Juror Furor

The recent tonnage of air time and print space blasted by media outlets regarding the Casey Anthony trial in Florida offers fuel for thought on so many levels.  An abundance of pathos, drama, anger, distrust and sanctimony spilled over in the flotsam and jetsam of opinions surrounding the result.  The decision jurors made to delay speaking out after outrage over the verdict reverberated around and beyond the Orlando courthouse held my attention.  These citizens served and suddenly, and I imagine unexpectedly, were afraid for their safety. 

I started thinking about about jury duty.  Especially about the word 'duty.'

Voting is a duty and privilege. According to  the US Census Bureau, of the 71 percent of registered voters in 2008, 64 percent actually voted.  Not stellar. "In November 2008, of the 225 million people who were 18 and older (in the US), 206 million were citizens, and 146 million were registered. In the November election, 131 million people voted," cites an agency report.  (It does make me wince to see that 30 percent of those who are eligible to vote are not registered.) 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

Serving on a jury is also a duty and privilege, yet I think it is safe to suggest that many voters see it as a major inconvenience.  I admit, each time I have seen that letter in the mail for jury duty, my first thought was neither duty nor privilege.  I did serve. More importantly, I learned.

My first jury experience consisted of a day-long sit fest with one or two interruptions for questioning.  I was a 'juror in waiting' and have two specific memories: the courteous government workers and the diverse, random pool of potential jurors.  

It is my second encounter that rankled me while opening my jaded eyes. The case was in federal court, specifically the US District Court, Eastern District of PA and it was compelling.  A 40 year old woman lost her eye in an accident involving an orange, heavy duty extension cord.  She was suing the cord manufacturer claiming a lack of safety devices on the product.  The woman had her hedge clipper plugged into the 50 ft. cord which was attached to an outlet by her home.  While trimming her hedge, she tugged hard on the cord to untangle it while it was still connected to the outlet. The extension cord plug became detached from the clipper and flew into the air landing on her face.  One of the cord prongs hit her eye causing severe injury, resulting in her losing the eye.

Listening to both sides present their case, we were always aware of the victim's loss. In the end, after a few hours of deliberation, we did not find the cord manufacturer at fault. I was the jury foreman and recall that not only did every juror agree with the decision, but each one equally agreed to writing a group statement describing how we felt about the woman's awful accident. We drafted a brief statement which I read before the verdict was given. In it we explained that the verdict did not in any way dilute our understanding of or sympathy for the woman's life changing loss.  However, the accident, while horrific, was not the fault of the manufacturer. 

The jury met its human duty by empathizing with and acknowledging recognition of the pain and suffering felt by the victim; however, it was only the civic duty that we were charged to deliver and we met that sole responsibility.  I think of that woman every winter when I connect outdoor holiday lights using  some orange extension cords and feel sad for her but satisfied with our decision. 

A few more 'juror in waiting' experiences have come my way but there was one other time I was selected to be a jury member.  I am embarrassed to say I forget the details of the civil case in the county courthouse but vividly remember how much the judge valued jury service.  My oldest daughter was a toddler and had a bad cold that unexpectedly evolved into her spiking a high fever while I was in court.  I received a message to call my sitter. The judge stopped the case, graciously invited me into his chamber to make the call. He was indulgent as he assured me to take all the time I needed.   I witnessed this same judge eviscerate both attorneys during jury selection and pound them relentlessly when they often veered from proper use of court time. He was bloodthirsty when either attorney slipped up.  But when it came to the jury, he was cordial to the point of saccharine and consistently reminded the court how highly he valued the jury's role in the process.

He played a dual feline role with such finesse i.e. he was simultaneously a legal tiger and parental pussycat.  He was a show unto himself and I was pleased to be on the receiving end of the pussycat's attention.  

Upon returning to the jury box after talking with the sitter, I felt a bit sheepish, but grateful for the time to handle the pressing issue at home.  The judge decided to take frequent recesses that day insisting that I call home each time so I could have piece of mind. He used this circumstance each time to remind everyone in court how seriously he saw the jury's role.  While our duty was to the entire case, he confirmed that his duty was to us. 

I remember one discussion in the jury room. The topic was the judge's demeanor and deference to the jury.  In our eyes, he was a legal lion and had our unified respect. He made us all feel special for serving.   We were glad to do our duty.

The Oxford Dictionary defines duty as: a moral or legal obligation. This suggests one is differentiated from the other. Once the or is replaced with and, the meaning is expanded and I feel this is where the Orlando jurors became unwitting targets in a horrible and disturbing murder case.  Amid the furor, I believe the jury members met their legal obligation as described by the court. 

Case closed.