Impressions from Jury Duty

A couple of weeks ago, I sat on a jury for the very first time. The experience was brief. Jury selection took place on a Friday morning, and the trial itself only lasted for half a day during the next week.

The defendant stood charged with driving under the influence and possession of drug paraphernalia. To make the story short, the jury quickly decided "Not Guilty" on both counts.

If I had to bet money, I would say the defendant was guilty of both counts. But you have to be more certain than that under the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" standard in criminal law. I believed the state trooper's version of the story. The problem was that the trooper's testimony was the only evidence. The trooper simply said that he smelled alcohol coming from the defendant, that his eyes were blood-shot and his face flushed... That was it. The defendant refused to do a breathalyzer test, and he also refused to do the field sobriety tests. As a result of his refusal, under Florida law the defendant is automatically guilty of a misdemeanor and loses his driving privileges for one year.

As for the possession of drug paraphernalia charge, the state failed to produce the paraphernalia. Due to a mix up in schedules, the state trooper was unable to retrieve it from the evidence cage. So, we voted "not guilty" on both counts.

I did learn quite a bit from my jury service, though. First, I was surprised at how simple and short voir dire (the jury selection process) was. At Parks & Crump last summer, I learned that jury selection is the most important part of the trial. As an attorney told me at a convention in San Francisco last year: "You can not win a trial with a bad jury, and you can still lose it with a good one."

If I were an attorney on either side during this case, I would have wanted to ask many more questions of each potential juror, to try and get a feel for their beliefs on drug use, alcohol consumption, and law enforcement. But it seemed to me that the lawyer for each side barely scratched the surface with us. I do not know how either of them could have gotten a good read on me or anyone else. Perhaps they are more astute than I am in this area.

On the other hand, a long and tedious question and answer process in jury selection ran the risk of turning the jury against the lawyer. Sitting in the jury box, I could see how too many questions, how taking so much time would irritate a juror. So, it is a bit of a catch-22 for the lawyer. I also wanted to ask more personal questions, such as whether anyone had ever been charged with DUI and, if so, what there experience was. But again, these questions could have backfired on myself and my client.

Ours was a half day trial. I wonder what jury selection would be like for a two week civil trial with millions of dollars at stake? Or a lengthy murder case? How much longer would the lawyers take to make their selections?

For practice, I also tried to use the lawyers' questions to get a read on each potential juror. As it turned out, once we got back into the deliberation room to decide the case, I was way off on one person in particular.

There was an older man on our jury that, from the selection process, I thought would be solid for the prosecution. He seemed conservative and patient to me. During the trial, he took no notes and rarely looked up at the lawyers.

But in the deliberation room after closing arguments, he changed. He spoke up quickly and staunchly for the defense. It would have been very difficult for the rest of us to move him if we thought the verdict should be guilty.

Coming out of the courthouse after the trial ended, I did not feel very good. I did not enjoy siding against the state trooper, and I felt like a guilty person had gotten off. In truth, though, ours was the proper verdict. The state has to put on more evidence. I also felt like jury selection is going to be more unpredictable than I hoped. For such an important part of the trial, I was disappointed that I did not recognize how the older man was going to go in deliberation. I need more work in this area. It seems like speed-psychology, and I doubt that is something I can learn from books or classes.

On a positive note, I think jury selection will be just as unpredictable for lawyers on the other side. You are always rolling the dice when you put an issue to a jury.

Truthfully, the best training I have ever received for these necessary skills came on a scorching hot car lot in Las Vegas. Perhaps this sounds strange, but I would not mind being back there again this summer doing the same thing. My job as a salesman out in the desert opened up a new and practical way of thinking, and I am trying hard not to forget what I learned. It would be nice to see all of my fellow salesman buddies again and to keep in practice with that trade.

My experience as a car salesman in Las Vegas taught me so much about what motivates customers, what turns customers off, what scares them, what excites them, and what convinces them. It is absolutely essential to understand this about jurors as well in order to be the most effective advocate for my client.

Until Next Time,

Nathan Marshburn