I’ve only been on Jury Duty once, but it was interesting enough that I think telling the story is still warranted. I was living in Detroit, Michigan and I was assigned Jury Duty at the 36th District Federal Court for a murder trial. I was about 25 years old and working as a secretary at Wayne State University, having recently completed my B.A. in psychology. I was surprised by how many people told me they would not want to serve on a jury, or specifically how many more didn’t think they would want to serve on a murder trial. To me, it was taking a lesson out of our government class books and putting it into real life. When the selection for the jurors was made, from a room of people summoned to the courthouse, I was the 13th juror. It was understood that there would be 12 people who made the decision, but 13 who heard the case, in the event that one member became unable to serve in the deliberations, or judgment. The judge told us it was better to have an alternate than to have to retry the case if a juror became seriously ill, injured or otherwise unable to complete the trial. Just before the trial, I heard several people hoping out loud that they wished they’d be the one eliminated. I figured that would be a great disappointment to me, so I was hoping with them that it was one of them.
The whole trial took three days, from beginning to end, but they went by quick to me. The jury stayed together and we were instructed not to talk to each other or anyone else before the verdict had been rendered by the court. The young man who was on trial was 19 years old and it was a case that seemed very much a case of self-defense, except for the testimony of one witness who claimed it was pre-meditated. We heard the testimony of witnesses, including the defendant, and we heard the arguments of the lawyers. At one point, a witness answered a question that seemed to contradict something he had said earlier, and since I believed it had a bearing on the case, I expected the lawyers to bring that point up. They did not, and we broke for recess.
As the jury filed out, I told the judge, “I have a question.” He said, “You are not allowed to talk to me during the trial, so please don’t say anything else. I will send a bailiff to talk to me.” It drew some attention to me, but I was bound and determined to ask my question because the answer to that question seemed, to me, to decide the case. The bailiff came out to talk to me, alone, in the judge’s chambers. He said, “The judge wants to know if you question is pertinent to the case.” I said it was. He the judge asks that you write it down and I will bring it to him. So, I described the conditions of my question and posed the conflict in testimony, indicating that I believed it was necessary to making a determination of guilt. The bailiff left with the sheet I had written on and we continued our break. The break was extended after that for just under an hour, with the whole courtroom milling around and none of the jurors being able to talk about the case.
Finally we were called back in and seated and the judge addressed the jurors and the courtroom. He told us that in 26 years of being a judge, he was posed with a situation he had never encountered before. He searched the law books during break and found a precedent for whether and how a juror may question a witness. He explained the procedure to us.
1) A juror has a question, pertinent to the case, that was not addressed by the lawyers during questioning or argument.
2) The juror may request permission to submit a question to the court.
3) The judge reviews the question for relevancy and determines whether or not he will accept the question.
4) The lawyers approach the bench and review the question and tell the judge whether or not they will accept the question. If they both agree, the court recorder enters the question into the record.
5) The judge calls the witness back to the stand, and asks on behalf of the court.
Then the judge asked me, “Juror, do you want to go ahead with your question for the court?” I answered, “Yes, your Honor, I do.” He told us, “I accept the question and call the lawyers to my bench.” They reviewed the question and both accepted it, and the stenographer recorded the question. The witness was then subpoenaed. We broke for lunch to give them time to find him since he had apparently left the building.
To make a long story shorter, the witness could not be found and the judge asked me if I would be willing to resume the trial since only the closing arguments were left and the court did not think it was appropriate to spend an indefinite amount of time waiting for the witness to surface. He told us the subpoena would stand because the witness was not supposed to leave the building, being required to be available throughout the testimony portion of the trial. I agreed to let the matter be. When the jury was sent to deliberations, I was immediately elected Forejuror, although I was the youngest person on the jury. They asked me what my question was, and I told them my question and my rationale. We deliberated for only 30 minutes before deciding to declare the defendant not guilty for 2nd degree murder (his charge), 3rd degree murder (which we could have downgraded it to), and not guilty for illegal discharge of a firearm within the city limits because we agreed it was a very good case for self-defense.
As Forejuror, I read the decision to the court and it became official, the young man was not guilty. He went home with his family as we went home. Because no one had really faced that situation before in that case, it was not really known that in Federal District Court, a juror CAN, under the described circumstances, enter a question to be asked of a witness. I have not even found this information in any government course books, so I think it is worth sharing with my blog audience. This is a TRUE story.
About the Author: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nancy-bell/30/231/855
About the Author: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/nancy-bell/30/231/855
