I reported for jury duty on February 26th, a Thursday. Over 225 people were summoned that day. The judge and attorneys came to the jury assembly room to explain a bit about the case and to weed out those with hardships. I wasn’t sure about our policy regarding jury duty so I couldn’t automatically opt out. Those remaining were then sent down to the courtroom and quizzed about pre-trial publicity. I remembered the case but knew nothing else. Since I wasn’t sure about the firm’s policy for jury duty I was told to come back the next day to fill out a questionnaire, which I did.
On Friday I returned to the courtroom. We had just been shortlisted for the California Department of Corrections mental health facilities project and the interview was to be the following week. I pleaded that our firm was going to be interviewed for a project for the CDCR the next week and I need to be there. No dice—fill out the questionnaire. The questionnaire was 12 pages long and asked several questions about background, education, employment and views on certain items-like attorneys. One question asked was “Do you or anyone you know have, or ever had, a mental disease or disorder?” My response was “Can you ask this question under HIPPA?” I thought for sure that would get me off the jury. It didn’t. After filling out the questionnaire we were directed to come back on Tuesday morning March 3rd for voir dire.
After sending an email to one member of our HR team and not receiving an answer, I called another HR representative on Tuesday morning on my way to Court. I had read our policy which said that we had a limit of 80 hours or two weeks, but it mentioned something about partial weeks that I didn’t understand. The HR person first said it was 80 hours—period. I asked about the partial weeks exception but she was unsure. I thought I had just gotten out of jury service. In the courtroom everyone sat in the gallery while the clerk called up 18 people to sit in the box to begin voir dire. I was waiting for the judge to bring up hardship when I received a call from the HR rep who told me that if the trial does not last full weeks (less than five days a week) the firm would continue to pay my salary. Since the judge had told us that the trial would be held three and half days a week, I would be paid and could not claim financial hardship. Right after lunch the judge asked about financial hardship which eliminated several people, including one sitting in the twelfth chair. My name was the next called. The attorneys went through voir dire all afternoon and eliminated several for cause. When they got to me I was asked about my job, the type of projects I worked on (when I said I designed hospitals there was a twitter of awe throughout the courtroom—who knew?), my experience with the Design Review Commission (on which I sit), and what I knew about computers. My answer—“I don’t know how they work, just that they do.” The defense attorney noted that I had served on two previous juries before and had been the foreperson twice. He jokingly asked if I had campaigned for the position. By the end of the day they had gone questioned all 18 jurors and eliminated those for cause. The next step was preemptory challenges. The judge dismissed the jury for evening after reading the admonition about discussing the case with anyone. We were to return to court at 9:30 the next morning.
We filed back into the courtroom the Wednesday morning and checked in with the clerk, not showing up would mean that a bench warrant would have been filed by the Court. We sat in our designated seats and I’m sure each of us hoped that our names would be called. The plaintiffs had eight challenges as did the defense. Each used two challenges, eliminating those that appeared might have had difficulty in understanding the technical information or who had some preconceived notions about responsibility. With four excused, fourteen were left, 12 jurors and two alternates. The Court wanted four alternates so two more called and interviewed. The attorneys accepted the two alternates and by noon, there was a jury. I was Juror Number Twelve.
Here is a note from journal for that day:
_March 4, 2009
Well, somehow I made it onto the jury. I thought for sure I would be released, but then a part of me thought I would stay. Thank goodness they used preemptory challenges to eliminate a few of the jurors. They would have had a hard time following the evidence and would be a pain during deliberations. I wanted to thank them for their decisions. I can understand why they eliminated the guy that was into common sense and big picture—I couldn’t quite understand where he was coming from. The other one is a relative of a local attorney—so much for him.
They had opening arguments this afternoon. Mr. Mayer walked us thru the sequence of events. Mr. Sharp did not add much other than to clarify the differences. Mr. Smith set the stage for his version of responsibility and how the city is not liable. Seems like Wayne Bush is the guy that is being the focus. I watched Lisa Guthrie during Mr. Mayer’s opening, she was visibly shaken. It must be a hard day for her. I walked out of there with the impression that there is no way this is going to be easy. If it was, then we wouldn’t be here. Each attorney did a good job with their opening in that it was balanced.
It will be an interesting journey._
No comments:
Post a Comment