Civic Duty
So, when I went in for jury duty, I knew the odds were against me serving. It occurred to me it would be like dicing for a rare item in an RPG. So why did I still feel like I'd be called on? I don't know.
Even when I was called to the jury box for more direct questioning, the odds were against it. 14 people to be reduced to 6 jurors. Having basically no experience related to my case, I didn't end up raising my hand much and wasn't asked any questions until the the end - the defense attorney asked where I worked and what I did, something he did of everyone. In the end, though, I proved to be disassociated enough to be one of the six.
Getting to sit through a trial, especially from the perspective of a juror, is interesting, though. For the next day and a half, we listened to testimony for both sides about the lease and tenancy of a commercial property downtown. The plaintiffs were the landlords seeking repayment for a period of time between the departure of the contractually-obligated tenants and the arrival of a new leasee. The defendants argued they tried to get someone to take up the remains of their lease and this party was unreasonably stalled/denied by the landlords, making the lease void.
Almost twenty grand on the line between a few months of rent, plus utilities and taxes.
So there we sat, unable to discuss the case while it was going on, listening to many things being restated. Gah. I have to say, if I ever have to testify in a trial, I'll very much try to keep my answers short. As a juror, I didn't appreciate the long-winded, rambling replies to what were yes/no questions. The plaintiffs' attorney seemed unexperienced (at least at jury trials). The defense attorney seemed... sensational (like the ones you see on TV who try to fluff up what they can and play on the jury's emotions more than fact). The *facts* seemed a bit one-sided. Still, we were instructed not to come to a conclusion until deliberations at the end.
And finally, late this morning, we were given our instructions (including a number of legal definitions) and sent to discuss the matter. The issues boiled down to:
If the defendants 1) left the property prior to the end of the lease and 2) owed money for this time, the plaintiffs were entitled to some or all of what they were asking. This was all-but accepted by both sides, except...
If the plaintiffs 1) received a request for the tenants to sub-lease/assign the remainder of their lease to another and 2) unreasonably denied that request, then they could be considered in breach of the lease prior to the tenants' departure.
The problem is, the defense really didn't prove their case. There were several opposing opinions on how things were handle and, while it did look like a mess to me, there wasn't enough proof to reasonably place the blame on the plaintiffs and their agent. After some very brief discussion, the entire jury agreed to that. So, it was just a matter of what to award the plaintiffs. Not much discussion needed there, either. The lease specified what they would pay, and since the lease was not shown to be broken by the other side, the defendants owed what they would have had they been in the building until new tenants finally did take over.
Unfortunate for one party, but it seemed pretty straightforward. The judge afterward even said both that he would likely have rendered the same verdict and that this should not have been a jury trial to begin with. Too much of it involved straight legal issues. I don't know who requested it be a jury trial, but I can only assume the defense attorney was hoping he could sway us. Sorry, the law is the law.
So, it was two-and-a-half days out of the office, and a learning experience at that. I got the distinct impression the way my mind works was more conducive to focusing on what's relevant to an issue than the way many others do. Though I wasn't foreperson, a couple other jurors asked me to explain issues a few times. That felt good after a couple days of being around people far more chatty than I.
Heh. I probably would make a good judge, but I couldn't do the presentation required of an attorney (which seems to be experience necessary for a judicial position). Ah well. Back to teching.
Even when I was called to the jury box for more direct questioning, the odds were against it. 14 people to be reduced to 6 jurors. Having basically no experience related to my case, I didn't end up raising my hand much and wasn't asked any questions until the the end - the defense attorney asked where I worked and what I did, something he did of everyone. In the end, though, I proved to be disassociated enough to be one of the six.
Getting to sit through a trial, especially from the perspective of a juror, is interesting, though. For the next day and a half, we listened to testimony for both sides about the lease and tenancy of a commercial property downtown. The plaintiffs were the landlords seeking repayment for a period of time between the departure of the contractually-obligated tenants and the arrival of a new leasee. The defendants argued they tried to get someone to take up the remains of their lease and this party was unreasonably stalled/denied by the landlords, making the lease void.
Almost twenty grand on the line between a few months of rent, plus utilities and taxes.
So there we sat, unable to discuss the case while it was going on, listening to many things being restated. Gah. I have to say, if I ever have to testify in a trial, I'll very much try to keep my answers short. As a juror, I didn't appreciate the long-winded, rambling replies to what were yes/no questions. The plaintiffs' attorney seemed unexperienced (at least at jury trials). The defense attorney seemed... sensational (like the ones you see on TV who try to fluff up what they can and play on the jury's emotions more than fact). The *facts* seemed a bit one-sided. Still, we were instructed not to come to a conclusion until deliberations at the end.
And finally, late this morning, we were given our instructions (including a number of legal definitions) and sent to discuss the matter. The issues boiled down to:
If the defendants 1) left the property prior to the end of the lease and 2) owed money for this time, the plaintiffs were entitled to some or all of what they were asking. This was all-but accepted by both sides, except...
If the plaintiffs 1) received a request for the tenants to sub-lease/assign the remainder of their lease to another and 2) unreasonably denied that request, then they could be considered in breach of the lease prior to the tenants' departure.
The problem is, the defense really didn't prove their case. There were several opposing opinions on how things were handle and, while it did look like a mess to me, there wasn't enough proof to reasonably place the blame on the plaintiffs and their agent. After some very brief discussion, the entire jury agreed to that. So, it was just a matter of what to award the plaintiffs. Not much discussion needed there, either. The lease specified what they would pay, and since the lease was not shown to be broken by the other side, the defendants owed what they would have had they been in the building until new tenants finally did take over.
Unfortunate for one party, but it seemed pretty straightforward. The judge afterward even said both that he would likely have rendered the same verdict and that this should not have been a jury trial to begin with. Too much of it involved straight legal issues. I don't know who requested it be a jury trial, but I can only assume the defense attorney was hoping he could sway us. Sorry, the law is the law.
So, it was two-and-a-half days out of the office, and a learning experience at that. I got the distinct impression the way my mind works was more conducive to focusing on what's relevant to an issue than the way many others do. Though I wasn't foreperson, a couple other jurors asked me to explain issues a few times. That felt good after a couple days of being around people far more chatty than I.
Heh. I probably would make a good judge, but I couldn't do the presentation required of an attorney (which seems to be experience necessary for a judicial position). Ah well. Back to teching.
Is it sick and twisted to enjoy jury duty? I'm not saying I liked it more than hanging with friends, or relaxing and watching a movie or whatever... but I also liked the learning experience of it. I enjoyed being a part of the system, and of hearing a case. (I was a juror in a DUI case) Of course, I was happy when it was over, too... I think you'd make an excellent judge- you do fair and impartial well. Welcome back from duty! =)
ReplyDeleteIronically, I think you'd be a very good attorney as well as a good judge. But I think you'd hate it. Some things are like that. I'd probably be an excellent psychologist, but it would kill me.
ReplyDelete