A Trip to District Court

Having received a summons in the mail to appear at the Judicial Court for jury selection, necessary preparations were made to lay aside my duties so that nothing would interfere with this call to civil service. And so it was that I, as well as some other citizens of this county appeared at the courthouse on a Monday morning.

The first business of the court was to call the role of the prospective jurors. Not having kept count, the tally cannot be sworn to, but it is safe to say that of the one hundred plus citizen's called to jury duty, at least 10 to 15 did not bother to show up. Worse still, of the ones that did present themselves for consideration, at least twenty percent were actively engaged in trying to be excused from service. But wait, I do get ahead of myself.

After the role call, the potential jurists were dismissed for a quick recess and then returned to be seated in a sequence that would allow the district attorney and the defense to identify them by name. Thus began the day, an hour spent in discerning the respondents to the summons and their identification. Not once during this entire time did the bailiff introduce the judge nor was the court ordered to stand as he entered and exited the courtroom.

Having been seated in order, the judge called the court to order and turned over the floor to a pair of assistant district attorneys. The attorney for the state, stood in front of the potential jurists and with warmth addressed the group light heartedly trying to convey a sense of candor and casual acquaintance. She began by explaining the obvious to the panel while skirting any direct information about the alleged crime. She bordered on giving the evidence in more than one instance. And her questions seemed to relate the state's case, obvious to some, not so to some others.

Questions were then asked of the entire panel, which were summarily answered with raised hands and then individually answered by those whose hands had been raised. It was here that it became obvious that there were many in the panel diligently seeking a way out of this important service in the legal process. Some indicated that they would find it less than palatable if they spent time analyzing the evidence, only to be denied the ability to pass sentence should they find the defendant guilty. Still others indicated that they would weigh the testimony of a law enforcement officer as impeccable, in spite of any contradictory evidence.

A small portion of the jury panel had reasonable reservations as to their ability to deliver an impartial verdict, having been affected by a similar crime or perhaps knowing the defendant and/or his family in this particular case. Indeed, many answers to the questions proffered by this young assistant district attorney seemed to be earnest, but some were blatantly aimed at being removed from qualification to serve as a jurist in this case. And those who were aggressively seeking this dismissal were obviously not of the caliber that I would wish to have deciding my fate in a criminal courtroom.

This is not a big surprise, as I have often heard others tell of how they would try to escape jury duty if called. And a juror's job is not to determine the punishment unless called upon by the defendant to do so, but rather to weigh the evidence, decide on the merits of the case presented, and deliver a verdict of guilt or innocence based on the evidence and testimony heard in the courtroom. And most importantly, for this is the basic foundation that allows our system to function, to determine guilt only if a reasonable doubt has not been shown.

The average citizen is well suited to serve as a juror, and it has been my past experience that when confronted with something they do not understand, questions will be asked to clarify any definitions. The young assistant district attorney actually took the presumption that the majority did not understand the meaning of words such as, impartiality, reasonable, and intent. It was obvious that some on the jury panel felt as if they were being treated as ignorant about the laws of our state. It was especially obvious that the word partiality and impartiality were more confusing to the learned young attorney, than to the citizen's seated in front of her, as she misused the terms on more than one occasion during her attempt to find the right jurors for this case.

Next it was the defense attorney's turn to question the potential jurors. A young man, representing his client in a criminal drug case, his questions were short, to the point, and perhaps not enough. Were it I who was facing the prospect of being convicted of a crime, more effort would have been expected. On the other hand, perhaps this able counselor felt that he might alienate the potential jurors if he used more time as the prosecutor's team had already used an hour of the day in voir dire.

Once again we were all dismissed for a short recess and it was requested that we return at a specific time for the jury panel to be selected. Upon our return to the courtroom, several individuals were called to the judge's bench to be questioned about their responses during the voir dire. All were returned to the courts seating to await the choices of the counselors. Eventually the names of twelve jurors were called to serve in this criminal case. A panel had now been selected to hear the evidence presented and the judge thanked all of us for responding to our summons and we were summarily dismissed.

As we left the courthouse, many were happy that they had been dismissed from duty. Feeling that they had much more important things to do with their time, they hastily retreated to other places to renew their lives. Once again free to return to the hustle and bustle of ordinary workings. Perhaps a few were even planning to slip away to their home, having been freed from their work duties for the day. It was only noon, and that left half a day to run and play for some.

A friend once indicated that he regretted that he had never been called for jury duty by summons, and had never had the opportunity to serve as a juror. With great pride, he then displayed his voter's registration and recalled voting in every election. Federal, State and Local. I have had the opportunity, and it is with great pride that I served and will serve again if called. Hopefully my old friend will never have to witness the disturbing behavior that was observed in our courthouse.

One must wonder at this incredible display of our citizenry. Do they not understand that this court system, while not perfect by any means, is the best and most fair of any nation? And is it not even more obvious that the only reason that it works is that we are allowed the choice to have the merits of the evidence judged by a group of our peers?

One day, any one of us could find ourselves accused of some offense, wrong or right in accusation, the choice still is there to be judged by your peers. How frightening it is that your peers are much to busy to be concerned with participating in our judicial system. How frightening it is that there are so few who are willing to spend a little time to see that true justice is done.

How appalling it was to view the courtroom eroded to casual considerations without honoring the judge as he entered and left the courtroom. In addition, when was it that we began swearing an oath without the presence of the Holy Bible? To whom are we swearing the oath? Perhaps as I age, my mind grows feeble and infirm, for I distinctly remember that all oaths, which I have ever taken for service to my country, ended with the words, “so help me God”.

Our country is sinking slowly into muck, and we the citizenry are to blame. Respect for our once hallowed institutions has been replaced with disdain. A review of the past will not help, for it is the future that is in danger. Not just the judicial system, but also every institution from the lowest rung, to the top echelon. Need you be reminded of the travesties in the oval office, or more recently, the dereliction of duty by the legislators running away from our state to avoid confronting an issue?

It is we; the citizen's who allow this. We allow these things to occur because we do not show respect for these important institutions, and we allow these things to occur, because we cannot be bothered with voicing our dissatisfaction with the status quo of our present time.

Yes, my friends and neighbors, it is obvious that unless it is in your home at this instance, you really don't care. Why should you be burdened with things that are not directly related to you? One day though, it will be in your home, because you did not care and weren't willing to take the time to do your civic duty. Slowly, but surely we are giving away our civil rights because we are too busy to be burdened with our civic duty.


	A Trip to the District Court Having received a summons in the mail to appear at the Judicial Court for jury selection, necessary preparations were made to lay aside my duties so that nothing would interfere with this call to civil service. And so it was that I, as well as some other citizens of this county appeared at the courthouse on a Monday morning. The first business of the court was to call the role of the prospective jurors. Not having kept count, the tally cannot be sworn to, but it is safe to say that of the one hundred plus citizen's called to jury duty, at least 10 to 15 did not bother to show up. Worse still, of the ones that did present themselves for consideration, at least twenty percent were actively engaged in trying to be excused from service. But wait, I do get ahead of myself. After the role call, the potential jurists were dismissed for a quick recess and then returned to be seated in a sequence that would allow the district attorney and the defense to identify them by name. Thus began the day, an hour spent in discerning the respondents to the summons and their identification. Not once during this entire time did the bailiff introduce the judge nor was the court ordered to stand as he entered and exited the courtroom. Having been seated in order, the judge called the court to order and turned over the floor to a pair of assistant district attorneys. The attorney for the state, stood in front of the potential jurists and with warmth addressed the group light heartedly trying to convey a sense of candor and casual acquaintance. She began by explaining the obvious to the panel while skirting any direct information about the alleged crime. She bordered on giving the evidence in more than one instance. And her questions seemed to relate the state's case, obvious to some, not so to some others. Questions were then asked of the entire panel, which were summarily answered with raised hands and then individually answered by those whose hands had been raised. It was here that it became obvious that there were many in the panel diligently seeking a way out of this important service in the legal process. Some indicated that they would find it less than palatable if they spent time analyzing the evidence, only to be denied the ability to pass sentence should they find the defendant guilty. Still others indicated that they would weigh the testimony of a law enforcement officer as impeccable, in spite of any contradictory evidence. A small portion of the jury panel had reasonable reservations as to their ability to deliver an impartial verdict, having been affected by a similar crime or perhaps knowing the defendant and/or his family in this particular case. Indeed, many answers to the questions proffered by this young assistant district attorney seemed to be earnest, but some were blatantly aimed at being removed from qualification to serve as a jurist in this case. And those who were aggressively seeking this dismissal were obviously not of the caliber that I would wish to have deciding my fate in a criminal courtroom. This is not a big surprise, as I have often heard others tell of how they would try to escape jury duty if called. And a juror's job is not to determine the punishment unless called upon by the defendant to do so, but rather to weigh the evidence, decide on the merits of the case presented, and deliver a verdict of guilt or innocence based on the evidence and testimony heard in the courtroom. And most importantly, for this is the basic foundation that allows our system to function, to determine guilt only if a reasonable doubt has not been shown. The average citizen is well suited to serve as a juror, and it has been my past experience that when confronted with something they do not understand, questions will be asked to clarify any definitions. The young assistant district attorney actually took the presumption that the majority did not understand the meaning of words such as, impartiality, reasonable, and intent. It was obvious that some on the jury panel felt as if they were being treated as ignorant about the laws of our state. It was especially obvious that the word partiality and impartiality were more confusing to the learned young attorney, than to the citizen's seated in front of her, as she misused the terms on more than one occasion during her attempt to find the right jurors for this case. Next it was the defense attorney's turn to question the potential jurors. A young man, representing his client in a criminal drug case, his questions were short, to the point, and perhaps not enough. Were it I who was facing the prospect of being convicted of a crime, more effort would have been expected. On the other hand, perhaps this able counselor felt that he might alienate the potential jurors if he used more time as the prosecutor's team had already used an hour of the day in voir dire. Once again we were all dismissed for a short recess and it was requested that we return at a specific time for the jury panel to be selected. Upon our return to the courtroom, several individuals were called to the judge's bench to be questioned about their responses during the voir dire. All were returned to the courts seating to await the choices of the counselors. Eventually the names of twelve jurors were called to serve in this criminal case. A panel had now been selected to hear the evidence presented and the judge thanked all of us for responding to our summons and we were summarily dismissed. As we left the courthouse, many were happy that they had been dismissed from duty. Feeling that they had much more important things to do with their time, they hastily retreated to other places to renew their lives. Once again free to return to the hustle and bustle of ordinary workings. Perhaps a few were even planning to slip away to their home, having been freed from their work duties for the day. It was only noon, and that left half a day to run and play for some. A friend once indicated that he regretted that he had never been called for jury duty by summons, and had never had the opportunity to serve as a juror. With great pride, he then displayed his voter's registration and recalled voting in every election. Federal, State and Local. I have had the opportunity, and it is with great pride that I served and will serve again if called. Hopefully my old friend will never have to witness the disturbing behavior that was observed in our courthouse. One must wonder at this incredible display of our citizenry. Do they not understand that this court system, while not perfect by any means, is the best and most fair of any nation? And is it not even more obvious that the only reason that it works is that we are allowed the choice to have the merits of the evidence judged by a group of our peers? One day, any one of us could find ourselves accused of some offense, wrong or right in accusation, the choice still is there to be judged by your peers. How frightening it is that your peers are much to busy to be concerned with participating in our judicial system. How frightening it is that there are so few who are willing to spend a little time to see that true justice is done. How appalling it was to view the courtroom eroded to casual considerations without honoring the judge as he entered and left the courtroom. In addition, when was it that we began swearing an oath without the presence of the Holy Bible? To whom are we swearing the oath? Perhaps as I age, my mind grows feeble and infirm, for I distinctly remember that all oaths, which I have ever taken for service to my country, ended with the words, “so help me God”. Our country is sinking slowly into muck, and we the citizenry are to blame. Respect for our once hallowed institutions has been replaced with disdain. A review of the past will not help, for it is the future that is in danger. Not just the judicial system, but also every institution from the lowest rung, to the top echelon. Need you be reminded of the travesties in the oval office, or more recently, the dereliction of duty by the legislators running away from our state to avoid confronting an issue? It is we; the citizen's who allow this. We allow these things to occur because we do not show respect for these important institutions, and we allow these things to occur, because we cannot be bothered with voicing our dissatisfaction with the status quo of our present time. Yes, my friends and neighbors, it is obvious that unless it is in your home at this instance, you really don't care. Why should you be burdened with things that are not directly related to you? One day though, it will be in your home, because you did not care and weren't willing to take the time to do your civic duty. Slowly, but surely we are giving away our civil rights because we are too busy to be burdened with our civic duty. Abram H. Hall © Copyright 2004 HOME