Role Reversal: In the Jury Box

The last couple days have been a bit of a whirlwind and had me playing roles I never expected.

On Tuesday, after years of covering trials for daily newspapers and appellate courts for the legal press, I was actually seated as a juror.

I don’t think anyone was more surprised that I was seated, except maybe the judge (who told me so after we reached our verdict today in a DUI trial).

It was an educational and humbling experience to sit as a juror. I considered it as much an honor as my civic duty, though I’m not sure there is a busier week for me at work.

I learned a few things about the jury process and the criminal justice system during my service. Just a few random observations:

– There are a lot of drinkers in our society. Out of more than 30 prospective jurors selected for voir dire from the venire, only 1 was a non drinker. All of the others drank, at least on occasion. And all admitted that they had, at one time, had a drink before getting behind the wheel of a car.

– There are a whole lot of victims of property crimes and they rarely see justice. I’d say the vast majority of those questioned were either personally victims of residential burglaries (plus home invasions and muggings) or were very close to someone who was. In all the cases I recall being discussed, none of the burglars were apprehended.

– Being a legal affairs reporter, lawyer or longtime paralegal won’t get you excused from jury service. We were all empaneled on this particular case.

– That when an officer flips on his lights, the in-car camera recording starts a full 30 seconds before being automatically or manually activated. Apparently the cameras are always on, but not recording until activated.

– Cook County is a really accommodating place to be called into jury service. We were given lunch, snacks (albeit an unhealthy mix), and treated with care and respect by the deputies, lawyers and the judge. The One Day, One Trial process takes quite a bit of the mystery out of the service.

This was an important role and one I would never take lightly. Our panel made a unanimous decision that, no way around it, wasn’t easy to make, even though we reached it fairly quickly. There were people to believe on both sides, lawyers to critique and be swayed by on both sides. But in the end, in this case, there just wasn’t enough evidence to convince us of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will say, had there not been video, it’s likely the verdict would have been different. That was surprising to me. I was surprised how much a squad-car video made a difference, surprised even though the police officer who testified was very professional, likable and, even, believable.

Still, after viewing and reviewing the video, there was very little doubt that there just wasn’t enough of a case to convict. There were too many questions. Too many inconsistencies. And, well, too much doubt. Certainly none of us felt comfortable that the state had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.