Imagine a tax that's levied randomly to all citizens. Sort of an anti-lottery. Doesn't matter how rich you are. Doesn't matter how poor you are. If your name is drawn, you owe $X. It could be $40. It could be $600. Or even more. Some people might break even, and not owe anything. A small number of people might actually make a few bucks, but not many, and not much. The amount of the tax is essentially random. Would you say that's fair? Well that is our jury system.
In a
previous diary entry I wrote about the last time I was called for jury duty ten years ago, and expressed my reluctance to serve again. Well, this morning, I reported for JD. One thing I did not address outrightly in that previous entry, was that based on how much JD would pay me, and based on how much I earn, every full day of JD would cost me about $80. That's a rather exorbitant fee for the privilege of serving. A six or seven day trial could be like missing a full week's work without pay. I can't afford that!
Fortunately, I didn't really need to worry about it. I arrived at the court house at 9am, which was fortuitously located near my apartment, just down in Long Island City. We sat there while they played that jury documentary by Ed Bradley. At 11:30 they called us up into the court. I was randomly selected as the second juror. They picked the rest of the potential jurors, and then the attorney for the plaintiff, a large, balding man, who spoke with an accent I couldn't place, explained that this was a civil trial, and that his client was suing the Jamaica Bus Company, and one of their drivers. She claimed he was driving too fast around a corner, causing her to fall off her seat and injure her knee. The attorney then asked if we all felt we could be impartial, based on that information. Everyone nodded in agreement but one juror. The attorney looked at me said, "You're shaking your head."
"Yes," I replied. "I'm shaking my head."
He asked why, and I said that I didn't want to influence the other jurors with my opinion, and suggested we talk in private. We stepped into the hall with the defense attorney, and I told them that based on what I had already heard, the whole thing sounded ridiculous to me. So the bus was turning a corner and she fell. Busses move. You have to hold on. Come on now. This is silly. They thanked me for my candor, and I returned to the jury box, where about six or seven other jurors all of a sudden had problems they wanted to discuss in private. After about an hour and a half of questioning, only three of us were chosen. I was back at work by 1pm.
Now, did I really, truly feel prejudiced about this case -- and was I justified in feeling prejudiced about this case? Or was I just so pissed off about having to pay $80/day for JD, that I was looking for any excuse to be dismissed. I honestly don't know. I think the case did sound awfully silly to me, but at the same time, I probably could have tried harder to be fair and impartial. That's where things get weird with me and jury duty. I form opinions very, very quickly, but at the same time, I'm very, very flexible with those opinions. I'm always, at every moment willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, if I'm presented with compelling evidence. So in this situation, I formed a very quick opinion about this case, which I think by definition makes me prejudiced, but at the same time, I would have ruled in favor of the plaintiff if the evidence was there. This is almost exactly what happened the last time I served.
The thing that I find interesting is that no one was brave enough to admit they had problems until I stood up and paved the way. And I was actually a little nervous at first, but once I established that it was indeed OK to be candid with the attorneys, everyone else was raising their hands.