LESSONS FROM THE COURTROOM August 9, 2024

Most people flee jury duty, but a recent experience confirmed that our courts offer much to learn.

Recently, I reported to San Francisco’s Hall of Justice on Bryant Street. It sits in an area south of Market Street where most San Franciscans don’t go. In the ’90s, I served on two criminal juries there. The Hall may not quite be soul deadening, but upstairs, its hallways and courtrooms provide no natural light. There’s no café, either, although you can get coffee and lunch nearby.

Day one, I sat with 120 other folks in the jury assembly room. We waited. At long last, the clerk of the court trying the case took the roll. Then we sat through videos explaining the importance of juries and recognizing—and overcoming—our biases. 

The judge came down to welcome us and go through a few things. Welcome news: The trial would take place Monday through Thursday, 9 am–noon. At 10:30, he dismissed us.

Jury selection began the next day with 24 randomly selected candidates for questioning. I wasn’t one. The judge asked: Did the prospective jurors know the defendant? The prosecution team? The defense team? Proposed witnesses? No one did.

Boredom set in as the judge asked each prospective juror if they’d ever been the victim of the crime for which the defendant had been accused. Knew of someone who had. If so, could they look at the evidence objectively?

Of great importance, did they understand that under California law, circumstantial evidence must be weighed equally with direct evidence? That the burden of proof falls on the prosecution? That the defendant does not have to testify or make any case for innocence? That the defendant does not have to prove innocence in the first place?

This cross-section of San Franciscans gave varied answers. Some said that despite having been the victim of the crime the prosecution would detail, or knowing someone who’d been, they could consider the evidence fairly. Others said they could not overcome their biases against anyone accused of such a crime. One said he would have difficulty finding the defendant not guilty if the victim shared his ethnicity.

Over three days, prospective jurors revealed their emotions and doubts. Some lacked understanding of basic American jurisprudence. I got restless. Also a bit angry. What was the problem with these people? The judge dismissed a few folks. 

Still, many prospective jurors told the judge that despite their assorted misgivings and uncertainties, they could be fair and impartial. The judge, polite and understanding, acknowledged their concerns and praised their willingness to see justice done.

Therein the judge reminded me of an important lesson we all need to keep top of mind. Particularly in challenging situations, people want to be seen, heard, recognized. We all need time—requiring the patience of others—to work through complex feelings. Given that consideration, most people will cope with stress and do the right thing.

I’d been impressed by the juries, including one civil case, on which I’d served. And although dismissed in this case after a jury had been selected—I’d never been called on—the process reinforced my respect for our court system. Also the need to listen and pay attention to others before reaching conclusions about them.

Not easy but so necessary.

Please pass on this post. 

Order my new novel, TAKING STOCK (Kirkus Reviews starred selection) in softcover or e-book from Amazon, barnesandnoble.com or iuniverse.com. Or from your favorite bookstore.