The Icing

I spent the last day and a half at the Fresno Superior Court. Seems like every year and a half or so, I get called in--which is quite frequent given that I think I'd only been called for jury duty once before I moved here.

After sitting around for a couple of hours in the morning, my group was finally called for a case. Right off, about 40% of the group tried to get out of duty for hardship. We spent the rest of the morning and part of the early afternoon listening to people's reasons why they should be excused from duty. I really sympathize with those who work part-time, have no job security, and who live from paycheck to paycheck. I was glad to see them excused from duty.

I didn't feel quite as much sympathy for those whose employers would pay them during and who were merely inconvenienced by jury duty. I have to admit, though, that I deferred duty until this week because I knew I'd have my grading done and would actually have mostly unencumbered time this week. Still, I had to change a doctor's appointment--and I risked not being able to go to hear the presentations of some high school students who are doing projects for me. I know I'm lucky to have the flexible schedule that I do, so I tried not to be too judgmental about these attempts. I was just irritated that it took up so much time to address the excuses of those who were grasping at any reason to be released. Why is it that we (and I include myself here) are so inconvenienced by doing our civic duty?

* * * * * *

The actual case involved a Fresno State football player who was accused of 3 misdemeanors: two related to DUI and one concerning the resulting hit and run (of a building rather than a person). Of course, I didn't know any of the particulars during the questioning. I found out afterwards that the defendant was the only CSUF player drafted by an NFL team this year . . . and that the lawyer planned to argue that his client's accident was the result of a football-induced concussion not intoxication. The defendant had a number of run-ins with the law last fall (including two DUIs within one week) and was suspended from play three times as a result. In fact, he was eventually dropped from the team. Since I didn't hear any of the evidence, I don't claim to know whether he was guilty or not, although I have my suspicions.

Because this was a high profile case, the jury selection was actually quite cantankerous and lengthy. When the jury was finally approved by both sides (after a full day of jury selection for a case that was estimated to last no more than 5 days and did not consider anything more serious than a misdemeanor), only 5 people remained in the pool who hadn't been questioned yet (including me). The jury selection process was troubling in what it revealed about our society. Both attorneys asked inane questions at some point in the process. The prosecution asked several people their opinion about the law--I wasn't aware that juries were able to dismiss the law (please sense my sarcasm here). The defense attorney asked awkwardly phrased questions trying to relate people's experience with all kinds of machines (including computers, refrigeration equipment, etc.) as a way of assessing prospective jurors' ability to understand that sometimes equipment breaks down. It's a fair question (if he plans to argue that the equipment measuring the defendant's level of intoxication didn't function properly), but the questions were so complicated and confusing that the p.j.s frequently didn't know what he was asking.

There were also multiple questions about whether jurors could be impartial, consider evidence, assess witnesses' veracity based on what they said rather than on their position (for example, police officers weren't automatically more trustworthy than, say, a student) and make a decision based only on what was presented in the case. Again, these are fair questions, but p.j.s were asked the same question repeatedly, sometimes in the same form, sometimes in an unclear manner. At certain points, it almost seemed that the attorneys' goal was to see which jurors would acquiesce with the question, whether they understood it or not.

Both attorneys seemed to want jurors who would evaluate witness testimony based not just on credentials but on the credibility of testimony and their own common sense. But what I saw over and over was that the smartest people, the ones whose experience would actually help them consider the issues involved in the case were dismissed. The student who had studied alcohol and substance abuse? Out? The two criminology students? Out. The ag econ professor who called an attorney on the difficulty of answering his compound (convoluted) question (who clearly would have been a fair, insightful, analytical juror)? Out. The graduate student in forensic psychology? Out. In other words, the attorneys seemed to be dismissing a certain category: those who would analyze the testimony presented with a level of understanding and insight.

I'm sure that the attorneys had their reasons for dismissing some of these prospective jurors. But my worry is that there is an increasing bias against those who are actually informed in our society. We re-elected a president whose former press secretary (Scott McClellan) has recently published a book asserting that the president makes decisions based on his gut/instinct rather than using facts or rational processes. We see a large number of people (including policy makers) who dismiss scientific evidence of global warming. In my profession, I encounter students who care more about the diploma than actually gaining the skills and knowledge that will make them effective at whatever profession they've chosen.

I'm not arguing here that "smart people" are inherently better than anyone else. In fact, I think that those with "emotional intelligence" and other characteristics not related to book learning are important, valuable, desirable. What I am arguing is that the ability to consider, analyze, and assess data in an informed and thoughtful manner ought to be valued more by our society and judicial system.