Episode #52: That Time I Was Selected For Jury Duty

 It is July of 2001 and I have just received my 5th or 6th Jury Duty Summons since I registered to vote for the first time in 1976 when I was 19 years old. Each time I got one of these summons in the mail before, the case had either settled before the jury selection process started or I was not selected for one reason or another so I have never served on a jury. I have always wanted to do this, at least once just to see how this process worked in real life versus how it is portrayed on television or in the movies and I expected this one to be no different.

This case was filed in District Court and was about a property owner who had agreed to be paid by a power utility provider to set one of those very tall metal transmission towers on his property complete with easement access. He agreed to this arrangement for $75,000. Shortly after construction started, he decided he was entitled to a larger sum of money, which they refused to pay so he was now taking them to court to get the $300,000 he thought he should have been paid.

The case did not settle before the date of the trial so this judicial process continued. After the jury pool was allowed into the court room, attendance role was called based on the summons that were sent out. The judge informed those of us there that unless the people that did not show up for this had a really good excuse like being in the hospital or other incapacitating condition they would be receiving a healthy fine. 

The next part of the process allows anyone that thinks they should be dismissed from the selection process, such as knowing the party involved personally, knowing the representing attorney personally, about to have a baby or something like that to try to convince the judge that they should be dismissed. Some of them are disqualified and they are released and some of them are denied and they are told to sit back down in their chair with the rest of the pool of candidates.

Then comes the voir dire or preliminary questioning by both attorneys to assess our competence and eligibility to serve on this case. Obviously each attorney wants a panel of jurors that would be sympathetic to their case. Each attorney can reject (or strike) up to 12 juror candidates in hopes of getting a jury that they feel is fair or at least be convinced to hear the case objectively and hopefully decide in their favor.

In this particular case, since I lived in a rural part of the county and on a small parcel of land both attorneys thought I would be a good candidate so I was selected as one of the 12 jurors. This process started about 9:00am and was completed a little after 12:00 noon. Before we were dismissed for a lunch break, we received a set of instructions from the judge which included things like; do not discuss this case with anyone, do not conduct any internet research on this or any similar cases so as to prejudge any thing we were about to hear, be back at the courthouse on time, etc. 

We return to the courtroom about 1:15 and testimony begins. We hear many facts about the case from both sides the rest of that day and the next day. Testimony and final arguments conclude on the morning of the third day. Surprising to me, we are not allowed to take notes and have to remember everything that was said. If we have any questions related to the facts of the case we are to request them from the court bailiff during deliberation. I can only imagine how difficult this would be in a lengthy and more involved case that what this one was.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jurors are given another set of instructions from the judge before we are dismissed to the ante room for deliberations on the case. The first order of business was for the jury to select a foreman. This foreman is to hold the order of the jurors during deliberations, to issue the call for the bailiff if necessary, to speak on behalf of the jury and to accurately report the decision of the jury. In this particular case, there was no guilt or innocence to decide, rather our responsibility was to determine the amount of money that was to be paid to the plaintiff. 

We take a restroom break and reassemble in the ante room to begin the process as ordered which was to select a foreman. A few of the people are commenting on the case and the task at hand and I am just sitting there watching and listening. At times there are two or three conversations going on at one time. During one of those multiple conversations between many of the eleven other people, the lady next to me asks me if I had ever done this before. I told her no, this was the first trial I have ever been involved with and the only jury I have ever been selected to serve. She then asks me if I could be the foreman. I told her, yes I could, but I have no desire to fill that position.

When the multiple conversations die down and no one was speaking, this lady next to me says "I think this guy should be the foreman" and she points to me! I am thinking well this is just great. Suddenly, and without hesitation, everyone agrees, votes on it and now I am the jury foreman.  

I was fortunate that only one person wanted to give the guy the $300k that he was seeking and I had only one person that wanted to give "that greedy bastard" as he was referred to absolutely nothing. So my job was to find that common ground that ultimately everyone could agree on and submit a unanimous verdict to the judge. While I was inclined to give the guy the amount he originally agreed to and then he would have to pay court cost and attorney fees out of that, but we came to agreement on the amount of $80,000 and then he pays court cost and attorney fees.

At the conclusion of the trial the judge thanked us for our service as responsible citizens and were dismissed. We had met our obligation as a jury and I learned first hand how this process works and found it to be very interesting and informative. I am glad I served on this and would not mind doing it again. As far as serving as the foreman, I would just as soon not have to do that again as I can see how an extremely split jury panel could be a very difficult process to work with, especially given the strong liberal environment we live in these days.