My experience with jurisprudence and the intersection of politics (and gender) UPDATED

GD hosts, I hope this is ok to post... While it touches on guns and related politics, in its totality it is a description of what may well go on in US jurisprudence on a daily basis and how politics, perceptions, and stereotypes intersect. I can't imagine a more important issue for GD, given so many high profile trials recently. While race doesn't factor in this incident, other stereotypes and biases do (and i don't deny my own biases on that score)

So yesterday I got up to perform my usual long fitness walk at 5AM so that I could report at 7 for Jury Duty I figured I would spend the day and maybe Tuesday, and if picked serve on some kind of quickie civil matter, but I've always been eliminated early in the past. I have another of those marathon commuting work shifts on Wed and Friday that end up being 16-18 hours, but I thought it would be well over by then and I could meet my obligations. Besides, if you ask ahead of time for a delay in serving, you end up being called 6 months later. But, there were three trials ongoing and I was asked to report (with at least a hundred-fifty others) on the third. I thought--no problem, but had never seen that many called for a single trial at once, so it seemed apparent that this was a more serious one. An hour later we are all packed into the court room and told this was a murder trial. OH, my... I now know this could be a LONG one--even possibly involving sequestration, so I am getting nervous now. (I am my only source of income and I don't work for a company that pays me while serving). I also feel strongly opposed to the death penalty, though I had to think this was not a capital murder case since I had not heard anything about it. The defendant was, however, charged with first degree murder.

So now about 20 potential jurors get released for "knowing the prosecutor, defendant, or victim". Maybe 10 get released for serious medical issues or disability and another dozen or so for knowing something about the case. Honestly, though I do try to keep up with the news, I was really oblivious to this case and apparently it had gotten little news coverage--since it seems most in the jury pool were as well. A long line stands up for "personal" conflicts including work related issues. I held back since it appeared almost none were getting released. Smaller communities are pretty strict on this, it would seem.

While I do think jury duty is important I am now very nervous about my finances in what might be a multi--weeks long process, so by the time we returned after lunch, I could only hope that I might get eliminated for some reason based on some question brought up in the "Voir Dire" process by either prosecution or defense attorneys... But now I am in the 42 brought up to the front of the court room for this final process. (Palms sweating). In fact I am seated among the initial 12 in the jury box, so it seems that, unless eliminated in the final process, I am automatically "in". Three hours of questioning later (which seemed to target the youngest and oldest in the pool) about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", what constitutes "reasonable doubt", etc. I hadn't been asked a single question--by now I am REALLY nervous. Whatever the process is, it seems the assumptions made about various jurors as to suitability were working to ensure I would serve. Now, finally this thing is heating up, as the defense and prosecution attorneys were vehemently arguing about the appropriateness of questioning us on "gun views" and views on what constitutes "self defense". Oh, boy, I am thinking. This is going to get rough. The judge continually overrules the defense and allows a lot of these questions in after reading the statute to us, which though probably more clear than those I have heard from many states, still includes subjective language like "reasonable" believe of "imminent" harm or death. Those asked whether they owned guns had no problem finding the language "clear" and black and white, it seemed. Those of us who did not own guns--maybe a little less so, though it was clear all believed in the concept of self-defense--just not necessarily what constituted "reasonable belief of "imminent" harm.

It is now 4:30 PM. The judge has released no one from the gallery so with more than a hundred packed in, the room is getting HOT. Though I am seated in the comfortable jury seats up front, I am fidgeting as badly as the poor blokes seated in the hard galley "church" pews. The prosecution consists of two female attorneys and a female investigator. The defense (and defendant) one young and one older (lead)--all male Now, I am thinking not only of my self-interest, but how gun politics are likely going to make all the difference in this case and outcome and how gender may be so closely associated with both. The prosecutor had not mentioned views on death penalty, so I am at least relieved on that score. But the defense attorneys questions were so intently delving into the concept of self-defense and gun views it became apparent what must have happened. And based on the questions on "imminent" harm and what constitutes a "deliberative" act , it became increasing clear that this was far from a cut and dry self-defense case. After the entire group of 42 were asked to raise hands to indicate if they owned guns, they began to zero in on those of us who did not. Clearly it appeared that the defense wanted the ex-military (several) and older male gun owners on this jury. One by one,row by row, the non-gun owners were asked views on guns. So many of the younger candidates (especially the women) seemed concerned about the need to convey that they had been raised around guns and were thus "ok" with them--some even laughingly commenting about shooting squirrels and other small animals in a "light" way (which had me cringing, though I don't personally have an issue with "hunting for food&quot . A male ER doctor with kids simply said he saw no need for a gun and thus didn't own one. (Ah, I thought, another aligned with my views). Finally, my turn. I said my views were complex. I said I believed in the second amendment but personally had experienced an incident with my father's handgun as a teen home alone, wherein I was forced to confront the possibility of using it against someone attempting to break in and that I had been relieved not to have to. Then, quite by accident I mentioned that I thought the second amendment was not unlimited--not meant to include an AR15, for instance. Oh, my. I could see I had hit a nerve, but the defense attorney quickly moved on.

Now at 5:30 PM, the elimination begins... The prosecution first (they each get 12 eliminations)...seemed to zero into those who had come across as having difficulty understanding the process and those who had most come across as pro-gun and had seemly demonstrated very "black-white" thinking in terms of using guns for self-defense. But there were lots of those...Now they would ask to defer a few minutes and allow the defense to start. Oh, my. Who was their first elimination? LOL. Yup, me. Ironically the judge had started this process with an admonishment not to feel "embarrassed" or bad if we were eliminated in this final process. Are you kidding? I was doing my best Oscar-worthy attempt not to smile my relief in neon signs. But, now, admittedly, I am concerned to see how unbalanced the jury might end up based on gun-ownership and male v female. Ultimately, I think the process worked fairly well. The gender balance was reasonably even and though the ER doc was right behind me in being eliminated, it did seem that there would be some balance of views.

Home finally that evening, I googled to find out what the case was all about. Only two articles, repeated in other news sources, but based on the two original (and vague) articles... It seems that the individual on trial had shot an elderly neighbor after a dispute. Despite few details, it seems there was some kind of pause between the argument and the actual shooting and, there it was... the defendant had gone home to get his assault-style rifle to return to fatally shoot the man. Hmmm. no wonder....

I will watch for the results of this trial.

********************************************
UPDATE (file under "you've got to be kidding)