![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had Jury Duty yesterday, so I had to be downtown by 8:15. There was a lot of construction around the area which closed sidewalks and restricted access to the building, but I eventually got there. I had forgotten my summons, but they were prepared for that and were able to easily print me up another one. I had to surrender my cel phone and then pass through a metal detector to enter the building. At the jury lounge, there was coffee, juice, fruit, soft pretzels, and banana bread free for the jurors from the city, in order to make the experience more pleasant. After most of the summoned jurors had assembled (there were still people trickling in over 2 hours later), a judge came to speak to everyone about why it's important to serve on juries. He made it a civics/history lesson by describing the origin of the system from Revolutionary times and then exhorted everyone not to "weasel out" but to take pride in serving. It was kind of corny, but it was clear that he sincerely believed in the system and wanted us to know that there was real value in what we were doing. Then a video was shown of a number of judges (or actors dressed as judges) of diverse race and gender explaining how to fill out the juror questionnaire which will be given to the judge and attorneys to screen jurors during the selection process.
There were over 240 potential jurors in the room. 40 people were randomly called up at a time and instructed where to go. Criminal cases were to be tried in the building; civil cases were to be tried across the street in City Hall. I was called for the second group, which was to be a civil case. After waiting around for awhile, we were escorted to City Hall and asked to sit in number order in the courtroom and we were sworn in. It was an auto accident case that was expected to take only a day or two. The judge explained that in PA civil cases, if the lawyers agree, there can be as few as 6 jurors. They had decided to choose 8, so that if anyone couldn't make it during the trial, they could still proceed with up to 2 jurors out. He instructed us that in civil cases, the decision need not be unanimous (it was to be 7 out of 8) and that the decision was made based on looser criteria than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - something about "by a preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." The lawyers explained who they were planning to call as witnesses and asked if any of us knew them - I might have known some of the doctors on the list, but it turned out that I did not. The judge then publicly interviewed each potential juror about their questionnaire responses in order to confirm where they worked, if they had a hardship with serving, and if they could be fair. Several people who had answered that they would have some trouble being fair on the questionnaire changed their minds during this process. He started with number 1, excused a few and stopped after interviewing 14 jurors. Then the lawyers consulted and they selected 8 for the trial. The rest of us were sent back to the jury room for further selection.
We were released for lunch, so I went to Reading Terminal. I got a 10% discount because of my Juror badge! I randomly ran into one of our grad students who was eating lunch there with a friend, so I joined them for a pleasant time. Upon return, I was called out for a second jury for a criminal trial this time, but asked to wait. After an hour and a half, we were told that they wouldn't be needed today (either they had reached an agreement or they hadn't gotten to jury selection in the case yet after all). We were then given our checks for $9 and dismissed. The process was overall much more pleasant than last time I was there, but there was still a lot of waiting around. I was ultimately glad not to have been selected for a trial because of the inconvenience, although I would have found it interesting to serve. I did like how the staff and the judges made it clear that it was an honor and a privilege to be part of the process and how they tried to inspire us to think about it in terms of civic duty.
There were over 240 potential jurors in the room. 40 people were randomly called up at a time and instructed where to go. Criminal cases were to be tried in the building; civil cases were to be tried across the street in City Hall. I was called for the second group, which was to be a civil case. After waiting around for awhile, we were escorted to City Hall and asked to sit in number order in the courtroom and we were sworn in. It was an auto accident case that was expected to take only a day or two. The judge explained that in PA civil cases, if the lawyers agree, there can be as few as 6 jurors. They had decided to choose 8, so that if anyone couldn't make it during the trial, they could still proceed with up to 2 jurors out. He instructed us that in civil cases, the decision need not be unanimous (it was to be 7 out of 8) and that the decision was made based on looser criteria than "beyond a reasonable doubt" - something about "by a preponderance of the evidence" meaning "more likely than not." The lawyers explained who they were planning to call as witnesses and asked if any of us knew them - I might have known some of the doctors on the list, but it turned out that I did not. The judge then publicly interviewed each potential juror about their questionnaire responses in order to confirm where they worked, if they had a hardship with serving, and if they could be fair. Several people who had answered that they would have some trouble being fair on the questionnaire changed their minds during this process. He started with number 1, excused a few and stopped after interviewing 14 jurors. Then the lawyers consulted and they selected 8 for the trial. The rest of us were sent back to the jury room for further selection.
We were released for lunch, so I went to Reading Terminal. I got a 10% discount because of my Juror badge! I randomly ran into one of our grad students who was eating lunch there with a friend, so I joined them for a pleasant time. Upon return, I was called out for a second jury for a criminal trial this time, but asked to wait. After an hour and a half, we were told that they wouldn't be needed today (either they had reached an agreement or they hadn't gotten to jury selection in the case yet after all). We were then given our checks for $9 and dismissed. The process was overall much more pleasant than last time I was there, but there was still a lot of waiting around. I was ultimately glad not to have been selected for a trial because of the inconvenience, although I would have found it interesting to serve. I did like how the staff and the judges made it clear that it was an honor and a privilege to be part of the process and how they tried to inspire us to think about it in terms of civic duty.
