Civic Duty, Part Two 1

(Part One is here.)

This is what happened during voir dire, that phase of jury duty during which the jury pool is narrowed down to the jury. I may not have the sequence exactly correct, but, if I have a few questions out of sequence, it will not impeach my larger goal, which is to dispel the Bull* (with apologies to Michael Weatherly), that television and movies promulgate.

Once we were seated, we overflowed the jury box and took up two rows of seats in the spectators’ area.

The judge welcomed us and introduced himself, the Commonwealth’s attorneys, the defense attorneys, and the defendant, each of whom stood as introduced. He explained that this was a criminal trial expected to last two and possibly three days.

He asked us to state our occupations. (The answers were all over the map, from restaurant server to touring musician to retired IT specialist.)

Next, he posed some questions of the pool, instructing us to raise our hands in response. The questions included

• Are you a U. S. citizen?
• Are you a resident of Virginia Beach? (These first two were clearly pro forma.)
• Do you have any plans or conditions that might negatively affect your ability to serve (such as cruise ship tickets)?
• Have you or a member of your family had problems with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office?
• Have you previously served on a jury?
• Have you or a member of your family or a close friend been a victim of violence?

If someone gave an answer that might cause some concern, he asked for a brief summary and the Clerk noted that person’s juror number. (The touring musician was booked to fly out on tour the next day. One person was diabetic; the judge asked what effect that might have and the response was, “I might have to eat something” in case of low blood sugar. The judge assured the person that an accommodation could be made.)

He also asked whether anyone watched shows such as NCIS and CSI. Everyone had. He said, “You do realize that those shows are heavily fictionalized?” Everyone did.

Next, he turned the proceedings over to the Commonwealth’s Attorneys, who introduced themselves, then called in their witnesses to stand in the back of the court room. We were asked if any of us knew or had any connection to any of the witnesses. After that question was answered, the witnesses returned to the hall. The defense attorneys produced their witnesses and read a list of potential witnesses who were not present; we were asked the same question about their witnesses, after which any of their witnesses in the room were similarly dismissed.

At this point, we were dismissed to the jury room. Individual jurors whose answers to the screening questions warranted further inquiry were called back in the court room one at a time so whatever issues their answers raised could be explored in private.

As the lawyers prepared their peremptory strikes**, the judge delivered his instructions to the jury. He made the following points:

• The role of lawyers is to advocate for their cliends. What lawyers say is not evidence; it’s advocacy.
• Evidence is the testimony and exhibits admitted during the trial.
• The judge’s role is determine what is and what is not evidence. If it is not admissible, it is not evidence.
• Jurors are not to discuss the trial with anyone, not even fellow jurors, until deliberations begin. This is to ensure that their deliberations are guided only by the admissible evidence and not by preliminary conclusions or outside influences, even from other jurors.
• Similarly, jurors must avoid any references to the case on social media, in the news, in conversation with friends and family, and so on, for the above reason.
• If attorneys raise an objection, it’s to discuss a point of law or procedure. The judge will then rule on the objection. Objections are permitted to ensure that the court gets it right.
• If the defendant does not testify, that is a right under the U. S. Constitution and must in no way be considered pejorative.

At that point, I was peremptorily challenged and sent home (which, frankly, was fine with me).

_____________

*Yeah, like any court is going to allow persons in the courtroom to be wearing secret microphones and carrying on surreptitious conversations during the trial. No court house I’ve ever been in allows cell phones, let alone secret microphones and ear buds, except for employees, staff, and officers of the court. How quickly can you say, “contempt of court”?

**Yeah, I thought it was “preemptory” also.