One of the things we learned in Civics Class is that in a criminal trial, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. A principle that is pretty unique in our country. But after my experience a couple of weeks ago, I wonder if that lesson was ever covered in Civics Class, or if people were sleeping through the instructor’s droning. Why do I say that?
Since moving to Iowa back in 2011, I’ve been summoned for Jury Duty four times. Here, when that happens you are required to check in each Monday in the month you’re selected. If you’ll be needed, they tell you to report the next morning. The previous three times, I was never told to report for the month. This time, on the second week, I had to report along with 99 other citizens.
We checked in at 8:15am, were herded into one of the courtrooms, and we sat, while the courtroom organizer reminded us periodically that we’d get underway soon. Once everyone was seated, it was a packed room, by the way, about ten minutes before 9, a woman entered with a briefcase and some binders, sitting at one of the tables in front of where the Judge would be sitting. She busied herself with organizing her materials, looking through the binders and making notes.
No one seemed to know who she was or the role she would be playing.
Then, two men entered and walked over to the other table. One was in a suit, and I assumed he was a lawyer, the other one was dressed casually, but nice. I assumed he was part of the other man’s team.
The organizer made a few more announcements letting us know that the proceedings would get underway soon, and that she’d give us a heads up, at which time all cell phones would have to be turned off or put in silence mode. During this time there was some quiet conversations among the prospective jurors, but muted.
Eventually, the organizer said the Judge would be arriving in a couple of minutes. He did, we all rose, and were instructed to sit back down, an exercise that was repeated numerous times throughout the day. The Judge welcomed us to the chamber, made some remarks that let us know how the day would proceed, and allowed the woman and man at the tables introduce themselves.
She was the prosecutor in the case that would be presented the next morning. The man in the suit was the defendant’s attorney. The other man at that table wasn’t introduced. The Judge let us know the basic information related to the case, which was the defendant facing charges of rape against a minor. At that time, we were told the defendant was the man in casual clothes sitting next to the defense attorney. There was a murmur coming from the jury pool.
The Judge asked the prosecution to begin the proceedings. She was professional in describing what was going to take place, how the selection process would unfold, and underscored the principle, that the man at the table was presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt, and that it was her repsonibility to present all the evidence to back up the charges he faced. This would be underscored numerous times during her explanation, repeated when the defense attorney had his time to address us, and also by the Judge at several points during the process.
It was obvious that due to the nature of the case that would be presented the next day, that they were taking every precaution to prevent any biased individuals from being selected to hear the case. The accused rights were being taken very seriously, the defense didn’t want anyone with preconceived opinions about his client would affect their eventual decision, and the prosecution was trying to cover every base to prevent a mistrial being declared if someone violated that’ innocent until proven guilty’ pillar on which our justice system is based.
When the explanation was thoroughly hashed , rehashed, and hashed for the umpteenth time, a 15 minute break was ordered, which turned into 20 minutes.
When court reconvened, the court organizer had been given a randomly selected list of the jury pool members, that would be announced for 27 people to come forward and occupy the seats in front of the barrier separating the Judge and litigants area from the rest of us. When all of the pool members called were seated, the Prosecutor began her time to ‘get to know’ them, asking questions about their background and probing for any obvious signs of bias, or sense that they either might be an impartial juror, or maybe not have an open mind one way or the other relating to the case.
Her questions revealed a few people who, in spite of the repeated assertions that they’d need to be impartial and not judge the defendant before the trial began, or anytime while the evidence was being presented at trial, were admitting they couldn’t do that, with some of them saying they thought he was guilty just by looking at him. It was good that they were admitting it as they were summarily rejected for further consideration, but I was amazed at their being able to condemn someone simply by facing charges.
Each time someone was excused from their duty, another name from the list was called, and the process continued in that manner until the prosecution was satisfied those who were still seated in that section would be suitable candidates for the role.
Before the Defense Attorney had his turn to do the same, there was a lunch break.
When the court reconvened, the same admonitions were stated as before, and the defense lawyer spent a much longer time grilling the jurors, alternating from the nice guy to asking some tough questions, trying to determine if when he would be asking an accuser to explain what allegedly happened, if the juror would hold his client responsible for him being labeled as a jerk for asking the questions of a minor. That he might have to be the bad guy. Clearly he was making the prospective jurors uncomfortable with his harsh reality of what might take place once the trail began.
There would be more jurors rejected and excused, with a new name announced to take their place. His portion of the day lasted past 5, and when he ended, it appeared that everyone was hoping that would be that. But no.
The Judge gave both the prosecutor and the defense lawyer numerous opportunities to ‘strike’ any of the jurors who were questioned from the final pool. That went back and forth for about 20-30 minutes. Then, they had to select which 12 of those still seated would make up the final 12 to begin as the jury the next morning. Both made a list, and they went back and forth before finally agreeing on the 12, and alternates.
Finally, those selected had to stay and the rest of us were excused. They say the wheels of justice move slow… ‘They’ are right. We were told before being dismissed that the trial might take 2 -3 days to complete. I didn’t follow any coverage of it. And when I tried to find the verdict today, there was no published story about the trial anywhere online. I thought that was odd.
My conclusions after my experience were the following:
The process for jury selection in this instance, while long and tedious, was conducted in a professional manner. The Judge was informative with his instructions to us, and helped underscore the importance of the client’s rights and the presumption of innocence standard. The prosecution and defense were polite, and thorough in their examination of jurors, plus they trated all of them with respect, even when they rejected someone for cause. In each of those instances, the responses from the juror made that disqualification justified.
What disturbed me, I think disturbed many others there that day. The concept of innocent until proven guilty, was clearly not something that some citizens can fully grasp. Of course, their answers could have been crafted to force them to be disqualified because they didn’t want to take time away from their normal dayto-day life to be a juror on a criminal case.
Whatever the motivation, if there was one, I was saddened at the thought that someone on that man’s jury might harbor the same ‘He’s guilty’ mindset because he was charged by authorities for committing a crime before any evidence was presented.
I made my living for many years telling jokes and funny stories as a morning radio personality. I walked away that early evening fearing what a jury might conclude if I was charged for ‘Murdering A Punchline’.
