This morning seventy-six prospective jurors gathered at the Berrien County Trial Court in downtown St. Joseph, Michigan. Although they didn’t know it at the time, they were summoned to participate in a criminal sexual molestation trial of a middle aged man accused of having inappropriate intercourse with an eighteen-year-old mentally challenged woman. It clearly would not be an easy case, and I was one of those summoned.
The jury selection process took all morning. All seventy-six of us were given a number and a duplicate of those numbers was deposited in a box that the court recording clerk kept by her side. Initially, she pulled fourteen numbers from the box and those people took their seats in the jury box. Then the questioning began. Since the judge had said the trial would last a week, did any of these potential jurors have reasons not to be available for that long? One woman raised her hand and said her employer did not pay her for jury duty and that she would lose too much money. She was excused. Had anyone in the jury box known someone personally who was molested? Several people cited personal experiences with family members or friends who had been molested; in the end, they too were excused.
As one of the original fourteen was excused, the court recording clerk pulled another number from her box; and that person took the vacated seat in the jury box. This went on for about four hours; until the judge, the prosecuting attorney, and the defense attorney all agreed they could live with the various potential jurors. The jury selection process was over.
I was not one of those whose numbers was called, so I spent the morning listening and watching. And as I did so, I vacillated between wanting to be called to serve and not wanting the burden.
Sitting on a jury that would determine whether a person had committed a sexual crime is a heavy responsibility, really a burden. It implies that the jurors leave all previous prejudices and experiences at the door, pay strict attention to what is said in the courtroom, follow all the directives of the judge whether they agree with them or not, and unanimously conclude if the defendant is guilty or not. It is not something to be taken lightly. In fact, it’s the ultimate opportunity to make a difference in someone’s life.
Trial by jury of one’s peers is a cornerstone of our country’s form of government. I can’t imagine trying to get out of such a duty, even though it is inconvenient and sometimes costly. At the same time, I understand that people are excused from jury duty for a variety of reasons, such as hardship or bias. The ultimate consideration is that those who are impaneled are as objective as possible, holding both sides — prosecution and defense — to the same standards and not prejudging the facts before they are presented.
Once the jury selection process was over, the rest of us were free to leave. I came home to my own life, not having to worry for the week about one middle-aged man who was on trial for sexual molestation. And, yet, the experience stays with me. I suspect I’ll watch the local papers for the outcome and wonder if I had been impaneled would I have voted the same way.
Leave a Reply