Jury Duty

I recently got to view trial from a unique perspective, at least for trial attorneys – as a prospective juror. Instead of staring at dozens of potential jurors wondering what they were thinking, I was on the other side, with the eyes of both sides staring at me, trying to peer into my thoughts.

When the day finally arrived, I got to the courthouse at 8am. Hundreds of people filled the Jury Assembly room. Jury duty involves a lot of waiting – waiting to see if you’re picked as a prospective juror for a specific case, waiting to be taken to the courtroom, and so on. So I waited.

Around 10am a staffer announced that a district court case needed about 25 potential jurors, and called out 25 names. My name was not called.

Around 11am the staffer returned for a criminal case that needed about 40 potential jurors, and my name came up. I was handed a card with my number – 26 – and instructed to wait until we are called to go to the courtroom. This number became my identity for the rest of my time serving jury duty. It also signified how likely I was to get picked – the lower the number, the more likely it was I might serve on this trial.

More waiting. Around 11:30, we went up to a 9th floor courtroom. Four people were standing at counsel’s tables – two prosecutors, one defense attorney, and the defendant. They fit the first prospective jurors into the jury box, while the rest (including me) filled the bench seats at the back of the courtroom.

The court gave some initial instructions about what jury duty entails, and let us know the case (a criminal case of alleged burglary) would last between a week and two weeks. The judge then asked if anyone has a hardship. Several people raised their cards. Many were excused; a few were not. We broke for lunch.

After lunch, the court asked various questions – questions as standard as “Do you or anyone in your family or close friends work in law enforcement,” to more pointed questions like “Have you or anyone you know been the victim of a burglary when you were home at the time?”

From this information, the attorneys started their own dialogue with us. This went on for the rest of the day and most of the following. The prosecutors asked what kind of evidence we would expect to see in a burglary investigation, what we think the differences are between “intent” and “plan,” and about people’s experiences with calling 911 in an emergent situation – whether what we told the police was detailed, complete, and accurate. The defense asked about our experiences with making mistakes, and what we think about people who run from the police or an accused who doesn’t testify in their own defense. Although the attorneys couldn’t talk about the facts of the case, their questions painted a picture of what to expect to see in trial.

Once this dialogue was complete and a few jurors were challenged “for cause” – meaning one side or the other thought based on their answers to questions that the juror could not be impartial on this case – the prosecution and defense take turns using their “peremptory” challenges (which don’t require a basis or cause). One by one jurors were struck, until the process was complete. I just barely missed the cut – two away from entering the jury box. Those of us outside the box are thanked for our service and excused.

It was a fascinating look at trial from a different perspective. I got to see what picking a jury is like knowing nothing of the case beforehand – only knowing that if I get picked, I would have the awesome responsibility of deciding the guilt or innocence of the defendant in front of us.

Inside King County Courthouse. Source: https://www.archcastings.com/projects/king