Today was my last day of jury duty. Or, I should say, jury-related duties, as Monday was our last day of actually hearing cases. We wrapped up with only a slightly complex one that involved burglary (which by the way, is not necessarily breaking and entering or stealing, but only entering a place you know you are not supposed to be and either committing or intending to commit a crime there), menacing and trespassing. Today I went to work for three hours, then biked downtown to sign my last indictments and meet the other jurors for a sort of celebratory lunch. Actually, only five of the seven of us attended. The other two did not attend, and coincidentally or not, they also happened to be the two frustrating jurors who voted according to their personal opinions and not according to what they were supposed to be considering. Coincidentally or not, these two jurors also happened to deeply resent, perhaps even hate me, as foreperson. But these other four jurors were great people, and very kind, and I was happy to meet and work with them. And we shared the occasional laugh at the expense of the other two jurors (not in a mean way of course).
All in all, the experience was very educational and even fun at times. I was a little sad it was over, though I am looking forward to sleeping in a little and a weight has certainly been lifted. I was a bit more stressed this month, not being able to get as much done at work and also being frustrated by the two problematic jurors. Not to mention the cases. Though the majority of them were fairly straightforward, they were all sad, and all the various facts of them tend to settle in the back of your mind for awhile. One of the other jurors had a good idea that it would be interesting to attend some of the trials for the individuals we indicted, if only to just see that side of the system.
So today we handed over our notes for filing and were formally discharged by the judge. Then we parted ways. A major thing I consider valuable from this experience was that it was an opportunity to meet and work closely with people I would never have crossed paths with otherwise. We exchanged a few cards but of course I doubt we'll ever cross paths again. Though one of my favorite jurors is the chaplain at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, which is predominantly a women's prison. As chaplain he oversees a lot of the volunteer programs there. Maybe once I get my driver's license and can do the commute I'll try some volunteering there. I think it would be another educational experience, and a nice excuse to connect with him again.
So as the title of this post implies, I'm concerned I may have lost some momentum, what little momentum I had, on this blog. But I expect that as my free time starts to accumulate again, I'll find more time to post. Another interesting development, that I'll have more news on this weekend, is that I'll probably be starting a very part-time job with the Community Alliance of Tenants, doing research and surveying regarding apartment habitability. So that will be fun, and a little extra cash, and something to write about. I'm debating about whether or not to continue volunteering with the Immigration Counseling Service, or to try something a little different that perhaps utilizes me a bit better.
By the way, a few weeks ago we had our NCI Board retreat, which is an annual meeting when all the Board members come to Portland, and I had a chance to chat with a board member who is an environmental lawyer and has decades of urban planning and international-related experience. As expected, he told me I shouldn't become a lawyer, and that the urban planning degree will actually be more useful for what I want to do than the law degree. I had begun to suspect this, although my original motivation for going to law school was the impression that it would open doors for me, so to speak, and so it was interesting to hear that law is not actually as useful a degree as it used to be. It also is more competitive and less lucrative than it used to be. But, of course, after telling me I shouldn't study law he allowed me a series of caveats that ultimately only strengthened my resolve. Curiously enough, at this point my idea of what I want to do, ultimately, with my life (originally, it was do urban planning abroad) has become fluid, and studying law for the sake of studying law, because it actually interests me, has become a higher priority.
To bring it all full circle, it was interesting to hear what some of my fellow jurors volunteered to me on one of our last days. One of the ones I get along with (the guy who's my age, has a newborn son and digs graves for a living) told me I should go to law school. One of the jurors I never could get along with, who told me I was on a "power trip" (who happens to be a female, middle-aged neuroscience researcher at OHSU) concurred, and told me I was very analytical and would be good at law. This was very nice to hear, since I hadn't told any of the jurors I was interested in law, afraid that this might taint their perspective of me as foreperson. And though I never though I would ever want to work in criminal law, I found our work very engaging, and even caught a few of the D.A.s on missing or incomplete charges. Our system of legal statutes is sort of like a strange puzzle (I'm picturing Tetris, where certain pieces fit with other pieces to clear away obstacles). I'm not saying it's the best game in town, but perhaps one worth learning.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Grand Jury
Meet the new foreperson for one of the three Grand Juries of the Multnomah County court.
I reported for jury duty on Monday expecting to be out for a day or two. But my name was called with the first pool, which happened to be a pool for two grand juries. The grand jury is a 28 day commitment, either for half a day or a full day, Monday through Friday. You're only given a small stipend, and I probably could have begged off since my work doesn't compensate me for jury duty like some do, but since I managed to get on the jury that only requires you from 8 am to noon, I didn't fight it.
And then I volunteered to be foreperson.
So today was my second day of cases. I'll probably post again at the end of my 28 days when I'm more of an expert on the process (since I probably won't be posting much in between, since blogging about jury duty is obviously not gonna fly, and I won't have time to think about much else since I'm planning to cram 32 hours a week of work into my spare time). But for those of you who, like me, were not previously familiar with the concept of a grand jury, here's a little introduction.
A grand jury hears multiple cases each day, something like 120-200 over 28 days. The selection was pretty much just based on who could sacrifice their time to serve (i.e. you aren't the sole proprietor of your business, or a nursing mother, or you wouldn't experience extreme financial hardship because your work doesn't compensate you for jury duty). Grand Jurors don't actually hear trials; we're the ones who indict the case to be taken to court. We hear testimony from the prosecution's witnesses and decide "true" or "not true" based on whether we see that evidence as being enough to potentially convict the defendant, without taking into account any counter-evidence or defense. We have our own grand jury room, and the deputy district attorneys and their witnesses come to us. Some cases take as little as ten minutes. Today we had a couple that lasted over an hour, which put us behind schedule and meant we stayed 'til after 1 pm (at least they brought in lunch for us).
As foreperson, my duties are to arrive slightly early to unlock the jury room, answer the phone when the Grand Jury staff calls us, call them if we have issues or questions, swear in witnesses (with the same oath witnesses take in a court of law), and to try to basically moderate the questioning and voting. As jurors we get to ask the witnesses questions after the D.A. has finished. I also sign the vote tally slips (which the alternate foreperson fills out with the charges and our total vote) and the indictments after the staff has prepared them, which means even though we sometimes get out early due to canceled cases, I almost always will have to stay to sign indictments, because they have to go to the judge in the afternoon. For example, our cases were all canceled tomorrow, but I will be going to the courthouse in the afternoon just to sign indictments.
We've only had a handful of cases over the past couple days. We were under the impression that mostly we'd be hearing drug cases, but those have been the minority so far. Drug cases actually seem to be the most simple, because usually there is physical evidence involved and that alone is generally considered enough to take a case to trial. But we had a mixture of different cases today, which made it a more difficult day. Largely my fellow jurors are very on top of it and very nice as well. I got a little flak today from one of them, though, who thought I was trying to quash her opinions and questions, when my goal was to make sure we stay on track, and observe such guidelines as only asking questions that are actually pertinent to the specific charges. It's challenging, because there is an inclination to learn as much as possible, out of curiosity if not out of principle, even though a lot of the information does not relate to whether or not the defendant most likely broke the law. There is also a sort of inclination to be an advocate for the defendant, because we're only hearing from the prosecution and the witnesses, but we have to remember that if indicted the defendant will have their day in court and it is not our job to speculate about what defense they may have.
Anyway, I think next week will be easier, because we're all still getting the hang of things, and I'm hoping today was the most challenging we'll have. Even the D.A. who oriented us had difficulty defining exactly what we're looking for when we listen to evidence. For instance, if you are not absolutely sure the defendant has broken the law, do you vote "not true"? I don't personally think so, but a couple of the other jurors do. Luckily there are seven of us and 5-2 is enough to pass. Unfortunately, 4-3 will not. Knock on wood, despite the jurors who think their position is an opportunity to make a political statement about what they think of our justice system, we haven't had any of those yet.
Sorry if I sound bitter. I have a migraine, and I think the long days (at the courthouse slightly before 8 am, biking to work from downtown around noon, then working straight through until 6 pm) are starting to wear on me already.
I reported for jury duty on Monday expecting to be out for a day or two. But my name was called with the first pool, which happened to be a pool for two grand juries. The grand jury is a 28 day commitment, either for half a day or a full day, Monday through Friday. You're only given a small stipend, and I probably could have begged off since my work doesn't compensate me for jury duty like some do, but since I managed to get on the jury that only requires you from 8 am to noon, I didn't fight it.
And then I volunteered to be foreperson.
So today was my second day of cases. I'll probably post again at the end of my 28 days when I'm more of an expert on the process (since I probably won't be posting much in between, since blogging about jury duty is obviously not gonna fly, and I won't have time to think about much else since I'm planning to cram 32 hours a week of work into my spare time). But for those of you who, like me, were not previously familiar with the concept of a grand jury, here's a little introduction.
A grand jury hears multiple cases each day, something like 120-200 over 28 days. The selection was pretty much just based on who could sacrifice their time to serve (i.e. you aren't the sole proprietor of your business, or a nursing mother, or you wouldn't experience extreme financial hardship because your work doesn't compensate you for jury duty). Grand Jurors don't actually hear trials; we're the ones who indict the case to be taken to court. We hear testimony from the prosecution's witnesses and decide "true" or "not true" based on whether we see that evidence as being enough to potentially convict the defendant, without taking into account any counter-evidence or defense. We have our own grand jury room, and the deputy district attorneys and their witnesses come to us. Some cases take as little as ten minutes. Today we had a couple that lasted over an hour, which put us behind schedule and meant we stayed 'til after 1 pm (at least they brought in lunch for us).
As foreperson, my duties are to arrive slightly early to unlock the jury room, answer the phone when the Grand Jury staff calls us, call them if we have issues or questions, swear in witnesses (with the same oath witnesses take in a court of law), and to try to basically moderate the questioning and voting. As jurors we get to ask the witnesses questions after the D.A. has finished. I also sign the vote tally slips (which the alternate foreperson fills out with the charges and our total vote) and the indictments after the staff has prepared them, which means even though we sometimes get out early due to canceled cases, I almost always will have to stay to sign indictments, because they have to go to the judge in the afternoon. For example, our cases were all canceled tomorrow, but I will be going to the courthouse in the afternoon just to sign indictments.
We've only had a handful of cases over the past couple days. We were under the impression that mostly we'd be hearing drug cases, but those have been the minority so far. Drug cases actually seem to be the most simple, because usually there is physical evidence involved and that alone is generally considered enough to take a case to trial. But we had a mixture of different cases today, which made it a more difficult day. Largely my fellow jurors are very on top of it and very nice as well. I got a little flak today from one of them, though, who thought I was trying to quash her opinions and questions, when my goal was to make sure we stay on track, and observe such guidelines as only asking questions that are actually pertinent to the specific charges. It's challenging, because there is an inclination to learn as much as possible, out of curiosity if not out of principle, even though a lot of the information does not relate to whether or not the defendant most likely broke the law. There is also a sort of inclination to be an advocate for the defendant, because we're only hearing from the prosecution and the witnesses, but we have to remember that if indicted the defendant will have their day in court and it is not our job to speculate about what defense they may have.
Anyway, I think next week will be easier, because we're all still getting the hang of things, and I'm hoping today was the most challenging we'll have. Even the D.A. who oriented us had difficulty defining exactly what we're looking for when we listen to evidence. For instance, if you are not absolutely sure the defendant has broken the law, do you vote "not true"? I don't personally think so, but a couple of the other jurors do. Luckily there are seven of us and 5-2 is enough to pass. Unfortunately, 4-3 will not. Knock on wood, despite the jurors who think their position is an opportunity to make a political statement about what they think of our justice system, we haven't had any of those yet.
Sorry if I sound bitter. I have a migraine, and I think the long days (at the courthouse slightly before 8 am, biking to work from downtown around noon, then working straight through until 6 pm) are starting to wear on me already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)