I was called Juror #3. Like most people, I had hoped some of the facts of my background would disqualify from jury duty but my fellow jury prospects had more baggage than an airplane. Along with twelve other jurors, I won this lottery and was selected foreperson because of my past trial experience.
It was a circumstantial case involving a convicted felon who had been arrested in a big narcotics raid for possession of crack cocaine, a loaded gun, and a box of ammunition. Initially I thought this to be a slam dunk case of not guilty due to overzealous narc squad wanting to bust a man who was most probably involved with distribution of drugs. All they got was a man with a loaded weapon and a gram of crack. Even though the defendant was previously caught doing illegal activities, I wanted to follow to follow the letter of the law and make the prosecutor convince me the evidence showed this beyond a reasonable doubt.
For anyone who has not served on a jury, it is a daunting task. You are charged to sit in judgment of another person's life, deciding their fate. It is not like the legal shows one sees on TV. Conceptually, it is easy to think you can be fair but the gravity hits you when you are escorted to the jury room for deliberations.
We had an good cross-section from our County of jurors who took their duty seriously. None of them walked in thinking or wanting this man to be guilty until everything had been dissected and carefully reviewed. I was elected foreperson due to my previous experience on a jury trial. All of my fellow jurors agreed with my proposed structure at how we can breakdown and discuss this case logically to more likely reach a unanimous verdict on all counts. It was of the utmost importance to me personally that each juror left there feeling their voice was heard and there opinion was crucial in reaching a consensus. This was this thoughtful jury who combed through every piece of evidence, reviewed the facts and discrepancies, and civilly discussed our conclusions as instructed by the judge according to law. Though I and another juror remained the most skeptical of the state's case was beyond a reasonable doubt case, when we had the testimony of a witness re-read back to us by the court reporter, my fellow juror and I discussed our shadow of a doubt suddenly was illuminated by refreshed testimony. The verdict was guilty.
This was my first guilty verdict trial. As I looked at the defendant and his family's dejected faces, I felt incredibly sad for all the suffering they had been through, especially for the elderly grandmother who raised him. Afterwards, I wondered about the story behind this story. At the very end, before we were dismissed, the judge advised us it would be best for us to lay this to rest and not explore this case further. I will never know the full story but believe twelve people did their best in determining a fair and impartial verdict.
As I walked away, several jurors stopped to tell me what a good job I did as foreperson. This being their first trial, they thanked me for how thoughtful and adept I was at maneuvering them through the legal process to draw their own conclusions. They voiced being surprised that they felt more confidence in the judicial system after being part of it and were impressed that their participation was key. Knowing how seriously every one of the jurors took this responsibility, I share their confidence and believe the fundamental right to a fair trial by one's peers is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is a small price to pay to ensure justice for all.
