Jury Duty

 

With all the news and social media coverage of the Lindsay Clancy trial, I can’t help but recall my own experience with the judicial system, and my one and only opportunity to serve on a jury. It was not pleasant.

I will spare you all the details. Suffice it to say, we spent four days listening to testimony and two full days in deliberation. Fortunately, we did not have to arrive at a unanimous decision, but ended with a ten to two verdict that satisfied the judge. Unfortunately, I was one of the two dissenting votes, hence my unpleasant experience! I still believe that we got it wrong, and I am still disappointed in the process, mainly due to the fact that my fellow jurors, by and large, seemed willing to vote whichever way they thought would get them out of the duty quicker.

We began deliberations with an initial vote of six to six. There appeared to be two to three on each side who believed strongly on the issue. Sadly, at least half the jurors didn’t seem to care one way or the other. As we went around the table and attempted to explain our positions, this group changed their votes back and forth as they shifted constantly agreeing with the latest argument expressed. Our unofficial votes went nine to three both ways over the next several hours, and we ended the first day back at six to six.

Basically, we were dealing with a property dispute and the main question was whether or not a particular route to the newly purchased property was considered a public road or not. At some point in the early 1900’s, the road had been officially declared a public road and led to a church and a school and was travelled primarily by horse and wagon. It crossed a couple of creeks and served its purpose for many years. Eventually, the community shifted more toward town, the church and school closed and the county ceased to maintain the “road” which no longer appeared on any maps and fell into disuse. In its current state, four-wheelers were needed for most of the route which led to a few hunting leases and not much else. If the road fit the definition of “abandoned” (which it clearly did, IMHO) it would no longer be considered a public road.

Anyway, back to day two of the deliberations!

The most belligerent juror was an older gentleman who declared before leaving on day one, that he would never change his vote and we could all either agree with him or go to hell for all he cared. He had latched onto one remark by one witness that he concluded had settled the matter completely. Whenever anyone questioned his opinion, he would repeat the line and his belief that it had totally made the decision obvious. The problem was that the statement in question had little or nothing to do with the issue at hand. (Again, IMHO.) Under cross examination, the witness had been asked the same question about ten times in a row, worded slightly differently each time, and finally made a semi-sarcastic remark that implied the attorney was an idiot for not seeing something that everyone else found obvious. I felt the same way, at that point.

The old codger took a seat in the corner of the room and refused to sit with the rest of us at the conference table or interact with anyone else on the jury. One of the younger jurors immediately became the man’s sidekick, and soon, the two were planning a hunting trip as soon as we could get this trial over. A true Bromance! The more these two talked, the more it became clear that they were never going to be swayed. Consequently, the wishy-washy group in the middle moved firmly to that side. In the end, one other gentleman and myself maintained our position while the remaining jurors one by one changed their votes. Once the bailiff assured us that a ten to two decision would be acceptable, the last few others flipped pretty quickly. (The bailiff also let slip that the case had already been heard before and ended in a hung jury.)

My frustration was mainly due to the fact that most of the people on the jury didn’t seem to really care one way or the other about the actual case before us. Despite the fact that the property owner at the middle of the lawsuit was a complete jackass, the majority of the jurors “liked his attorney best” and seemed to think that was a legitimate reason for voting the way they did. I was mostly glad that we weren’t required to be unanimous. I could easily have been put in the same position as the poor guy on the Clancy jury. I know that the one juror would have been more than happy to bully me as he had already done several others. He had loudly shouted down several of the women on the jury, including the foreman, a sweet little old lady who had once taught kindergarten. (I promise that’s the truth!) He proudly proclaimed that he had an old truck with four wheel drive that could easily cover the entire length of this “road” including the two creeks one of which had an old sheet of plywood serving as a bridge. (Reportedly, following even a slight rain, the makeshift bridge would sag in the middle and be covered with a couple of feet of water.) About half of this so-called road was a dirt trail about a foot wide that meandered through a forest of trees and was barely visible in the pictures we were shown during the trial. Rarely used, the road had received no attention from the county for last four or five decades.

But thanks to our jury, the road is now legally considered a public road! Good luck trying to drive on it with any normal vehicle, but anyway, I did my duty and voted with a clear conscience regardless of the outcome. And honestly, that’s what should happen on a jury. Discussions may clarify or change opinions, but in the end, each juror should vote based on their own beliefs, not influenced by the vote count or the opinions of the majority. I’m glad that in my case, my vote didn’t cause a hung jury or mistrial, but if it had, I hope that I would have been as steadfast as the lone juror in the Clancy case. Justice shouldn’t come down to which side is the loudest or most willing to bully others to get their way.

Thanks for reading and let me know what you think!