So, this week I had to report to the court house for jury duty. I fully expected to sit there for four hours only to be excused however, I was selected to the jury. I didn't try any outlandish statements to get out of it but I was honest and that didn't seem to scare either of the lawyers off so I made the cut. We were chosen, we were sworn in and the process was explained to us. I was reminded of a play we performed in high school "12 Angry Men" which also reminds me of Cole Goemmer's absolute refusal to wear make-up. Make-up is important in theatre because the stage lighting washes out your face and features, which of course did not matter to Cole Goemmer. Anyway, in the play it's an "open and shut" murder case. As you probably know from watching all of the court room dramas, the jury verdict must be unanimous. The jury votes and 11 are guilty and 1 man votes non-guilty. He voted non-guilty for the sake of discussion and he wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing. In a small, hot room the arguments ensue revealing a complex mixture of preconceptions, different backgrounds, and personality types. Normally, I don't give away the ending but I doubt that anyone will rush out and rent the movie or read the play but the jury after analyzing the evidence votes not guilty and an innocent man is not sent to death row.
"Our" case was pretty straight forward, a prison inmate who incessantly wrote letters to the judge who presided over his trial and later sued making it necessary for a new judge to take over, was charged with retaliation towards a judge for saying "You ass is mine" in a letter followed by self defense no robbery. When we first heard these words, I thought, "That doesn't make sense, what does that mean?" The District Attorney's office had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was threatening the judges based on this one sentence in this letter. I have a problem with reasonable doubt because to me there is always reasonable doubt. If a crime is committed and we do not have DNA or witnesses the only ones that truly know what happened are God and that person. Even when a confession is involved, doubt can be cast as there have been instances where confessions sometimes aren't true due to coercion and the need to protect someone. Anyway, to make her case she droned on and on, asking questions and confirming facts that didn't matter almost putting us to sleep. The defense attorney stood up, made his point and sat down--I was SO thankful for his brevity. He also made me smile because he would use a big word, then he would explain what it meant--well done sir. She, the district attorney lawyer, did not wear make-up, had a strange voice and did not smile. I get that our jobs on that day were serious but it was a little much and the fact of the matter is even lawyers are selling something. She did not do a very good job on selling us on why he should be convicted.. The defense attorney's point and I agreed--"Your Ass is Mine" can mean many things and does not necessarily mean the intent to harm.
We go into the room to deliberate and at this point we hadn't really had to chance to "visit" with each other. There was a "techie' who immediately took charge so I nominated him as jury foreman and he won. There was a conservative soft spoken woman, an older woman, a sweet mother of two, a young blue collar worker, a teacher with chest tattoos, retired military gentleman, a very fashionable heavier lady with lots of diamonds and make-up, and three more very quiet jurors. In a nut shell these were my impressions and then there was me. I can't say it's genetic but Geiser's are opinionated and stubborn and I am not the exception. Once we have made up our minds, it is difficult if not impossible to get us to change it. My mind was made up, there was reasonable doubt and he was not guilty. Geiser get-togethers quickly become very boisterous and loud arguing about stupid stuff like " the best NFL quarterback ever" so I had to tell myself to give my reasoning, breathe deep and be patient. There were points when I thought the other jurors were going to go the other way and I was not going to back down on my stance. I felt people digging in their heels at certain points. I was impressed with the group in that they took it seriously and they knew that this was important. They saw the man sitting in the defendants chair as a human being, as a person that mattered and someone who deserved us carefully making our decisions. The nature of an analytical always clashes with mine as they need to analyze every little thing. I had to work hard to suppress my inability or desire to dissect every little thing. So something that would have taken an hour with a driver like me, took three hours. (sigh)
I must say that I was very impressed with our group. They were intelligent, they were fair, and they were articulate. Sticking me in a room for 8 hours where I have to sit and listen to someone else talk is pure torture for me. Then sitting in a room having to come to a 100% consensus gave me great anxiety and we did ask, "What happens if we can't all agree?" When someone doubted her decision, diamond lady suggested taking a break to give her time to think. The sweet mother of two verbalized what we were all thinking, "What if we make the wrong decision." Ultimately, we came to a unanimous decision of not guilty and someone mentioned the district attorney "getting on their nerves" and I laughed as I felt the same way but did not verbalize it. So, through a process that was pure torture for me I learned that people do care, that we can be fair and that showmanship and salesmanship are important in any profession. I also learned that a comma can save your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment