My jury summons arrived during Spring Quarter. I didn't know about them until the summer. I didn't really do anything about them until early July and, even then, my exemption request was declined. This is likely because my exemption request only covered my nine-week-internship at Fred Hutch which, at that time, was not likely to be extended. Jury duty would severely cut into the time I could spend working at Fred Hutch. On Monday, July 29th, I spent half and hour agonizing over my outfit for jury duty. While dress code is not the most important thing about this civic duty of ours, it is somewhat vague and official governmental programs always seem somewhat stickler about them. The Washington State Courts website says to "dress comfortably" but is not specific about the level of formality required. While a suit and tie are not required, too much informality is not allowed. Furthermore, other sources mention that being underdressed may lead to my dismissal and a date reassignment. As today was the most convenient for me I first hunted for my slacks (fruitlessly) and then decided on a somewhat formal, floral dress in muted colors. When I showed up at 7:30AM, fashionably an hour early due to my fear of being late, I found myself overdressed instead of underdressed. There was a girl seated next to me in a crop top, blue Adidas sweats, and a baseball cap. As uncomfortable as I was in the dress, I was able to relax a little and be certain I wouldn't get kicked out for my outfit.
So began another hour of waiting until the instructional videos were played and then another half hour before I was assigned to a jury panel of 50. After questions about hardship exemptions, that number was cut in about half. Unsurprisingly, the majority of those who received an exemption for hardship were hourly workers who would be unable to make rent or other bills if impaneled (financial hardship). As a result of this, most of the jurors remaining were those of higher socioeconomic status - either a salaried wage or a more steady source of income from a spouse. I note that this makes the jury panel skewed in terms of viewpoints represented. Unfortunately, unless the compensation from jury duty is increased, or it becomes mandatory to pay workers even during jury duty, this socioeconomic baseline is unlikely to change. As a lucky individual who is a student and living with my parents for the summer, I had no financial or welfare hardship which would exempt me from jury duty. I was also interested in learning what jury duty would entail and resigned to being at the Courthouse from 8AM-4:30PM and then heading to Fred Hutch and working until 7 or 8PM for however long a trial lasted. It was at this time that we received some information about the trial we would possibly panel. In my opinion, the defendant's lawyers were better than the plaintiff's. The lawyers were more polite, more organized, and seemed to make more efficient use of their time during voir dire. Somewhat creepily, they also seemed to have more information about the jurors than was presented in the introductions. The plaintiff's lawyer, on the other hand, was somewhat snarky and seemed to waste his time repeating questions and ruffling through his papers. From what I recall: some years ago an accident occurred near the location I-405 and I-5 meet in the north. The defendant alleged that a hit-and-run driver hit her, pushing her into traffic and causing her to hit (at least) one other car, which belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff she hit that day was suing her for damages. Leading questions from the lawyers implied hip injuries, surgery, and chiropractors on the part of the plaintiff. It was at this time I also learned about the "preponderance of the evidence." The jury makes its decision based on whether there is enough evidence to prove one way or the other. Even a 51%/49% split in terms of weight of evidence should be enough to decide the case. And it was at this notion I got stuck and, eventually, dismissed from the jury. Some jurors dismissed other than myself: One lady would not lay blame on one person for any medical costs and instead believed in should be a burden of the state. A dude who had late shifts at work until midnight and had been awake for 19 hours - he would not have been alert enough to serve on a jury. A Microsoft employee who was unable to draw a line at 51% and 49% (like myself). And another student who had been traumatically hit by an inebriated driver on the highway a few years ago. All of these jurors were dismissed earlier than myself. I was dismissed at around 3PM. At this time, after much deliberation, I realized that I would not be able to give judgement in the manner required by the Court. A "preponderance" of evidence, to me, means significantly more, not just 1%. Furthermore, I am always skeptical when large sums of money are being transferred, especially for medical bills. Like Juror #20, I do not believe that people should ever need to pay for medicals bills more than what they actually make, possibly in a year or a lifetime. The addition of monetary compensation into the trial, especially in the high amounts attributed to medical costs, would make me resistant to ruling in favor of the plaintiff unless the evidence was extremely clear. This necessity of mine for the evidence to be obvious does not follow the Court's idea of a "preponderance" and, for that, I raised my card and excused myself.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
July 2020
Categories
All
|