I have been summoned three times in the sparsely populated county where we now live.
I am no fan of getting up early, but once there I always felt and asserted that I could be fair and impartial.
What caused me to get tossed in one case was when so asked I came in with the assumption not that the defendant was innocent, but was there due to probable cause. My response, which was truthful, was that I started with that assumption as that was how the defendant came to be seated in the defendant's chair, rather than someone/anyone else. One time when I gave this response defense counsel heard this really blew up. He shouted that I was prejudiced and thought the defendant to be guilty. Despite his bombastic accusation, I patiently explained, again, the reason for my position. I also offered to define he concept of probable cause. I again reiterated I held no presumption of guilt; that would be up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I stated that with 30+ years LE experience, which the court already knew, that was the only presumption I could start with.
The DA had no problem with this starting point and tried to explain to defense counsel that an assumption of probable cause did not equate to an assumption of guilt. But defense counsel would have none of it. He had already lost his temper, was openly hostile to me, and insisted the judge (who was a friend and a credit to the bench and the legal profession) dismiss me for cause. The judge declined, forcing defense counsel to burn up one of his preemptory challenges.
That could have been an error on he part of defense counsel. I would have been impartial. I had no objection to serving. Besides being able to be impartial I thought it would be a most interesting experience.
A few weeks later I ran into the judge at a social gathering. We discussed that element of he case. He said he immediately understood my position, which is why he immediately denied the challenge for cause. We had a chuckle about the defense counsel's bombastic and hostile response.
In thinking about it afterward, I pondered on whether defense counsel undermined his own case with his behavior. I was an innocent person seated in the jury box, but he really came at me in a hostile manner. He was trying to bully me, but it did not work. But it did make me wonder about the rest of the jurors knowing they too could face his wrath. Can a hostile, downright nasty advocate inflame a jury enough to impeach his defense of his client. If so, that case would be vulnerable to that.
Interestingly enough my bride has been empaneled three juries despite my profession. This was when I was still working, so within my area of LE jurisdiction. She is, and comes across, as smart, strong, independent and fair. Two of these juries were routine criminal cases. The third was a far more complex murder case involving a different culture. The facts were extremely heart-wrenching. After the first day of trial, she was so distressed she wanted to discuss the case with me. I told her we could not. She had, along with the rest of he jurors, been admonished not to discuss the case with anyone. It was our responsibility, both of us, to play by the rules. I told her that following the trial, once the jury had rendered their verdict, we could, if she still desired, discuss the case. But not until then.
In all the years since that case, she has never once wanted to discuss it. It was too painful to bring up.
I respect that greatly.
I am no fan of getting up early, but once there I always felt and asserted that I could be fair and impartial.
What caused me to get tossed in one case was when so asked I came in with the assumption not that the defendant was innocent, but was there due to probable cause. My response, which was truthful, was that I started with that assumption as that was how the defendant came to be seated in the defendant's chair, rather than someone/anyone else. One time when I gave this response defense counsel heard this really blew up. He shouted that I was prejudiced and thought the defendant to be guilty. Despite his bombastic accusation, I patiently explained, again, the reason for my position. I also offered to define he concept of probable cause. I again reiterated I held no presumption of guilt; that would be up to the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
I stated that with 30+ years LE experience, which the court already knew, that was the only presumption I could start with.
The DA had no problem with this starting point and tried to explain to defense counsel that an assumption of probable cause did not equate to an assumption of guilt. But defense counsel would have none of it. He had already lost his temper, was openly hostile to me, and insisted the judge (who was a friend and a credit to the bench and the legal profession) dismiss me for cause. The judge declined, forcing defense counsel to burn up one of his preemptory challenges.
That could have been an error on he part of defense counsel. I would have been impartial. I had no objection to serving. Besides being able to be impartial I thought it would be a most interesting experience.
A few weeks later I ran into the judge at a social gathering. We discussed that element of he case. He said he immediately understood my position, which is why he immediately denied the challenge for cause. We had a chuckle about the defense counsel's bombastic and hostile response.
In thinking about it afterward, I pondered on whether defense counsel undermined his own case with his behavior. I was an innocent person seated in the jury box, but he really came at me in a hostile manner. He was trying to bully me, but it did not work. But it did make me wonder about the rest of the jurors knowing they too could face his wrath. Can a hostile, downright nasty advocate inflame a jury enough to impeach his defense of his client. If so, that case would be vulnerable to that.
Interestingly enough my bride has been empaneled three juries despite my profession. This was when I was still working, so within my area of LE jurisdiction. She is, and comes across, as smart, strong, independent and fair. Two of these juries were routine criminal cases. The third was a far more complex murder case involving a different culture. The facts were extremely heart-wrenching. After the first day of trial, she was so distressed she wanted to discuss the case with me. I told her we could not. She had, along with the rest of he jurors, been admonished not to discuss the case with anyone. It was our responsibility, both of us, to play by the rules. I told her that following the trial, once the jury had rendered their verdict, we could, if she still desired, discuss the case. But not until then.
In all the years since that case, she has never once wanted to discuss it. It was too painful to bring up.
I respect that greatly.
Last edited:
