Harvey Weiner, BridgeTower Media Newswires
I had always believed that, for myself, there were three obligations of American citizenship: consistent voting, two years of national service, and service as a juror through verdict.
The first two I fulfilled, but I thought that, as a lawyer, I would never get to fulfill the third. I had been summoned to court as a juror several times, but only once, decades ago, had I made it to the jury box, where I was then challenged. When I later asked the prosecutor why he had challenged me, he said he always challenged lawyers and social workers. His view may explain why my wife also had never served on a jury.
So, it was with little hope of serving that I went to a state District Court on a hot summer day. I did not cancel appointments. I even wore shorts.
The jury pool was about 45 people, half men, half women, no African-Americans, one Indian and one Cambodian. My forlorn hopes were slightly raised when I drew a low jury number.
I had filled out the jury questionnaire truthfully to indicate I was retired but that I was affiliated with a law firm. I never volunteered that I was a lawyer because it wasn’t asked on the form. I recalled that a judge had told me years ago that he had filled out the questionnaire to say he was a “state worker” and that he was not challenged.
I did not know the judge, the attorneys or the witnesses, so perhaps I would “pass” as a civilian. However, when my name was called, the judge said words to the effect: “You are Harvey Weiner, the attorney!” Alas, I was outed! However, after a few questions by the judge, neither attorney challenged me and I was seated in the jury box. I held by breath until the entire jury was picked. I had made it!
It was a criminal trial consisting of two counts of indecent assault and battery on an 11-year-old minor by her uncle. She had not disclosed the incident until she was in college.
Trial took three days, although each day the jury left well before 4 p.m. The first day was comprised of jury selection, the judge’s preliminary instructions, and opening statements. The second day was comprised of the testimony of the five sequestered witnesses, which included the accused and the complainant. The third day was comprised of closing arguments, the judge’s instructions, and jury deliberations and verdict.
The jury was composed of three men and three women, each from a different town. There was a college student, a retired school administrator, two engineers, a consultant and a retired attorney. I wore a sport jacket and suit the next two days, respectively and respectfully.
The judge was very even handed and was careful to instruct us continually not to go on the internet and not to discuss the case with anyone, including fellow jurors, until deliberations. My wife was not happy with my silence.
One of the judge’s final instructions was not to take one juror’s views any more than any other juror’s, just because of that juror’s professional competence. With that caution, I was selected foreperson.
We deliberated for over three hours (including over a pizza lunch), which was almost as long as all the testimony combined. There is no handbook on the procedure in the jury room, so we improvised. A timeline was created on the blackboard, and each witness’s testimony was parsed and thoroughly analyzed. The defense arguments of inconsistent statements were examined from every angle.
All jurors spoke their minds and no juror was reticent. A straw vote was taken after an hour, and then the evidence was analyzed in great detail once again. The jurors took the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard very seriously, and all were determined that the accused not be found guilty if there was reasonable doubt.
After an hour and a half of further deliberations, a second vote was taken and everyone voted “guilty.” Then, a half-hour was taken for additional discussion so that individual jurors could feel comfortable with their vote and/or change their minds if they wanted. No one was in a rush to leave. Each juror individually then said he or she was comfortable with the decision and no one changed his or her mind.
I was not surprised that the jurors took their role seriously and dealt with the evidence intelligently and rationally. It seemed that everyone remembered the gestures, demeanor, emotions and words of each witness.
Both attorneys did a fine job, particularly in being brief and to the point in both argument and questioning. It must have been clear to them that this jury did not need or want constant repetition.
It took me almost 50 years at the bar as a litigator and 77 years of living to serve as a juror, but it finally happened and my personal obligations of American citizenship have been fulfilled.
Make every effort to serve as a juror! I would gladly do it again, (but not for three years).
—————
Harvey Weiner is senior counsel at Peabody & Arnold in Boston.
