dehydrated, which would only make the effects worse.

So now it's time to deliberate. There were eight of us there for a six person jury, and we had been told from the start that two people would be selected at alternates when it was time to deliberate. I told my girlfriend Tuesday night that not only would I have to go back only to be picked as an alternate, but that the jury would come up with a verdict I disagreed with. Lo and behold, I was chosen as an alternate so I did not get to deliberate, and they came up with a verdict that I did not agree with. Of the eight people there, I was apparently the only one that felt he was guilty of driving under the influence (None of us thought he was guilty of disturbing the peace).

Now, I accept that I'm not the smartest man alive and it's very possible that I am wrong and the other seven people were right. The logic they used, however, was staggeringly idiotic. The police had smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath, he had trouble walking, and his eyes were glazed over, so they decided that he was drunk. They didn't administer a breathalizer or anything. This was Halloween night, and the police had both mentioned that it was a busy night, which isn't surprising. The other jurors felt that on Halloween the police would be more careful when arresting people and such. How does that make sense though? The busier it is, the more people they have to process in the same amount of time. The more people and the faster they have to process people, the less care can be given to each one. This is true for any product or service, and I'm amazed that no one questioned this notion. They also all felt that since the defendant was an attorney himself that he must be a good and reputable person. While that's possible, I think these people bought into the defense's very transparant ploy.

Any time I sit on a jury I will always be suspicious of the accused. Why, you ask? Because the defendant has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers. That means the defendant chooses whether the trial will have a jury or be decided by a judge. This is great in theory, but the majority of people are idiots. If I was on trial and I was innocent, I would want a judge to decide the case as I would trust that a judge would be much more capabale of accurate accessing my innocence. If I was guilty, I would want a jury because, as I stated, people are stupid so it's much easier to manipulate some random people off the street than it is a judge. Considering the defendant is an attorney himself and thusly it is his job to manipulate juries, I can't help but think he would be fully aware of this and would have taken this into consideration.

Long story short, the last two days of my life, one of which was my day off, was spent sitting in the jury panel for a case that I didn't get to help decide that had a result that I didn't agree with. Fun times.

dr_jeebus@sydlexia.com

I hope next time I'm called the trial does involve a pig.

© 2009 by Dr. Jeebus