The Adventures of Juror #217

A Side of the Justice System Rarely Looked At

Photo by Tingey Law Firm on Unsplash

I’m one of the few people I know that enjoy jury duty. It isn’t the civic duty aspect of it. I’ve always loved the law since growing up watching “Paper Chase” with John Housman. Being argumentative and detail-oriented, being a lawyer is a career I often wondered about having. I’ve served as a juror twice previously. Once was in Duval County, Florida (Jacksonville) on a Burglary/Grand Theft case with two co-defendants. I was made foreman of the jury, which excluding me, was all-white. The two defendants were white as well. Maybe I was selected as the foreman because I was well-groomed and wearing a suit which was my daily business attire.

Police testimony showed the pair had been under surveillance for some time. At the time of their arrests, one had quite a bit of stolen goods in his apartment; the other had none. Ultimately, we found the one with no stolen goods innocent of both charges. The other defendant was found innocent of burglary but guilty of grand theft. That was all the state had proven despite surveilling the pair for months.

My second experience with jury duty came twenty years later in Orange County, Florida (Orlando). I got picked to serve on the Grand Jury, which met every few weeks for six months. We were presented evidence to determine whether to indict people for first-degree murder and consider whether police officers or public officials engaged in misconduct. There’s a saying that a State Attorney can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich which is mostly true. The average Grand Jury size was eighteen people, and we only needed a two-thirds majority to indict. We mostly went along with the State Attorney’s office recommendations until the time we didn’t.

I was vice-foreman of the Grand Jury. A white doctor was voted the foreman; again, the panel members were all-white besides me: different counties but the same result. The jury selection process seemed random. People were chosen to report for jury duty based on having active driver's licenses. It wasn’t until an appearance in traffic court years later that I observed the process that takes licenses out of the hands of a higher percentage of Black people, making them ineligible for jury selection, making it harder to vote, and more expensive to cash checks in some cases.

One Grand Jury session, the doctor was out, which made me foreman-for-a-day. A case was presented where the Asst. State Attorney Jeff Ashton wanted us to indict a 14-year-old Black boy for first-degree murder because he was an alleged witness to a murder. Their goal was to force him to flip on the actual murdered whom they presumed he knew. We wouldn’t do it and returned a “No True Bill,” which basically tells the Asst. District Attorney to kiss our ass. You might remember the name, Jeff Ashton? He was the primary prosecutor in the infamous Casey Anthony case, where she was found innocent of the murder of her daughter Caylee. When we refused to indict the teenager, Jeff got in my face and said, “We can charge him with second-degree murder without your input.” As best I can recall, I told him to do what he has to do, but we weren’t changing our minds. Mr. Ashton was probably glad to see my six-month term expire. I didn’t miss him either. Ashton failed up to become the State Attorney and was later voted out of office after one four-year term.

In April of 2021, I got a notice I was being called to report to jury duty on May 24, 2021. I was to report to the Orange County Courthouse at 7:30 AM. Parking was available in the garage next door. The last time I served, we had to park blocks away and take a free shuttle. Because of COVID-19, the county required fewer jurors, and they were all able to fit in the next-door parking garage. There was a special line for jurors to pass through the metal detectors. We removed everything from our pockets and our belts. Those that still set off the metal detectors were wanded and patted down. The jury room was on the first floor, so we walked to the check-in area and got our parking validated. Everyone received an ATM card, although only those not still being paid by their employers would actually have their cards loaded for $15 per day of service. We were directed to have a seat until 8:30, when we would be given additional directions.

There was almost enough seating for the 200 or so jurors assembled. Orange County went to great lengths to ensure we were socially distanced. The last few stragglers had to stand. Everyone was masked according to courthouse policy. Promptly at 8:30, a lady came to the front of the stage and directed us to watch a series of videos. They; thanked us for our service, explained the ATM cards, and told us deputies would eventually escort us to our respective courtrooms. If not selected for a trial, we would return to the juror waiting area. Almost all the jurors were in one large waiting area, and I estimated the Black men, of which there were six, including me. A quick check of census statistics suggested there should have been nearly twenty Black men in the crowd. Hmmm?

After the videos, we were directed to wait until the deputies arrived. Finally, at almost 10:00, the first group of thirty was called to line up and be taken to the fourth floor to Courtroom 4-D. We were issued masks (without directions) to replace our own. People were alternately tying the strings on each side together to fir over their ears or tying the top strings and lower set of strings in the back of their heads. An older woman standing in front of me was having trouble, and after asking permission, I tied her mask for her.

Photo by William Spivey

Up until this point, Orange County Courthouse had taken great precautions to ensure we were all masked and socially distanced. Some escalators go to the fourth floor where the courtroom was, but they were blocked after the third floor. The thirty of us plus three or four deputies had to take elevators to the courtroom, where we were packed like sardines. We lined up outside the courtroom and were given assigned seats to match a prearranged seating chart. The judge was standing at a podium in front of the room. There was a table to his right featuring the two prosecuting attorneys. (One white male and a female who appeared either white or Asian). The defense table was to the judges left with a Black male attorney, a white male attorney, and the defendant, a thin Black woman.

The very likable judge introduced himself, gave us initial instructions, and told us what to expect for the day. We were told it was a first-degree murder case expected to last until Friday (he told us this on a Monday). He said the victim was a three-year-old boy. I could feel the mood of the jurors go sour. We would be going through the voir dire process where the attorneys from both sides would interview jurors as they made their selections. We were repeatedly instructed not to research the story and rely on the facts introduced at trial.

The male attorney with the prosecution went first, and frankly, he was likable as well. He divided the room up into left and right sections. Asking prospective jurors to hold up their seat number sign to indicate yes if appropriate or whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement. If you held up your sign, he would cycle back around to expound on his questions. He seemed to be trying to assess if the jurors had any biases that would prevent them from making an impartial judgment.’

Before reporting for jury duty, all the jurors had to fill out a juror questionnaire. The questions were generic, and the prosecution and defense had access to the same answers. They revolved around age, education, employment, and whether or not you had previously served on a jury? The Asst. State Attorney asked me and others that had previously served about their experience and whether or not we were the foreperson. I had served as either the foreman or vice-foreman in my previous jury duty. I would have liked to believe that my experience was a plus, but I got the opposite feeling. In fact, throughout the three hours of his questioning of jurors. I got the impression he was trying to weed out anyone with a spark of independence.

Some of the questions revolved around feelings about the testimony of police officers and whether they would be given additional weight? Others asked whether we thought it unfair if a participant in a crime could be convicted of first-degree murder even though they didn’t commit the murder themselves? I should include that two women were charged with the murder, but only one was on trial. We got no explanation of where the other woman was, though it may come out in the trial itself. We were also asked how we felt about the use of a “snitch,” which suggested the testimony of one would be heard at trial.

As I said before, I like jury duty, and the thought of spending five days on a murder trial didn’t phase me. I was concerned my response regarding previous jury duty hurt my chances, but one of the other questions probably sunk me. The topic was on witness testimony and whether based solely on the testimony of a single witness that “if you believed them,” would we find a defendant guilty? I didn’t volunteer to answer the question but was called on by the prosecutor anyway. I answered that that testimony wasn’t going to come in a vacuum. In this case, the prosecution had already indicated there would be pictures and testimony from several witnesses. I also had my own experience with the unreliability of an eyewitness. I recently witnessed a robbery and couldn’t remember several details with certainty and couldn’t pick anyone out of a photo array. I made a note of the people who indicate that solitary witness would be good enough. Those people were the ones who ultimately got selected by the jury.

There were a couple of other observations I made during the selection process. The defense team didn’t appear to be as good of lawyers as the prosecution. It could be they didn’t have much to work with? Their questioning of potential jurors took about thirty minutes as opposed to the four hours for the prosecution. The primary defense attorney didn’t attempt to establish rapport and was often misleading in restating things the prosecution had said. The impression I got was that if it came down to the lawyering, the defendant didn’t have a chance.

After being dismissed from jury duty, I got to do what I wouldn’t have had I been assigned to the trial, research the case. It’s a sad tale where two women with young children were lovers and lived together with the defendants' mother. Evidence suggests the child had been abused for some time before his death. His mother awoke to hear the defendant and her mother abusing the child for having drunk some milk and eating something without permission. The mother tried to call 911 but was prevented from doing so. The mother threw the child down the hall, where he hurt his neck and began having seizures. He was taken to the hospital, where he later died. The defendant and her mother were charged with first-degree murder and aggravated child abuse. The mother was charged with aggravated child abuse as well; she would ultimately be a witness against the other two.

On Friday, as predicted, there was a verdict in the trial. . . Guilty. I also learned there was quite the ruckus before the trial about whether the prosecution would request the death penalty. One State Attorney had the case taken away from her because she wouldn’t seek the death penalty for anyone due to systemic injustice and the unfair application of the death penalty. The current prosecutor indicated he wouldn’t seek it due to the unlikelihood a jury would unanimously recommend it in a case like this. Reporting after the trial indicated the death penalty might still be sought. The mother had been found incompetent to stand trial, though the prosecution had publicly stated they thought she was faking.

I’m almost sure all the Black potential jurors weren’t selected; I might have missed one. The defendant was hard to sympathize with but didn’t get a jury of her peers. She also didn’t get a jury willing to question the prosecution or the police officers that would testify. I have no reason to believe the verdict wasn’t correct and that the jury followed the law. In Florida, first-degree murder doesn’t require intent if there are aggravating circumstances, including child abuse which is why there was also that charge. While the mother threw the child and apparently caused the death of the boy. Participating in a felony makes you just as guilty according to the law.

The jury selection process, in my opinion, isn’t designed to select those willing or able to do fact-finding or evaluate evidence. The defense was looking for sympathetic people; the prosecution was looking for sheep; I wonder in this polarized age if our jury system is even capable of convicting those who align with us politically or share racist views?

I may never get another chance to serve on a jury. There are age limits, and my previous experience and leadership roles will probably eliminate me. Time will tell.