With apologies, of course, to Mickey Spillane …
Anyway, one of my co-workers on Saturday night mentioned a little civic responsibility that seems to surface with some regularity among DH employees: jury duty.
Seriously, at any point in time, it seems like someone at the paper is on jury duty. Someone, that is, with the exception of yours truly.
In a couple months I will mark 22 years at the Democrat-Herald, and in all that time I have yet to be called.
However, I was summoned three times in about a year’s span just before starting in Albany in April 1990. Long story short, I ended up serving just once, in Lane County District Court (I worked for the Springfield News at the time). Here’s my proof of service if you need it (not totally sure why I hung onto this, but here you go):
It’s a juror button in case you hadn’t figured that out. What I wish I had was one that said “Lane County Jury Foreman” because, that’s right, I was the top juror in both the trials I served for, one a civil matter involving a car accident, the other a criminal case in which a guy was accused of assaulting a cop.
I found jury duty to be an interesting if not altogether uplifting experience. I’ve always enjoyed the law, so it was fun to be a part of the process, hear the attorneys’ arguments, etc. But part of my time at the courthouse in downtown Eugene was sort of disillusioning.
First off, sad to say, the court staff at times seemed more interested in keeping things moving than in actually seeking justice. For example, a request for a transcript of part of a witness’ testimony was denied. And we were also encouraged to reach a verdict by the end of the business day if at all possible so no one would have to be brought back the next day for further deliberations.
Second, some of my older fellow jurors — I was 26 at the time, and many colleagues were senior citizens — appeared way too willing to stray from the judge’s instructions regarding the law in favor of whatever they thought the law should say. I did my best, though, to stamp out the legal freelancing, and I think I mainly succeeded; the decision in each case went how I thought it should.
But one thing the whole experience taught me was, while it’s called “a jury of your peers,” what it really is is “a jury of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.”
Myself, I was happy to serve and really did feel like it was my responsibility as a citizen to do so. But lots of people try to get excused for various reasons, and many succeed.
So besides a handful of oddballs like me, what we were left with were retirees, those just barely old enough to vote, the unemployed and, best of all, the unemployable.
Thus, if you’re ever going to trial for any reason, here’s my advice (don’t mention it): If you’re supremely confident the law truly is on your side, opt for a bench trial, the jury-less variety, because a judge is way more apt to reason things out from a letter-of-the-law standpoint than six or 12 people off the street; but if your case isn’t rock solid from a legal standpoint, you might as roll the dice with a jury because they literally could decide almost anything.
Some years back in Mill City, for example, a jury acquitted a guy who’d punched a government official in full view of probably 10 witnesses. The panel evidently figured the fellow, overwrought over an eminent domain matter, had actually showed remarkable restraint in hitting the official just once, and cleanly, in the nose.
So there you have it: In a jury trial, justice is ultimately what the jurors say it is.
