I had jury duty yesterday. This was my first time...I usually get out of the summons but this time I just postponed it until school got out. So, I had no idea what to expect.
I woke up at 5:00am and left the house at 6:10am since I didn't know where I was going or how long it would take me to get there. I ended up being perfect on my timing, arriving at the courthouse just 10 minutes prior to the 7:30am deadline. It also put me in the first 25% of the jurors who were able to go through security without problem as opposed to the latter 75% who arrived between 7:30 and 8:00 and didn't get checked in until 8:30 or 9:00.
They started to assign us to groups by 9:30 or so and I found myself Juror #24 in the Purple Group. But then I also found that I was Juror # 36 in the Red Group. At first they told me that the computer thought I was two different people. Umm. Ok. But after the third or fourth person was assigned to the Purple and Red Group they realized it was a computer error. A computer error that they have never had happen before. And I'm thinking, "Great. Everyone is going to think that this is my fault. The one time that I actually have jury duty and the computer malfunctions." I'm not making this up. Anyway, they take all of the purple and red ticket back and after a few minutes they are re-assigned. Now I am in no group.
A little after 11:00, the Yellow Group is given a 5-minute warning that their baliff is on the way and they should get ready. It was very amusing watching 72 adults try to put themselves in numeric order....and then count...in numeric order. Took them a couple of tries. As soon as they left, an announcement is made that they need 35 juror...immediately. I am now Juror #17 in the Hot Pink Group. We are not given any time to get ready as our baliff was already there. We go through the selection process and I am sitting on a jury panel.
It is a criminal case...marijuana...possession and possession with intent to distribute. We had enough time to hear opening remarks and the prosecution's first witness before we broke for lunch. About half-way through the second witness, I decided I better keep track of how often the prosecuting attorney said, "A moment of the court's indulgence." I counted thirteen times...that is thirteen times that he got lost in his notes, couldn't find a note or just plain couldn't figure out what to say next.
Then there were his "asked and answered" moments. Like this one: PA: "Who are you imployed by?" W: "Prince George's County Police Department, eight years." PA: "How long have you been there?" W: "...uh...eight years." Some of these were met with "objection" but others just slid by the defense attorney...or were ignored. Personally, I think the defense attorney could have been the poster boy for the slogan "I'm not deaf, I'm ignoring you." He looked completely bored through the whole trial. He wasn't the only one...the security officer was so bored...HE...FELL...ASLEEP. I kid you not. Head against the wall, eyes closed, mouth open. Thankfully he was not snoring...I would not have been able to rein in the giggles.
Then the defense attorney stepped up to the plate. In his opening remarks he was adamant that we know his client by name..."This is Devin...not 'the defendant'". Yet every other time he referred to him, he called him "Kevin"...I guess it's close...it...rhymes. And he kept getting his facts messed up.
There were so many mistakes and inconsistencies on both sides that it was hard to keep track of them all.
So get to the deliberation portion of the schedule. There is one juror who (reluctantly) tells us that this type of marijuana does not have a potent enough smell to rouse the suspicion of the cops...so they must be lying. (Uh...OK.) Another juror is sure that the cops are lying because when they gave their testimony and were asked, "On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest, how strong was the smell of marijuana coming from the car?" one of the officers said "8" and the other one said "10"...so their stories didn't match. (Seriously?) Several of the jurors were convinced that Devin was smart and a smart person wouldn't consent to a search knowing that there were drugs in the car. (I work with Junior High students that are smart enough to know that if you want someone to think that you are innocent of wrong-doing...you have to act like you are innocent...I mean COME ON!) AND...everyone is talking at the same time.
Now, those of you that know me, know that I very often have something to say but I will rarely fight to be heard. However, the forewoman was one of those people and she wanted to hear what I thought...was he innocent or guilty. And here is the most difficult part of the whole experience.
He very well could be guilty. I have no idea. But I do know that they didn't prove that he was guilty. The chain of evidence report stapled to the bag of marijuana didn't even have Devin/Kevin's name on it...it had one of his passenger's name as the owner of the drugs. One of the reports had the wrong date for the incident. There were no fingerprints taken from the bags of marijuana...even though they have that ability. There was no cruiser cam video of the incident...even though they have that ability as well. They proved that the marijuana was in his car but they did not prove that he "knew" about it or that he had the "intention of participating in the mutual enjoyment and use" of it. When I was done speaking...there was a moment of silence as they all stared at me...then someone said, "ok. Let's vote."
I wouldn't mind doing it again but I can see that the experience could be very different...depending on the type of case you were assigned to.
