Blogging jury duty: Day 1

I started this journal because I had never served on a jury before and I thought it was interesting.  The case itself seemed pretty straightforward--something about a van, a motorcycle, and a 0.27 blood alcohol level.  It didn't take long before I realized that things are not always how they seem--and that I would need some way to explain what happened in that courtroom to my family, and to my friends.

Is it okay to blog about jury duty at all? This article seems to suggest it's fine as long as it's done after the fact.  If you're really into this sort of thing, there's some interesting reading here on jury misconduct.  Other jurors who have read through this blog (after the trial concluded, of course) have said that it is a fairly faithful account. I've changed just a few of the names and places, and combined some of the participants.

Questioning the jury

To speed up jury selection, they give us questionnaires. Name, occupation, years of education. The rest of the questions give us a hint about what's to come. "Do you think there are too many lawsuits?" (Haven't thought about it--No.) "Do you think jury awards are too high?" (No idea--No.) "Have you ever been injured?" (This is a silly question--Yes.) "Do you have any strong feelings about motorcycle riders?" (No.) "Do you have any strong feelings towards someone who has been convicted of DUI with a 0.27 BAC?" (Another silly question--Yes.) "Do you think someone who has admitted to a 0.27 BAC can get a fair trial?" (A fair trial about what? I check Yes.) When we're done with the questionnaires, Judge Kirwan gives us an outline of the case.

The parties involved are: the plaintiff Charles Burr, represented by Mr Kent, and the defendant Harold Poe, represented by Mr Biegler.

The defendant hit and injured the plaintiff while drunk. The defendant had a blood alcohol level of 0.27, and he has admitted that he is completely at fault--this is a civil case simply to determine the amount of damages. We're told that whether or not either side has insurance must not be a factor in our decision. The plaintiff struck a motorcycle stopped at a stop light at Los Gatos Boulevard and Garden Lane in Los Gatos. Los Gatos is the next town over from where I live (in fact I frequently bicycle past that intersection). I have to think hard to make sure I don't know any of the people in the trial: the defendant, plaintiffs, any of the witnesses.

I feel bad for the defense attorney, Biegler. How do you defend a guy like Poe? Biegler has a perpetual five-o-clock shadow and looks a little scruffy. I figure he must be a personal friend of Poe.

By the luck of the draw, I get moved from the spectator seating to the jury "hot box" right away, and the lawyers start to grill us.

It turns out many of the people in the jury pool thought that someone with a 0.27 BAC couldn't get a fair trial. Biegler compares the trial to a forced sale of real estate, like eminent domain: the parties agree the transaction must happen, they just disagree on the price. With that explanation, many people reverse their position. Some still have issues though.

Biegler: "Mr G, you answered that you'd have problems giving the defendant, my client, a fair trial."

"I just have very strong feelings about drinking and driving."

"I want you to understand: nobody here condones drinking and driving. The defendant has already plead 'no contest' to felony DUI in criminal court, and has already admitted complete responsibility for this accident. The only thing that is being disputed is that amount of damages. With that in mind, do you think you can give my client--and just as importantly, the defendant--a fair trial?"

"I will try my best sir, but that thought will always be in the back of my mind."

"The thought of the 0.27 BAC?"

"Yes."

Biegler questions a woman in the row behind me.

"Mrs M, you indicated on the questionnaire that your daughter is a deputy District Attorney?"

"Yes."

"My client, the defendant, is also a deputy District Attorney. It is very important that you are fair to both the plaintiff and the defendant. Do you think the fact that your daughter is a deputy District Attorney might bias you one way or another in this case?"

"Yes, I do."

"Which way?"

"I think I would tend to favor the District Attorney's side."

Another woman is friends with Dr Han, one of the witnesses. I find out later that she lives in the same town as me; her two daughters are sophomores in my son's high school.

Eventually they reach me, juror eleven. Mr Kent, the attorney for the plaintiff, asks "Mr Ng, you indicated on your questionnaire that you knew a coworker who was hurt in a motorcycle accident?"

"No, they were in a car."

He frowns. "Your coworker was in a car, and was somehow injured by a motorcycle? That's very unusual." (I guess my handwriting was really hard to read.)

"No, no, my coworker was in a car, and struck and injured a motorcyclist."

"I see. But you understand that was a different case, under different circumstances. Do you think you can give my client and the defendant a fair trial?"

"Yes."

Juror number 12 to my left is a muscular man with a shaved head and goatee; by the time they get to him, he is ready.

"I live my life every day by a code of honor, loyalty, and discipline--I was a Marine for 6 years--and I have very strong feelings about someone who would drive around drunk like that."

"My client has already admitted that what he did was wrong, and that the defendant deserves compensation for the injuries--the serious injuries--that were caused by the accident. My client and the plaintiff disagree on the amount that should be awarded. Do you think you can set your feelings aside, and follow the judge's instructions as to how much money the plaintiff deserves under the law?"

"Yes sir. I know how to follow instructions. I can follow instructions and do something that I find unpleasant. I've done that before."