Chomper
07-09-2015, 05:31 PM
So I reported for a Jury Summons in downtown San Antonio yesterday...I'm 23 and I've never done it before. Just wanted to recount my experience for fun. Here goes:
Got there at 8 AM, went to a room with 500 people, listened to a judge speak, broke for break for 30 min, and then got grouped together with 65 other people and led to the 4th floor and the 27th circuit court room.
There we were introduced to our case – a 2nd degree felony with a deadly weapon case, and the prosecutor spoke for about 40 minutes, introducing the case. She was nice but in my opinion a little condescending “You would all agree that you don’t bring a gun to a fist fight...”
At the end of her speech she was gauging if everyone would be okay with certain things in the trial. The last subject she mentioned was punishment, telling us that if convicted the punishment could range from 2-20 years in prison.
This is when I spoke up. I had been waiting for my opportunity and this was the issue I’d decided to take a stand on. I had kept quiet up to this point even though others had already made their own modest objections.
Here’s what I said.
“I have a problem with that. Prison, I can’t do prison. No.”
She kind of nodded and asked something else to the group and somewhat directed towards me, something about being okay with probation in lue of prison or something but I ignored it continuing to shake my head no when she said the word prison again.
“Number 22, you’re still shaking you’re head no”
“No prison. I can’t do it if it involves prison.”
That was it. She said okay. From that point on I knew was officially axed from the prosecution. It's funny because a couple people immediately realized what I was doing, and they piped up: “yeah, prison, that’s rough.”
It even got the prosecutor talking about probation instead of prison, and if everyone would be okay with “2 years of prison with probation.” Whether they would accept that or not or if that was just too lenient (She clearly thought so, but I guess that’s the bare minimum she would accept). 90% said that they would consider that. But since I said I wouldn’t even consider prison, and a conviction without prison was something she didn’t offer out there to people, I knew I was golden as far as not making the jury.
So at 12:20 we took an hour and 10 minute lunch break, and I knew I was pretty much done for the day, but I’d be stuck here another 5 hours because the defense hadn't even spoke yet and then the interview process hadn't begun.
After we got back from break we listened to the slimy Defense attorney, who claimed his client shot the victim in self-defense. But very few details were discussed, and he was never clear whether the victim was just threatening or whether he physically attacked the defendant. To him it didn’t seem to matter, and although he was a total grease ball, he was far better at ‘pleasing the crowd’ with his banter and wit than the woman prosecutor. Until reading about the case afterwards on google, I thought his client might actually win. But no, clearly the guy is a scumbag who provoked the fight, and the victim never touched him – and only took his shirt off and looked ready to fight, whereby the defendant shot him twice in the chest and drove off. If any of these details had been present in that room for 8 hours…uhh yeah.
So anyways, lemme talk a little bit about the case in detail.
The prosecutor kept alluding to the fact that they didn’t have the gun, that they had no video or hardcore DNA evidence or anything, and that the testimony of the witnesses was going to be their primary trump card. Which was pretty weak if you ask me. Seriously, they couldn’t get the gun?
The DA kept trying to establish and ram down our throats the notion of what self-defense is. He kept claiming that it’s in the defendants mind to determine whether he feels his life is threatened, not anyone else’s. So the shooter is judge and jury? Lol.
The DA also wanted to know if anyone would hold it against his client if he refused to testify. A few people said they’d like him to, but nobody said they would hold it against him. Personally, I would have. You face 20 years in prison and you’re not going to defend yourself? Then you’re guilty. But it was very clear that the DA was letting us know that the defendant had no intention whatsoever of taking the stand.
Back to our timeline! Okay, so after the DA rests we listen to the prosecution again, this time to her assistant, who is going to go down the number of juror’s starting with 1 and asking each of them a few questions, then the DA will ask the same people a few questions, and they’ll decide whether to pass (accept consideration) or nix a juror. Voir Dire everyone!
1…2…3… all were asked questions. All boring responses and all were considered for the jury (morons!). #4 they passed on (no questions) because he was an older man who had spoken up a lot and seemed to know a lot about the law. He was a leader type and they can’t stand leader types – they want to be the leaders. So they both thanked him and moved on to #5. They did the same thing with another person around #11, thanked him and moved on to #12. They asked everyone a host of questions from #12-21…and then they got to me.
“We have no questions for #22.” Said the prosecution. Everyone in the courtroom laughed. They knew I had played my hand well and was home free.
The DA nodded. Clear acceptance that he wasn’t going to get me and that the prosecution had just formally axed me ( though he probably knew that hours ago).
I must admit I was actually a little disappointed. I had been sitting there for an hour thinking about what I was going to say. I’m glad what I said before was enough for the prosecution to ax me because I was actually going to go after the DA this time on a few of the questions he was asking people. He had this stupid ass 1-5 strongly agree or strongly disagree overhead questionnaire on the screen, and everyone answered the exact same which was “strongly agree on all points.” I of course, intended to strongly disagree on at least 2 of them, 1 of which said that if you felt your life was threatened then you had the right to point a gun at someone. I was going to say “Threatened? No. If you’re being attacked, then yes, you have a right, but just threatened? No way. Run away.”
I’m sure he’s glad I didn’t speak. Frankly, I saw it as a way to get axed by both him AND the prosecution. But, alas!
They moved on. And proceeded to ask everyone else questions until they reached #50, when we broke for break.
During this time I was a little frustrated because #1, I had to sit there for 2 straight hours (each person took 5 minutes each to answer the prosecutor and DA’s questions) and I knew I was already out so what’s the point of me having to stay there?
And #2, a lot of people were beginning to worm their way out of consideration from the jury by less nefarious means than I had.
“I’m going on vacation tomorrow or in the next few days.” This was used at least 5 times.
“I had a friend who was involved in a similar incident and I don’t think I’d be entirely comfortable sorry.” -3 people
And they were all granted immediate amnesty. “Thank you, no more questions for you then.” Axed.
And I’m thinking. Well goddammit if I could’ve just said that and saved myself some embarrassment then…
But maybe their “scheduling conflict” is being noted by the court reporter (there was 1) and they'll be rescheduled for Jury duty soon and won’t be taken off the list for their service today. That is possible. The attorneys of course were done with them when they said they had a scheduling conflict – they’re not going to be around for their trial so yeah, cya, but the court might have other plans.
Same with the people who had a friend involved in a “similar incident”. Even the attorneys said “Well, for you then, another case, another time.”
So I’m thinking my way actually was the best way since those people might be screwed in the long run. Imagine. They didn’t get picked today…but they were there from 8-5:30 and might be rescheduled for next week because at 5:00 they said they had a scheduling conflict. LMAO.
Then again maybe not because the system is a mess and those people may never be heard from again and might even fight if the court tried to get them to serve again etc. They probably just leave those people alone but you never know for sure.
Okay! So to the conclusion.
So were all called back into the Jury room around 5:05. And they immediately tell us that they have no more questions as they have their Jury (so it’s going to be 14 of the 50 people they did talk to, which makes me slightly nervous.)
They call the names slowly. I’m pretty confident, but I’m still listening intently for my name. I’m not called. Relief. 10 of the 14 who were were women. Almost all were Mexicans. The reasons they got picked were simple. Because they never raised any objections, were quiet, and promised to be fair jurors. Specifically, when they were asked if they were to be picked whether they would be good juror who would be fair and just they said yes. Mostly because they were too weak to say no and were trying to be good troopers. Oh well, sucks to be them!
Anyone have any good Voire Dire experiences? Anything you said to make sure you wouldn't make a Jury? I mean for me it felt like a wasted day but at least it was an intriguing experience.
Got there at 8 AM, went to a room with 500 people, listened to a judge speak, broke for break for 30 min, and then got grouped together with 65 other people and led to the 4th floor and the 27th circuit court room.
There we were introduced to our case – a 2nd degree felony with a deadly weapon case, and the prosecutor spoke for about 40 minutes, introducing the case. She was nice but in my opinion a little condescending “You would all agree that you don’t bring a gun to a fist fight...”
At the end of her speech she was gauging if everyone would be okay with certain things in the trial. The last subject she mentioned was punishment, telling us that if convicted the punishment could range from 2-20 years in prison.
This is when I spoke up. I had been waiting for my opportunity and this was the issue I’d decided to take a stand on. I had kept quiet up to this point even though others had already made their own modest objections.
Here’s what I said.
“I have a problem with that. Prison, I can’t do prison. No.”
She kind of nodded and asked something else to the group and somewhat directed towards me, something about being okay with probation in lue of prison or something but I ignored it continuing to shake my head no when she said the word prison again.
“Number 22, you’re still shaking you’re head no”
“No prison. I can’t do it if it involves prison.”
That was it. She said okay. From that point on I knew was officially axed from the prosecution. It's funny because a couple people immediately realized what I was doing, and they piped up: “yeah, prison, that’s rough.”
It even got the prosecutor talking about probation instead of prison, and if everyone would be okay with “2 years of prison with probation.” Whether they would accept that or not or if that was just too lenient (She clearly thought so, but I guess that’s the bare minimum she would accept). 90% said that they would consider that. But since I said I wouldn’t even consider prison, and a conviction without prison was something she didn’t offer out there to people, I knew I was golden as far as not making the jury.
So at 12:20 we took an hour and 10 minute lunch break, and I knew I was pretty much done for the day, but I’d be stuck here another 5 hours because the defense hadn't even spoke yet and then the interview process hadn't begun.
After we got back from break we listened to the slimy Defense attorney, who claimed his client shot the victim in self-defense. But very few details were discussed, and he was never clear whether the victim was just threatening or whether he physically attacked the defendant. To him it didn’t seem to matter, and although he was a total grease ball, he was far better at ‘pleasing the crowd’ with his banter and wit than the woman prosecutor. Until reading about the case afterwards on google, I thought his client might actually win. But no, clearly the guy is a scumbag who provoked the fight, and the victim never touched him – and only took his shirt off and looked ready to fight, whereby the defendant shot him twice in the chest and drove off. If any of these details had been present in that room for 8 hours…uhh yeah.
So anyways, lemme talk a little bit about the case in detail.
The prosecutor kept alluding to the fact that they didn’t have the gun, that they had no video or hardcore DNA evidence or anything, and that the testimony of the witnesses was going to be their primary trump card. Which was pretty weak if you ask me. Seriously, they couldn’t get the gun?
The DA kept trying to establish and ram down our throats the notion of what self-defense is. He kept claiming that it’s in the defendants mind to determine whether he feels his life is threatened, not anyone else’s. So the shooter is judge and jury? Lol.
The DA also wanted to know if anyone would hold it against his client if he refused to testify. A few people said they’d like him to, but nobody said they would hold it against him. Personally, I would have. You face 20 years in prison and you’re not going to defend yourself? Then you’re guilty. But it was very clear that the DA was letting us know that the defendant had no intention whatsoever of taking the stand.
Back to our timeline! Okay, so after the DA rests we listen to the prosecution again, this time to her assistant, who is going to go down the number of juror’s starting with 1 and asking each of them a few questions, then the DA will ask the same people a few questions, and they’ll decide whether to pass (accept consideration) or nix a juror. Voir Dire everyone!
1…2…3… all were asked questions. All boring responses and all were considered for the jury (morons!). #4 they passed on (no questions) because he was an older man who had spoken up a lot and seemed to know a lot about the law. He was a leader type and they can’t stand leader types – they want to be the leaders. So they both thanked him and moved on to #5. They did the same thing with another person around #11, thanked him and moved on to #12. They asked everyone a host of questions from #12-21…and then they got to me.
“We have no questions for #22.” Said the prosecution. Everyone in the courtroom laughed. They knew I had played my hand well and was home free.
The DA nodded. Clear acceptance that he wasn’t going to get me and that the prosecution had just formally axed me ( though he probably knew that hours ago).
I must admit I was actually a little disappointed. I had been sitting there for an hour thinking about what I was going to say. I’m glad what I said before was enough for the prosecution to ax me because I was actually going to go after the DA this time on a few of the questions he was asking people. He had this stupid ass 1-5 strongly agree or strongly disagree overhead questionnaire on the screen, and everyone answered the exact same which was “strongly agree on all points.” I of course, intended to strongly disagree on at least 2 of them, 1 of which said that if you felt your life was threatened then you had the right to point a gun at someone. I was going to say “Threatened? No. If you’re being attacked, then yes, you have a right, but just threatened? No way. Run away.”
I’m sure he’s glad I didn’t speak. Frankly, I saw it as a way to get axed by both him AND the prosecution. But, alas!
They moved on. And proceeded to ask everyone else questions until they reached #50, when we broke for break.
During this time I was a little frustrated because #1, I had to sit there for 2 straight hours (each person took 5 minutes each to answer the prosecutor and DA’s questions) and I knew I was already out so what’s the point of me having to stay there?
And #2, a lot of people were beginning to worm their way out of consideration from the jury by less nefarious means than I had.
“I’m going on vacation tomorrow or in the next few days.” This was used at least 5 times.
“I had a friend who was involved in a similar incident and I don’t think I’d be entirely comfortable sorry.” -3 people
And they were all granted immediate amnesty. “Thank you, no more questions for you then.” Axed.
And I’m thinking. Well goddammit if I could’ve just said that and saved myself some embarrassment then…
But maybe their “scheduling conflict” is being noted by the court reporter (there was 1) and they'll be rescheduled for Jury duty soon and won’t be taken off the list for their service today. That is possible. The attorneys of course were done with them when they said they had a scheduling conflict – they’re not going to be around for their trial so yeah, cya, but the court might have other plans.
Same with the people who had a friend involved in a “similar incident”. Even the attorneys said “Well, for you then, another case, another time.”
So I’m thinking my way actually was the best way since those people might be screwed in the long run. Imagine. They didn’t get picked today…but they were there from 8-5:30 and might be rescheduled for next week because at 5:00 they said they had a scheduling conflict. LMAO.
Then again maybe not because the system is a mess and those people may never be heard from again and might even fight if the court tried to get them to serve again etc. They probably just leave those people alone but you never know for sure.
Okay! So to the conclusion.
So were all called back into the Jury room around 5:05. And they immediately tell us that they have no more questions as they have their Jury (so it’s going to be 14 of the 50 people they did talk to, which makes me slightly nervous.)
They call the names slowly. I’m pretty confident, but I’m still listening intently for my name. I’m not called. Relief. 10 of the 14 who were were women. Almost all were Mexicans. The reasons they got picked were simple. Because they never raised any objections, were quiet, and promised to be fair jurors. Specifically, when they were asked if they were to be picked whether they would be good juror who would be fair and just they said yes. Mostly because they were too weak to say no and were trying to be good troopers. Oh well, sucks to be them!
Anyone have any good Voire Dire experiences? Anything you said to make sure you wouldn't make a Jury? I mean for me it felt like a wasted day but at least it was an intriguing experience.