Jury Duty: A Tale of Two States
Life’s opportunities have kept me moving such that I’ve been posting life and not writing about it!
A recent life “moment” for me was jury duty in Texas’ 299th District Court in front of the Honorable Charlie Baird. The day was quite a bit different from the selection process for a jury I served on in a 2005 murder trial in Sacramento, CA.
So, of course, it got me thinking about the customer-centricity of civil service on a jury (I’m weird that way). Can it be done in a way that meets the needs of the state while respecting the needs of the citizens? Texas has a very different approach than California. But both have citizen-centric elements to their process.
First, Texas. The process starts with a way cool online system for you to acknowledge receipt of the summons, selection of available dates, and assignment to a court and a specific starting date. I was impressed and figured the experience at the court room would be as efficient, and as focused on making it easy for me to do my duty. Well, not so much.
The day started in the courtroom lobby as we were all lined up and given specific numbers. The first 24 were asked to stand in line, but then we were asked to sit back down as we waited almost an hour for any stragglers. One showed. Then we were back in line again and took our seats in the court room.
The selection process in Judge Baird’s court room was very Texas: mostly polite, lots of talking, and very long. We listened to an hour of instructions from Judge Baird, then we listened to more than an hour of what was supposed to be questions from the prosecutor. In reality, we were hearing part of her case in the child abuse trial about to start — and occasionally a few questions made it out. Still, up to this point noone has been dismissed, we’re all there for the long haul.
Following a 90-minute lunch break, we reconvened to hear almost 90 minutes, or more, of the defense attorney rail into us about the corrupt political, legal, and law enforcement system in the US and how people like him are there to rescue the little guy. His tirade, speeches, and general approach included even fewer questions than the prosecutor. It was crazy. Many of us were looking around wondering if we were going to be asked any questions to help select the jury.
We waited another 45 minutes outside while the judge listened to individual concerns about serving on the jury. Then we returned. Still, noone has been let go except for the doctor who early on said he knew a witness in the case and couldn’t be impartial. The rest of us were stuck as the attorneys did their final selection.
Finally, at 6PM the judge read the numbers of 13 jurors and it was over. The rest of us were free to leave.
Contrast this with the California murder trial jury selection process I was in from 2005. We gathered, same number of people, after we received our assignment in a large room on the first floor (nowhere near as easy up front as the Texas process).
The rest of the process was efficient, straight forward, and quick. The judge told us the rules in about 15 minutes. He then asked people to stand with any major personal issues, and he let a few go. He then probed directly on some tough questions and tossed a few out. Then it was time for seating the jury.
The judge put 15 people in the box, the first 15 numbers from the original random assignment. The attorneys questioned those in the box they were interested in talking to, then one by one several were dismissed and a new person from our larger group was put into the box. Once they ran out of strikes, it was over… and the jury was selected before lunch time.
Ideally, I’d love to see the Texas summons technique coupled with the California selection process in the court room to make it match the importance of what it represents and what it really is, but do it in a way that doesn’t subject people to a full day of legal arguments and posturing in a way that has nothing to do with selecting a jury.
Who’d a thought Texas could learn something from California? Your thoughts…?