Jury of One's Peers

Volubilis, Morocco - Photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

The Constitution and the 6th Amendment insure under specific circumstances we citizens are entitled to a trial by jury. In all criminal proceedings the trial must be public, speedy, and heard by an impartial jury in the state where the crime occurred. Witnesses can be called for both the defense and prosecution, and the accused in entitled to the assistance of counsel. The stipulation that one is judged “by a jury of one's peers” does not appear in the Constitution.
Theoretically, in this egalitarian nation we are all equals and therefore peers.

After having received a jury summons, I reported to a large room adjacent the local court house. About two hundred of us sat quietly in a room waiting for a clerk to call fifty of us who would be interviewed for jury selection. A heavy set woman approached the clerk and asked, “I'm disabled. Do I have to be here?”
“No, you don't. I just need to see proof of disability,” the clerk replied.
“I left it at home. Can I bring it in later?”
“Of course.”
“That was easy,” I thought, but not surprising in a state where one can be classified disabled for back pain, depression, fibromyalgia or many other non life threatening medical conditions that would in no way disqualify one as a jurist.

I was one of the fifty selected. The rest were dismissed for another year, and we chosen walked across the courtyard to the court house. Eighteen were ordered to the jury box, and the defense and prosecuting attorneys began questioning prospective jurists. The case involved an illegal weapons charge on the defendant who had two prior felony convictions. Since this was a potential third strike in the “three strikes program,” a guilty verdict meant life imprisonment.

I sat in the back of the courtroom and listened carefully to all the exchanges. A number of the candidates did not want to serve on the jury, but had to be careful not to be too overt and risk being held in contempt. One psychologist felt it was morally wrong for him to judge others. A blue collar worker did not like cops, since his cousin was roughed up by them during a robbery gone wrong. Yet for all the drama, there were three potential jurists - X, Y, and Z, who seemed to be impeccable choices. The two men and one woman represented three ethnic groups; they were thoughtful, non judgmental, articulate, and unusually intelligent. What is more, all expressed a desire to serve as jurists and reasoned the defendant innocent until proven guilty. I recall thinking, “At least three of these people know what they are doing. Now the attorneys only have to agree on nine more.”

We recessed for a long lunch break and returned for the attorneys' peremptory challenges, where either one of them could reject three candidates who possibly exhibited bias during the interview. No reason needs to be given for this exclusion. The prosecutor began, “Your Honor, the state waives peremptory challenges.”

I was surprised, since it appeared some of the jurists were not particularly insightful, but I suppose a case could be made that all of them could render an impartial decision.

The defense attorney approached the stand and immediately excused jurists X, Y, and Z. “You have to be kidding!” I thought. “Of all the people interviewed, these three were clearly the best qualified, and the ones able to sift through the details to arrive at a just verdict.”

The judge disqualified the psychologist and the man who did not like cops, and of the eighteen original candidates ten were picked as jurists. Painstakingly, individuals from the audience were called, subjected to interviews by counsel and the judge, and finally the two final jurists and one alternate were selected. Only one more alternate was required to complete the process. The clerk called me to the stand.

After a few pleasantries the judge asked me if there was any reason I could not serve as a juror. “There is, Your Honor. This morning I sat in the courtroom and listened to the testimony given by all the potential jurists. Of all those participating, I thought jurists X, Y, and Z were unquestionably the best candiddates. They embodied the qualities one would hope to find in a jurist. I was surprised when the state's attorney rejected no one, but I was shocked when the defense attorney axed not just one, but all three of the best candidates. It seemed to me he was not interested in a fair verdict, but rather how to exclude the most discerning of the group so he could game the system and win an acquittal.” My services were not needed for the trial.

A jury member must be only impartial and presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. If a prosecutor or defense attorney rejects someone without cause who in your mind fulfills these requirements, it is not unreasonable to question the conduct of the attorneys and assume their actions may imply dubious motivations? Justice is the main priority and it begins with en paneled jurists who are able to fairly weigh the evidence and disregard legal shenanigans which are intended to obfuscate the truth.