Dogs make great pets and there are many Americans that have these great companions at home. For many years now, dogs have also been used for helping the visually impaired to get around to helping police officers solve crime.

There has been a movement across the country to use dogs in the courtroom. The belief is that a dog can ease the tension there is in a trial or even in a plea setting. Some believe that it can ease the tensions of the adversarial process for everyone. Perhaps  a dog can ease the stress for judges, lawyers, witnesses and jurors.

 There are some aspects that the MA courts will need to deal with prior to adopting the system. One possible issues dealing with allergies. We know that certain people are allergic to dogs and the court would need to ask anyone that would be in the court room if they are allergic to dogs. Another potential hold up is the funding. Someone would need to take care of the dogs and the funding would need to come from somewhere. As we already know, the current fiscal has deeply affected the judicial budget.

Finally, dogs are wonderful and having them in the court room is a wonderful idea. People are uneasy about the court process and tend to be very stressed out during trials. What would be better than to have a friendly pooch to pet and look at? Having dogs in the court room is a great idea, but I wouldn’t count on petting one in a Massachusetts court room any time soon.

Interes9ted twitter followers please visit- twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyChan

Interested in becoming a Facebook fan please visit http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Boston-MA/Law-offices-of-Attorney-Jason-Chan/101494423854?ref=sgm

For More information:

Promoting justice through the use of well-trained dogs to provide emotional support for everyone in our criminal justice system http://www.courthousedogs.com/courtroom.html

A comforting canine presence provides victims with a safe harbor By Rebecca Wallick http://www.thebark.com/content/dogscourtroom

Assistance dogs’ use for kids in courtrooms urged http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1250476.shtml Judge’s dog is friend of the court http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/110756

There is a photo show opening the end of next month in Vienna, VA. The
focus of the show is on alternative processes in photography (pinhole
cameras, Holga cameras, etc.). Anyone is welcome to enter, and the
admission fee is $25/5 pieces.
http://www.soundry.net/2009/11/call-for-entries-obscura-click-the-light-fantastic-photography-show/

If you or anyone else would like to be a juror for the show, email Susan at setheridge@me.com.

In early November I began serving my second term in two years as a Grand Juror. This may give some of you pause as, if you’ve ever had to serve as a Juror before, you may know that you are generally exempt from service for at least a few years afterwards. While some courts do give you the option of volunteering to enter the pool again immediately after service, that is not why I was drawn again. This time I was drawn for duty on the Federal level. Now, many of you probably dread the possibility receiving a summons, as most believe it to be a major disruption to their lives and work. For some that may be the case, but you might be surprised, at least when it comes to Grand Jury duty.

For those of you who have not served on jury duty before, you may be imagining the stereotypical jury that you see in movies and television. Twelve men and women picked to decide someones guilt or innocence. The grand jury is something different. It is a group of 23 men and women who hear testimony and review the evidence at hand to decide only whether there is probable cause that a crime has been commited by the person under indictment. If the target is indicted, then the case is brought to trial and a petit jury (the one most of you were thinking about) is selected and decides their fate.

The other major difference between a petit jury and a grand jury is the length of service. A grand jury is empanneled for a set length of time and hears numerous cases. When I served on the county grand jury, we were empanneled for a few months and heard probably 15 cases. On the federal level you are empaneled for anywhere from one year to 18 months, and we are likely to hear somewhere on the order of 140+ cases. Granted we only meet for a couple of days every other week, but it is still a lot of time and a lot to take in.

All this being said, I can certainly understand why people struggle to be excused, which I might add is no mean feat in the federal court.  In fact, I myself tried to be excused this time due to the logistical constraints of child care and running a business. In the end though I was selected, and to tell the truth, I was happy about it. Which brings me to the meat of my post.

Everything you hear and see pertaining to a case in the grand jury is of course secret, only to be discussed in among the jury itself in the jury chamber, not even with spouses, and not just for the time of service either. This moratorium on speaking about cases has no sunset. Therefore I can’t share the details of what I’ve seen, but I can tell you that these two stints on the Grand Jury have taught me more than I could have imagined. About the people in law enforcement, their procedures and the depravity and stupidity of the criminals that surround us. About the impact that crime has on those involved, both criminal and victim. Even about the effect of crime on a perpetrators family members. Yesterday I even saw how someone can turn their lives around in prison, though only time will tell if that lasts. The only qualm I have is the lack of support structure surrounding you as a juror.

You see, though you learn a lot as you serve, some of the things you are privy to as part of these indictments can leave you reeling and you are left with no one to vent to. Hell, one case in particular even prompted some serious stress and sleep loss for me over the course of about a week. In that particular case I learned of some things you really never knew were going on in the world around you, or at least that you would never wish to acknowledge. Many of you are probably saying to yourselves, “why, why would I subject myself to that?”. Well, it’s one of the few things that this country asks of you. To play a part in determining the fate of a fellow citizen. As a grand juror, it’s your duty to protect those that are wrongly accused, and to make sure that the scum of the earth are sent on to trial.

In trying to deal with the evidence I’d heard in the case mentioned above, I did come across an interesting article which addressed the very issue of support for traumatised jurors. The article by Donna Pendergast, details the issues surrounding trauma associated with jury duty. It also pointed to an increased awareness of the problem on the part of the court system, and a new trend known as  jury debriefing, which is being used in a few places around the country. Jury debriefing refers to a variety of techniques, though they all share one common aspect. A chance to discuss the disturbing aspects of the case, either with each other or a counselor brought in by the court. For more information, I have posted a link to the article below.

I guess what I want to leave you with is that in the end, it all balances out. The disruption to your life isn’t all that bad, you are guaranteed to learn more than you expected, and may even make some bonus cash by doing it. Yes, you may hear some abysmal things and learn about some real sick people who live around you, but in the end you will be a better person. You will be more alert to the dangers around you and your children, and you will feel like you helped protect the people around you. It’s a rare opportunity that you’ve been afforded. Don’t be hasty in your deciding whether to fight it, and be sure to consider the positive aspects.

Article – Jury Duty: Drama and Trauma – by Donna Pendergast
Banner – Federal District Court Seal and James T. Foley Federal Courthouse, Albany NY

Jesus Christ gets booted from a jury pool for asking  too many questions:

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=mansfieldnewsjournal&sParam=32191537.story

The article states that “efforts to reach Christ were unsuccessful.”  I’ve had that same problem.

Czas na drugi dzisiejszy wywiad – tym razem próbowałam coś wycisnąć z Maćka Gandysa, copywritera w agencji Czteryczwarte.  Maciek to twórca większości ostatnich kampanii reklamowych mBanku. To właśnie on napisał moją rolę w spocie telewizyjnym “Strzykanie”

Wanda:   Maćku, jak oceniasz poziom zgłoszonych prac w poszczególnych kategoriach?
Maciek:  Dobrze wypadły prace w kategoriach film i animacja, propozycje billboardowe są raczej słabe, choć nie miałem jeszcze czasu przejrzeć dokładnie wszystkich zgłoszeń, więc może jeszcze odkryję jakiś naprawdę dobry projekt.

Wanda:   Czy masz już jakiegoś cichego faworyta?  Które prace szczególnie Ci się spodobały?
Maciek:   Z kategorii filmowej mam dwóch faworytów, którzy z grubsza pokrywają się z wyborem publiczności - nie chciałbym jednak wskazywać autorów przed ostatecznym wyborem zwycięzcy.

Maciek Gandys i ja na planie "Strzykania"

Wanda:  Czy w konkursie są jakieś prace, które bez większych zmian mogłyby zostać wykorzystane lub posłużyć jako inspiracja do regularnej kampanii mBanku?
Maciek:  Spojrzenie na mBank niektórych autorów jest naprawdę interesujące. Myślę że mogłyby w jakiejś mierze służyć jako inspiracja do kolejnej kampanii mBanku. 

Wanda:  Okazało się, że w mFestiwalu bierze udział kilku profesjonalistów zawodowo zajmujących się reklamą. Inni uczestnicy-amatorzy uważają, że to nie jest fair  – co o tym sądzisz? Czy sam rozważyłbyś wzięcie udziału w konkursie takim jak mFestiwal?                                                                                                                                                                                     Maciek:  Własnego udziału bym nie rozważał.  Na co dzień mam zbyt wiele zabawy związanej z tworzeniem reklam dla mBanku   Oglądając niektóre prace także nasuwało mi się podejrzenie, że autorzy mają jakąś wiedzę na temat warsztatu reklamowego.  Z założenia mFestiwal jest otwarty dla każdego autora, który ma ochotę przedstawić swoją propozycję reklamy dla mBanku.  Jeżeli ludzie reklamy mają ochotę pokazać swoje dzieła na forum mFestiwalu to czemu nie.  Mogą być inspiracją dla innych uczestników albo odwrotnie.

Wanda:  W obecnej edycji mFestiwalu pojawiło się też kilka filmów, które zostały oskarżone o bycie plagiatem filmów z poprzedniej edycji, choć ich autorzy zarzekają się, że nie mieli okazji widzieć filmów z I edycji. Czy zetknąłeś się z takimi sytuacjami w swojej pracy zawodowej?                                                                                                                                   Maciek:  Z konieczności taki typ usług  jak usługi bankowe opiera się na kilku podstawowych komunikatach związanych z oszczędzaniem i zarabianiem.  Z tego powodu pomysły się powtarzają. Trzeba być bardzo świadomym tego, co się dzieje w świecie reklamy bankowej aby nie popełnić nieświadomego  plagiatu.

Wanda:  Dzięki za rozmowę! Chyba tym razem nie udało mi się zbyt wiele z Ciebie wycisnąć, ale może po ogłoszeniu finalistów namówię Cię na bardziej otwarte zwierzenia  

Trzeci wywiad opublikuję jutro, gdy głosowanie w I etapie będzie już dobiegało końca!

Kochani,

Udało mi się zdobyć dla Was opinie trzech jurorów mFestiwalu. W ciągu dzisiejszego dnia będę je sukcesywnie publikowała.  Na pierwszy ogień idzie Artur Klonowski – art director z wieloletnim doświadczeniem w branży reklamowej.  Wszyscy co dziennie oglądaliśmy jego dzieło czyli oprawę graficzną strony mFestiwal.pl. Mój rozmówca projektował zarówno serwis mFestiwal 2009, jak i stronę ubiegłorocznej edycji konkursu.  Artur to konkretny facet i takie też są jego odpowiedzi ;-)  Sprawdźcie sami!

Wanda:  Arturze, zdradź nam które filmy są Twoimi osobistymi faworytami?

Artur:  Jest kilka ciekawych propozycji, ale wymienię trzy które najbardziej zapadły mi w pamięć:  jerzu – niezwykły – poziom abstrakcji jest dla mnie odpowiedni Zadyma konkretna, ale nie dusząca. Reklama powinna  intrygować i wciągać nie poprzez usilną kontrowersyjność, ale przez dobry pomysł. Tutaj ten nietuzinkowy pomysł jest i za to wielki szacun ludzi reklamy;  wiolka – tancerz – fabuła okołoweselna trochę jak w filmach ze „Śmiechu Warte” , ale tancerz mnie rozwalił. Mam nadzieję, że film nie jest z cyklu „Prawdziwe historie” Ważne, że jest tu oryginalny pomysł. Można przyciąć do telewizyjnej 15-sekundówki i też będzie ok. Brawo!  Evil_Cock – inwestujemy w każdego – Szkoda było zapewne wgnieść zderzak pięknego BMW, ale reklama to sztuka sugestii, potrafię sobie wyobrazić zakończenie i podkład muzyczny też jest odpowiedni. Cały film się ładnie klei i wszystko do siebie pasuje. Operatorka jak w profesjonalnym spocie. Nic dodać, nic ująć. Bardzo dobry materiał.

Wanda:   Muszę przyznać, że Evil_Cock również mnie ujął swoim poczuciem humoru! Podskórnie czuję, że w jego twórczości znalazłoby się też miejsce dla mnie, ale dosyć prywaty!  A jak znajdujesz tegoroczne animacje – słyszałam opinie, że to najsłabsza kategoria?

Artur:   Animacja to trudna sztuka – jak się nie ma warsztatu, to nawet dobry pomysł może wypaść słabo. Myślę jednak, że w końcówce konkursu uczestnicy zgłosili kilka interesujących propozycji. W czołówce wyróżnia się PiotrekArt – narodziny pieniądza – fabuła jest oczywista i mocno wyeksploatowana, ale podoba mi się wykonanie. Wygląda mi to na animację poklatkową, dobry, tradycyjny warsztat, a w czasach dominacji flasha i 3d jeszcze bardziej zyskuje na wartości, calości dopelnia dobrze dobrana muzyka. Duży plus!  Z prac, których nie ma w TOP20 chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na dwie animacje: ciasteczko – najlepsze rozwiązanie – kłaczek, kudełek… już się bałem, że to wypadło z kota, ale rozbawiło mnie do łez. Mogę powiedzieć, że ta animacja powala swą prostotą. Po prostu świetny pomysł, dynamiczna realizacja. Nic dodać, nic ująć. Super! oraz liart – Zero Złotych – krótko, zwięźle i treściwie. Bezwzględne zero złotych, taki Brudny Harry wśród zer. Wszyscy lubimy superbohaterów i pogromców zerowych oszustów.

Wanda:  Hmm, trochę mnie zaskoczyły Twoje typy!  Myślałam, że wymienisz np. BartMikoCom - Nie wierzysz? sprawdz sam - wielu obserwatorów typuje go do zwycięstwa ze względu na profesjonalny warsztat.

Artur:  Fakt, warsztatowo praca ta wyróżnia się, ale na takich konkursach jak mFestiwal ważniejszy jest chyba świeży, oryginalny pomysł, który zjedna sobie publiczność. 

Wanda:  No dobrze, zostały nam jeszcze billboardy – biorąc pod uwagę ilość zgłoszeń to była najprostsza kategoria – czy aby na pewno?

Artur:  Ilość na ogół nie idzie w jakość, choć oczywiście w tej masie zgłoszonych projektów jest kilka naprawdę świetnych prac.  Chciałbym wymienić trzy zupełnie różne billboardy, które zwróciły moją uwagę:  catdesign – mBank Billboard – Kot Przemysław – reklama jest prosta i czytelna i taka ma być na billboardzie. Mnie przekonuje, aż chce się sprawdzić   carlo – zebrowe opłaty – oryginalne i niezłe, z pewnością zauważalne na tle reklamowej sieczki. Ale nie chcę płacić za przechodzenie po „zebrze”   19thelement – Nie daj się ogolić – Owca powinna być bardziej przerażona Lubię takie skojarzenia. Reklama może dotyczyć dowolnego produktu bankowego więc duży plus za uniwersalność i oddaje charakter mBanku.

Wanda:  Artur, bardzo Ci dziękuję za zdradzenie nam Twoich typów w przededniu głosowania Jury!   A Was, drodzy czytelnicy, zapraszam na kolejny wywiad już za kilka godzin

Unless you were chosen to serve as a juror, most people don’t know what jury trials are really about.  Sure, court room dramas are nice, but movies seldom explain the process.  Here are a few points about one of your most important consitutional rights. 

 The number of jurors: Depending on what court you are being tried, the number of jurors will vary.  The district court requires a unanimous decision by 6 jurors.  The superior court requires a unanimous decision by 12 jurors.  In short, the superior court requires twice as many jurors to return a verdict.  One reason for this difference is that the penalties are much more severe in superior court.  The stakes being higher, the amount of jurors are also higher. 

 Alternates: Most judges will sit more jurors than is required.  In both the district court and the superior court it is very common for the judge to impanel more jurors than required.  Judges will sit alternate jurors in case people have emergencies that arise.  If a judge empanels the minimum amount of jurors and a juror is unable to perform his or her duties, then the judge will most likley have to declare a mistrial.  To avoid this problem, judges will sit additional jurors. 

 Impaneling a jury:  The amount of time it takes to impanel a jury can very significantly.  Essentially, the court wants to impanel an impartial jury and for certain cases this can be difficult.  If you have jury duty, I am sure this isn’t something that you want to hear.  Cases that particularly take a long time to impanel a jury are cases involving sex offenses.  It can take days if not weeks to impanel a jury for a child molestation or rape case.  So if you are serving jury duty and find yourself as a potential jury in a sex offense case prepare for a long process. 

 Decision: As I have mentioned before, a jury decision in Massachusetts needs to be unanimous.  This means that the entire jury needs to agree with the decision of guilty or not guilty.  As you can imagine, this can make for long jury deliberations. 

 This post gives you a little background on jury trials.  Jury trials are complicated and it is never a good idea to represent yourself in a trial.  In the end, it is important to remember that it is not a perfect system.  However, it is bar far the best one ever created.

 Interested twitter followers please visit- twitter: http://twitter.com/AttorneyChan

 Interested in becoming a Facebook fan please visit http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Boston-MA/Law-offices-of-Attorney-Jason-Chan/101494423854?ref=sgm

 For more information:

 About the Massachusetts Jury System

http://www.mass.gov/courts/jury/introduc.htm

 Preparing for a jury trial

http://articles.directorym.com/Preparing_for_a_Jury_Trial_Agawam_MA-r935226-Agawam_MA.html

Glossary of trial terms

http://guides.gottrouble.com/Glossary_of_Jury_Trial_Terms_Massachusetts-r1204930-Massachusetts.html

Defense of Massachusetts Jury Service System

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1289579/defense_of_massachusetts_jury_service.html?cat=17

Anatomy of a jury trial

http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/ejs/0709.pdf#popup

Vanishing Civil Jury Trials

http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/boston-bar/2009/04/the-vanishing-civil-jury-trial/

Well, that’s quite an honor. Next month I will be part of a prestigious international panel of creative directors to judge the best works “in alternative and emerging media, encompassing a wide variety of categories within the digital space, as well as guerrilla marketing, ambient executions, integrated campaigns and beyond”. Looking forward to seeing a lot of fresh stuff!

Jim Pretto told ABC News back in February of 2008 that if they had known all the facts about the case in 2004, he would have called Kathleen Savio’s death a homicide.

“There was no evidence at all to point toward it being a murder,” Pretto said. “There was nothing presented at all.” Pretto said that though the jurors on the coroner’s inquest were suspicious, they did not have enough evidence to call Savio’s death anything but an accident.

“We had no other alternative,” he said. “I think more evidence should have been presented, more investigation should have been done at the time.”

We’ve all seen the complete inquest transcript now.  Yes, there was no testimony or evidence presented to the jurors to indicate that foul play might be suspected.  In fact, ISP Officer Herbert Hardy said otherwise.  One panel member (Dennis Pratl) made it personal, and said Drew Peterson was a good guy.   Yet, Jim Pretto wishes they had listened more to Kathleen’s family. The jurors did not hear about Savio asking for a restraining order against Peterson, and they were told by the ISP officer that there were no insurance policies involved. They did not hear about the police being called eighteen times to intervene in their disputes.

Several questions arise about these claims made by Pretto.  Who exactly was responsible for making sure these important issues were presented to the jury panel?  Or, in the alternative, who was responsible for making sure they were not presented to the jury panel?   Oversight or out-of-sight.  Which is it?

At the time of this juror’s interview, Anna Doman said:  “I think we’re closer” to justice. “I just wish it was four years ago.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

A foul-mouthed juror is sowing discord at John “Junior” Gotti’s racketeering trial with diva-like behavior and a plan to push deliberations past Christmas, a fellow panelist snitched to the judge.

Juror No. — a female postal worker — announced last week that she “intends to take her time and is not going to allow any f—ing body to rush her to a decision,” according to an anonymous letter received in the mail today. 

Dark Skies Episode 04 (20:51)

My case is now over so we have been released from “The Admonition.” This is the instruction that precludes you from talking to anyone about the case until after the verdict has been rendered. I found it somewhat interesting that it applied to even fellow jurors (until we began deliberations) in a criminal trial. Even after we began deliberations, the judge asked that we not discuss the trial with fellow jurors unless the entire jury was present. I can see the rationale for it, but I do think they are being a bit too black and white about the matter. As I’ve been forced to admit time and again, life is comprised of shades of gray.

We had to decide if the suspect was guilty of child molestation. I can’t really think of a more heinous crime. To me murder makes sense in certain situations. Not so with child abuse/molestation. But you can’t convict based upon an accusation. So we had our work (and our stress) cut out for us. Almost none of the jurors were sleeping well, including myself. Although I’m far from certain my restlessness had much to do with the trial. That’s simply the way of the Arioch. Le sigh.

So how would you like to have the fate of another man resting in your hands? Having to decide the future of someone? Whatever you decide, there’s a chance you’re wrong. If you vote Not Guilty and he is indeed a child molester, there’s no crime with a higher recidivism rate. If he’s innocent and you vote Guilty, you’ve just condemned an innocent man to one of the worst fates society has to offer: being locked up and branded a pedophile. If he survives prison, he will always be labeled with the stigma and have to register as a sex offender. For something he didn’t even do. Do you still want to be a juror?

I have to admit that it was an incredible learning experience. And regardless of how much the State dismissed courtroom dramas, they aren’t that far off. Yes, they skip over 95% of the proceedings. But what they do contain is more or less accurate. Well, maybe not the DNA stuff. They do stretch the science just a tad. Our case did have a DNA expert who came in to testify about why there wasn’t DNA evidence to use against the suspect. I found it rather absurd. So did the defense. And the witness. I guess the State attorney felt she had to counter the “Law & Order effect.”

That may have been her only strategic error. She was an exceptional lawyer. Much better than the counsel for the defense. The jury drove the State attorney nuts however. I have no idea if our behavior was typical, but we took full advantage of the “Does the jury have any questions for this witness?” option. Those who know me well will not be surprised that I asked a “few” questions. Yes, Kate, you named me well. I earned my moniker during this trial. I even wrote the judge several questions. The sheet I wrote him trying to unravel the inconsistencies in the hearsay rules got me called in without the rest of the jury to be interrogated by the attorneys. That was fun. Not.

The surprising thing was that there was actually one juror who asked more questions than I did! We hung out on smoke breaks and even went to lunch at NiMarcos together once. He used to be a firefighter in Kansas so we had quite a bit to talk about. Anyways, our questions were apparently pretty good. The defense attorney nodded his head at several questions in a “hmm, I should have asked that” manner. The attorney for the State fought like mad to keep many of them out, but all but one of mine made it in. One of them even produced a surprise piece of evidence for the State to deal with the next day. The protocol for jury questions is like so:

• After the normal direct, cross examination, and re-direct, the judge asks if there are any questions from the jury
• If there are, the bailiff comes and gets them. We write them, unsigned, on pieces of paper.
• The attorneys approach the bench and review the questions the judge thinks are appropriate. They are allowed to make arguments if they wish to
• The judge then asks those questions that survive his judgment and the attorneys arguments

I’m not going to go through and give you a play by play unless there are more than a few comments that ask me to do so. The State had a pretty weak case compounded by exceptionally shoddy police work. The defense council was not all that talented. The defendant’s story was exceptionally precise in detail. Maybe too much so. Our initial poll was nine Not Guiltys, two Guiltys and one undecided. It has to be unanimous. We spent almost two hours debating whether he was innocent or not. It took that long for me to prevail on these folks that whether he was innocent or not was irrelevant.

Determining innocence was not our job. Our job was to determine whether the State had met it’s burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For those of you who are wondering what that means, it means that they have provided enough evidence that it leaves you “firmly convinced” of the defendant’s guilt. I was impressed by the diversity of thought that came out in our deliberations. But it wasn’t that difficult when it came right down to it. I guess that we needed to spend that long for these folks to ease their consciences because of the risk that they may be setting a pedophile free. Some of them kept talking about it being the longest walk of their lives from the jury room to the courtroom. Referring to it as “The Green Mile.” I didn’t get that at all. Didn’t seem like marching down death row at all to me.

I did feel better when the little girl’s face lit up after the verdict was read. It was obvious to everyone on the jury that much more was going on than we’d been told, but the rules of law precluded us from hearing it. I have absolutely no clue what would possess a mother to use her daughter to accuse a man of child molestation but that does appear to be what happened. And we appear to have called it right. I know we made the correct decision with the information we were given.

I do not envy jurors any longer. It is a tough job. I think I understand now why the court officers kept expressing their appreciation for the service we were doing. At the time it seemed like hollow flattery. Maybe not.

 REHEARSE, REWIND,REPEAT

Alrighty! Let me start off by finishing you all about my epic Wednesday night. Went to church, read some more about King David — I swear, I don’t think his story is ever going to end. Tyler and Chris helped me build a Yu-Gi-Oh! deck and then pwned me at the game. Then Jacob texted me asking for his RAZR back that he let me borrow at the end of last year because Kimmie got her phone wet and needed another one. I got ticked off at him for even asking anything of me and threw it onto the highway and beat it with a rock. :/

So Thursday I actually brought the destroyed phone back to him because I was still annoyed. Our art journals were totally due, but I got out of class after about three minutes because Mrs. Callie was driving us to teen court and it was time to leave. It was at the Bolton Avenue Community Center; I rode there with Bradley, Kayla, David, and Bates. Other people from Rapides were there too like Brooke (she’s even an attorney), Nicole, and some other freshman that I don’t know.

We were there from eight AM to two PM, so it was a long day, but it was very entertaining. We found out all about the positions you can try for — jurors, attorneys, clerks, and bailiffs — and filled out an application on which ones we’d like to be. I applied for juror and clerk. We had tons of guest speakers with the jobs of defense attorney, bailiff, police officer, and even a forensic analyst! I loved that part because I’m interested in becoming a forensic analyst, but from what she said I can tell it’s going to take a lot of work. One of the police officers that came up volunteered to get Tasered and mauled by one of the huge Mechelse dogs.

When we finally arrived back at Rapides the final bell had already rung and I had to run to the bus. And on the bus I get a text from Kim saying that Mrs. Farrington, our English teacher that was in charge of putting on the play, wanted Kayla and I to go into the auditorium first thing Friday morning to practice our song since we didn’t have time to practice . I told Kim to tell her that was fine and that we couldn’t find the karaoke version of the song we were supposed to sing. Kim then told me that she said we wouldn’t be singing just because we couldn’t find the karaoke version.

Let me tell you, I was pretty pissed. I memorized lyrics and practiced for a while, and she’s gonna wait until the day before the assembly to say that I’m not going to get to do it? No. Wrong. I went on my second angry rampage in two days and told Kayla the news; we then agreed that we would go to school and argue with her about her decision until she changed her find again.

When we got to school this morning, that’s exactly what we did. She acted as if she’d never said that we couldn’t sing. We all gathered into the auditorium to practice and it all ran pretty smoothly. The assembly started at 8.30 and I got to sit in the audience and watch the two best parts: the part where Jesse was dancing at the “party” with a balloon between his legs and squeezed it until it popped, and the part where Regan (in her grannie outfit complete with glasses, a flannel nightgown, and a cane) got up and started getting her groove on when she got so into it that she thrust her cane down to the stage and started getting crazy.

Kayla and I were the closing part of the performance. I was kind of nervous and pretty much looked over everyones’ heads the whole time. We really messed up on the line “That’s the story of my life” because for some reason that line is so hard to sing. But I thought we did…okay-ish. After our performance, we huddled together in a line, all holding hands, and took a bow. Jesse decided to pop another balloon, which flew into my face and made me laugh.

Afterwards, a lot of people told Kayla and I that we did good, but I really wasn’t too happy with the performance myself. And what’s done is done.

The rest of the day was pretty uneventful. So…that’s my week! Yeah! I feel like there’s something that I forgot to say… But I’m sure it’s not that important so it can wait until tomorrow. Peace out, mah nigs!

truly yours,

.chizuru

—————-

Now playing: Death Cab for Cutie – I Will Possess Your Heart
via FoxyTunes

You don’t always get everything you want. Deal with it.

Your fake smile does not fool me. You can’t just pretend to be amiable and expect us all to let you lead the way. You’re not that good at pretending.

You’re not in charge, and you don’t speak for all of us.

We’re not all on your side, or haven’t you noticed that she never came back and we’re not all laughing with you?

If you don’t think there is enough evidence, explain why and fight your case. Don’t accuse us of having a low threshold for indictment and then vote with us anyway. It makes you look argumentative and serves no one.

The threshold is lower for indictment than for conviction. By definition. You got a handbook. Read it.

You said by the end of this we’ll all be good friends or hate each other’s guts. Guess which path we’re on?

I wish you would hold your tongue during testimony. And between testimony. And anytime you want to complain. You have been complaining since day one and I’m sick of hearing your whiny voice. This is a burden on everyone, but there are 20 other people in the room who come every day and aren’t complaining about it incessantly.

No one is too important to sit in that room and serve on this jury. That includes you. Do you think people will think you’re more important the more annoyed you seem? Sighing and rolling your eyes are unconvincing. They make you look like a drama queen.

Perhaps this animosity could have been prevented in its entirety had you and your cohorts in the third row shown the slightest courtesy of turning around and introducing yourselves on the first day when we were instructed to meet and greet our neighboring jurors. You greeted each other and the people in front of you, but none of you turned around to say “hello” to the back row. Is it because we are two elderly Spanish speakers and an Asian? You can’t serve on the grand jury if you can’t speak English, so it’s pretty much guaranteed that you would have gotten a cursory “hi” from us at the very least. But you didn’t. Your row is like a high school clique, and we’re not welcome. I do not even know your name, and now I have no desire to know it.

And by box I mean room, since we sit in a jury room, not a courtroom.

Two days in, and we’ve heard 8 cases or so. In just a few hours, I have learned several things having nothing to do with the law.

1. Trial lawyers are just people. And they are mostly not like the charismatic TV/movie lawyers we see all the time. That is, while they are all of a certain intelligence, having graduated law school and passed the bar, many are not (yet) great at public speaking. At least half of the ADAs that have come before us have been hard to hear, somewhat flustered and tongue-tied if they get off-script, and just generally awkward. A few have laid out their cases in such a way that left us wondering which witnesses were testifying for which charge or incident. Maybe it’s the very boring lawyer-speak that they do when reading the charges at the end of each presentation. Maybe they forget that they are not speaking to fellow lawyers. Maybe it’s the fact that each case must be heard before a grand jury within 144 hours of an arrest, so they’re on a short time frame. Maybe they just need more practice. Like any performer, I highly recommend they put a video camera on themselves sometime for an honest critique.
2. Having to interact with 22 strangers creates a bizarre dynamic that you don’t see anywhere else. Maybe the first day of school in a new place. You don’t know anyone, and you’re forced to interact. You have to talk and debate the fate of people’s lives. That makes some people cranky. You’re not buffered by alcohol or food to make things easier. There’s no socially adept host or hostess to make introductions. You jump right in discussing crimes and assessing what basically comes down to whether or not you think a certain person did a “bad” thing. You also have to raise your hand and vote in a very obvious, public way. There’s no hiding your decision. And if you don’t vote, that also gets noticed.
3. Grand jury requirements for indictment are less stringent than petit jury requirements for conviction. That means there need only be reasonable cause that a crime was committed, and that the defendant did it. You also only need 12 votes for any action, whereas petit juries must come to a unanimous decision. The burden of proof is much less. You don’t typically see the defendant. You see the prosecutor present a bare-bones case with (so far) no more than four witnesses. From my vantage point, it seems pretty unlikely that a prosecutor will present such a weak case that it does not meet these lesser requirements.
4. I’m not sure if I have a healthy skepticism. My critical thinking skills seem rusty. Perhaps it’s all the legal jargon clogging my brain, but a lot of the proceedings seem to wash over me, and I find myself nodding my head and feeling perfectly at ease with my votes. There’s no hand-wringing, no hemming and hawing. It all seems fairly cut-and-dried to me. This is probably a result of the fact that this is not the end of the line for these defendants. They still get their day in court if indicted. In this way, it doesn’t seem like life or death stakes.
5. I am even more convinced that we need drug policy reform. There are an awful lot of police officers on narcotics cases, and there are an awful lot of arrests and cases on the docket because of this. Some of them seem like a complete waste of time. It seems like everyone’s time would be better spent on practically anything else. However, despite my conflicted views, I try to vote with the law. Of course, I’m not sure where the line is here for going along with things because that’s how they are, and standing up for what you believe. That’s not what prompts change. For instance, if a marijuana (as opposed to heroin or cocaine) case came up, would I vote to indict someone, regardless of quantity or intent? But by not indicting based on personal belief, am I an agent of change, or just a rogue juror? We do not make the law in that room.
6. Very few people are good public speakers. Most of the witnesses we have heard have been unable to speak loudly and clearly. It is very annoying. I want to hear. I want to understand. But I get increasingly less compassionate the more I have to strain and focus simply because of insufficient decibels. It must be a very strange thing to be in front of a group of strangers if you don’t do it often. Still, when speaking in normal conversation you naturally adjust your volume to accommodate the space between you and the listener. The same principles apply to public speaking. The listener just happens to be more than one person, and slightly farther away. They even have a microphone in front of them, and it’s wasted. Immigrants, police officers, business men. They all fail. I include our foreperson, assigned by lottery, in this group. <sigh>

So, off I go for another round. Fortunately, our warden is cool, and the upshot is that I get to sit in air conditioned comfort for a few hours.

Yesterday morning I left the apartment at 7:45 a.m. not for my usual trip to the gym, but to make my way down to 100 Centre St, where I was to report for jury duty. I had been summoned to serve on the New York County Grand Jury.

It is about an hour, door-to-door, what with the train and the few blocks’ walk. The security line was a dead giveaway that I was in the right place. Guess what happens when you bring a Swiss army knife into a courthouse? They take it away. I had to leave it at the front desk and get a receipt to retrieve it on my way out. Oops.

They opened the courtroom right at 9 a.m., and we all filed in with our summonses. It’s amazing how humans behave in lines. We’re all going to the same place, yet there is still jockeying for position. To go into a courtroom. Where we’re going to be made to wait for over an hour. So it goes.

No, there weren’t enough seats for everyone. Fortunately, I managed to get one. We were told that the grand jury serves for four weeks, either a morning or an afternoon session. You have the option for deferring, but you cannot get out of it except for a few things, like you’re a felon or you can’t understand English. Basically, no one is too important to serve, so suck it up and do your civic duty. We were to begin roll call, wherein we were instructed to answer either “a.m.,” “p.m.,” or “application.” Cue the first of many rounds of questions.

I was surprised how many people did not show up. The first 10 or so names were no-shows. It also quickly became evident that many people do not know how to project or enunciate. Since they were going alphabetically, my name came up early. I answered loudly and clearly, and the women in charge thanked me loudly in return, remarking that such a response is the kind she would prefer. Chuckles from the gallery. Repeat every time anyone answers loudly and clearly.

I brought my laptop, newspaper, and a book to read. I had decided that my strategy would be to keep my head down, do what I was told, and go with the flow. I had no idea how long they would keep me, so I prepared for a long wait. This strategy served me well.

After roll call, juries were selected by lottery. 4 juries: 3 morning, 1 afternoon; 23 jurors each. I decided I’d rather take my chances now than defer and have to come back and do this all again later, so I put my name on the a.m. list. I was the 68th morning juror selected, 4 away from freedom. The selection process went quickly, but then we had to wait for a court reporter to arrive, then the judge. The people who weren’t selected were dismissed, and many of the jurors who remained took a bathroom break. Guess how long the 5-minute bathroom break took?

There was a woman to my right, and a man next to her at the end of our row. She had an iPhone, he had a Harry Potter book. I’m not really sure why he brought the book at all, since all he did from the moment he sat down was complain, sigh, and flop his arms about to show his annoyance. They began to commiserate. Clearly, he felt that he was very important, and all the court employees were incompetent, and they should all feel very bad for wasting his precious time. I kept my head down.

The trouble with group exercises like jury duty is that they operate with the lowest common denominator in mind. They have to accommodate every person, old, young, Christian, Arab, WASP, student, entrepreneur, professional, mom, rich, poor, educated, ignorant. As individuals, people are generally pretty smart. As groups, people are very, very dumb. This makes the rich, educated folks very unhappy, and sometimes they behave very badly.

The good thing about the justice system is that it requires all those diverse people to be in the same room together, doing the same task. It is easy to become cynical because our system of justice has many flaws, but the ideas behind it are still good, I think. When the judge read off the charge explaining our duties, it made me happy to think that such wording like (and I’m probably paraphrasing here) “equality for all people, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation” is included in our legal documents. Even if we flawed humans cannot follow the law, for we all have biases which we cannot ignore, the law is there to inspire us to try.

So, as I embark on a month of daily jury duty, I will try to keep the ideal in mind as I inevitably have to endure the mundane and petty realities of commuting, group think, banal legal arguments, and (horror of horror) my 22 fellow jurors.

A week full of scandals and bad behavior. Above is Oshio Manabu, an actor and pop singer, who fled the house of a woman with whom he did Ecstasy after she fell ill. He called his manager and left without calling for medical help. Later, she died. Now And now Manabu’s wife is divorcing him.

The second scandal involves “self-proclaimed professional surfer” Takaso Yuichi  busted for amphetamine stuffed in his underwear who blamed his wife, popular actress Sakai Noriko. She fled the city but was arrested today after leaving her son at the home of her husband’s mistress.

Sadly I can’t find a photo of alleged surfer Takaso (Above is Takaso, thanks to an anonymous tipster, unfortunately not caught in surfer action), although I was charmed to hear that the government has pulled the wife’s movie promoting the new lay jury system in Japan. Apparently they don’t want a fictional “juror” who is a real life suspect.

The Japanese press is finding many warnings that Noripi was corrupted by her husband of ten years. Why she even got a tattoo last year: a clear signal of descent into depravity, no?

Early last year a tattoo was spotted on her left ankle, something not considered in keeping with her pure and innocent image. Showbiz sources say she had lost a lot of weight and was behaving erratically lately.

And lastly here is Noripi singing her “Blue Rabbit” (Aoi Usagi) song:

If no one has said it before, I’ll say it now…  Be careful what you blog, when you blog.  A California lawyer had his bar license suspended 45 days after he blogged while serving as a juror.  Although reportedly warned by the judge not to discuss the case, orally or in writing, the attorney apparently made a “lawyerly distinction” concerning blogs:  “Nowhere do I recall the jury instructions mandating I can’t post comments in my blog about the trial,” he writes, before forging on with unflattering descriptions of both the judge and the defendant. He also failed to identify himself as a lawyer to the trial participants, the bar journal notes.

I find it especially disturbing the perpetrator in this case was a lawyer, as opposed a non-lawyer such as Al Roker (remember his Twitter fiasco during jury selection?).  Lawyers, better than anyone else, should have an appreciation and respect for the jury/trial process.  I find it satisfying to see the court send a message that such conduct will not be tolerated.  This lawyer had no prior disciplinary record, and could have easily been given a warning or public reprimand.