Voir Dire

I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to update this again – I was emotionally exhausted by the time it ended and I really need a little time to recover. I didn’t want to think about it for a while, let alone write about it.

On with the story –

The case, as it turns out, was about child molestation.

Voir Dire went on for almost a week. Each potential juror was asked a number of questions. They wanted to know what city you lived in, what you did for a living. They wanted to know if you had a spouse or any other adults living in the house and their occupations too. They asked if we had children and if we’d ever been convicted of a crime. They also wanted to know if we, or anyone close to us, had been convicted of a crime or had been accused of or investigated for any kind of sexual crime. They wanted to know if we understood the concept of reasonable doubt and if we would hold it against the defendant of he did not take the stand, as was his right.
There were a lot of jurors who said, “Well, he wouldn’t be charged with so many crimes if he hadn’t done SOMETHING, so it I already feel that he’s guilty.” I don’t know if they meant that or were just trying to get out of jury service. One guy admitted that he had been charged with cultivating marijuana, which got a chuckle from the courtroom. One older woman said something along the lines of she might find the lawyers annoying. I knew immediately she would get dismissed because the lawyers would assume she would put them on trial, not the defendant. She was indeed dismissed.

In some cases the judge would dismiss them for out and out bias, as in the case of the man who said he had children and numerous nieces and nephews and would just be too angry to be impartial. In other cases either the defense or the prosecutor would say something like, “We thank and excuse juror number 5.” Then the next name on the list was called and it would go from there.

Another juror was excused and suddenly my adrenaline suddenly shot through the roof. I reached down to grab my bag because somehow I knew my name was going to be called next. Sure enough, the clerk read out my name and I made my way to seat number 11. I got to my seat and the judge asked me the same thing she had asked countless other potential jurors the past few days: Miss X, you’ve heard the questions we’ve asked the other jurors, is there anything you have to tell us?

I explained that I had previously sat on two juries. She asked me when, what kind of trials they were and had we reached a verdict. They were both criminal trials and we had reached a verdict in each case. Then, to my total embarrassment, I had to explain that I had a family member who had spent time in jail in another state for a non-violent crime. I can’t tell you why it was embarrassing, after all, it wasn’t ME that had committed the crime, but I guess I felt kind of dirty by association. I’m sure they’ve heard it all and much worse, but I felt my face flush with shame. I explained that I had not been in contact with this person for at least 20 years and I had no information if they had gone to trial or just pled guilty. I only knew they had served the time and what crime they had committed. I also explained that I had been the victim of crime before. My home had been burglarized and my car had been broken into. In both cases no one was caught. I was asked if there was anything about the nature of the case that made me think I could not be fair and impartial? No. Did I know anyone in law enforcement? No. Did I understand the concept of presumption of innocence? Yes. Did I understand that the defendant had the right not to testify? Yes. If he chose not to so, would I hold it against him? No. Had anyone in my family or close to me ever been accused of, convicted of or even investigated for the same type of crime as this or any kind of crime related to this? No. Was there any reason I could think of that would keep me from being a juror on this trial? No.

I then answered some demographic questions that had been pre-printed on a sheet of paper. They wanted to know my name, where I lived, what company I worked for and my job title, education level, my spouse’s name and occupation, and if I had any legal training (I don’t). Satisfied with the answers, the judge turned over questioning to the prosecutor. She wanted to know how long the murder trial had been (approximately two weeks). She asked me if I had the opportunity to be around children much. I told her that I did not. I have nieces and nephews, but don’t see them that much because they don’t live in the area.

The defense attorney asked me if understood the presumption of innocence and I stated I did. He asked what it meant to me. I told him it meant that the man sitting there at his table was an absolutely innocent person until the prosecutor proved otherwise and that just because he was here in this courtroom did not make him guilty of anything. I meant it too. I saw an innocent man sitting there.

He then asked me if I had ever heard of a case where someone was convicted and then later exonerated. I stated that I had and that it was usually through DNA. He then asked me if the jury was to blame in those cases. I answered that if everyone had done his or her job in good faith, it was certainly a travesty, but I have no idea if there was a particular person to blame. I didn’t think about the question just then, but as the trial went on, I thought about it and was appalled at this question on a number of levels. While I understand that the defense attorney was trying his case even before it officially started, I did not like the implication that if the jury found his client to be guilty that we would not only be getting it wrong but that we would be to blame.

Implying that we would be getting it wrong is just a sneaky way to plant a seed of doubt in a juror’s mind before the case even begins and I understand that part, but to take it a step further and also imply that we would be to blame is a different thing all together. I have no idea if there are rules about what an attorney can ask during voir dire, but I don’t think he should have been allowed to ask or imply it. It seems like pure emotional manipulation of a jury in an underhanded and frankly sleazy way before the case has even begun.

Do juries get it wrong sometimes? Undoubtedly. However, the question of blame is an unfair burden to place upon the jurors in this case or in any criminal case for that matter. It is burden enough to know that someone’s fate is in your hands. It is burden enough just to hear the ugly evidence of the case. It is burden enough to know that it is your responsibility to weigh that evidence carefully and impartially, follow the laws given to us and decide upon a verdict.
It did not affect my decision in this case in anyway, but I don’t think he should have been allowed to ask about or imply blame. It just doesn’t seem fair.

A little while later I found myself standing with 12 other people, raising my right hand while the court clerk said, “"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?" We all answered “yes” and the jury was set. We were six men and six women; 10 whites, 1 African American, 1 Asian.

After the jury was set they went through the questioning process with a few other people in order to find two suitable alternate jurors. The alternates were both women; one African American and one Hispanic. I don't know how the alternate jurors did it. It would be very difficult for me to hear the case and then not get to be a part of the deliberations, but they did not seem to mind.

Update

It's over and I can finally talk about it. More updates to follow very soon.