I got to observe the jury selection process which was fascinating. Not as fascinating as Runaway Jury
but still pretty darn interesting. The case was interesting as well; an attorney charged with assaulting a court marshal during a hearing involving his divorce and child custody (the attorney specialized in divorce and custody issues). The attorney was representing himself. I learned later his case has been a year long saga in various courts with various judges and prosecutors, over a 4th degree assault charge.
The newspaper report of the incident said the attorney was asked to leave the divorce/custody hearing because he was being disruptive. In the process of being escorted out by the court officer he ended up in some sort of a struggle/shoving match and was maced by the court officer. That was apparently the end of it, until he decided the next day to file a police report and threaten to sue the county for 1.5 million dollars. At that point he was charged with 3rd degree assault, a felony, for alledgedly hitting the marshal with his elbow. At some point in the legal process the charge was reduced to 4th degree assault, a gross misdemeanor.
The jury pool included amongst other people, a special federal investigator and an attorney who had interesting things to say to the defendent. The attorney told the defendent essentially that he thought he was foolish to defend himself and that he was wasting taxpayer money and court time. The special federal investigator had some interesting comments about recording facts and also a non-deferential attitude towards the attorneys differing from most of the regular citizens there.
The defense and prosecution have the right to dismiss jurors for cause (an obvious or maybe not so obvious potential for bias/prejudice) or for no-cause (there's something about the juror they don't think would help their case). Both the attorney and the federal investigator were dismissed by the defendent. They got through about 23 people before they arrived at a 12 person jury.
I was amazed at the size of this piece of the criminal justice system. There were over 200 potential jurors called for duty in the Superior Court that Monday. Snohomish County has fourteen Superior Court Judges and 4 court commissioners (licensed attorneys appointed by the judges to hear certain cases). Add to that the clerks, administrators, defense and district attorneys and we're talking big.
The introduction to jury service video was narrated by none other than Perry Mason aka Raymond Burr. I grew up watching Perry Mason and have been a fan of Judge Wapner's People's Court, Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown, etc., so I was disappointed a bit that I wasn't actually able to sit through the trial. Maybe next time.
I'm not so sure I'd be a good juror anyway. In a trial you are only to consider the facts presented. I'd like to know every fact possible, by talking to people involved, reading everything I could find, considering precedents and then decide for myself what is pertinent (or as they say on TV court shows - admissible as evidence). Making those decisions on admissibility is the judge's job - unfortunately for me, they were looking for jurors rather than judges on the day I was there.
Raymond Burr said in the video that the justice system necessarily moves at a slow pace. Considering the consequences of the decisions it makes sense that we wouldn't want to rush to justice. Tough to reconcile the desire for slow careful justice with our right to a speedy trial and the overcrowding of the court system (primarily due to arrests for non-violent drug offenses).
Considering over 200 regular citizens, numerous judges, attorneys, police officers, clerks were hard at work on Monday in the Superior Court system it's interesting to consider how society's resources are being allocated to serve justice. What keeps our courts and prison systems busy? I'm sure you know the answer but here's a few interesting factoids on the failed drug war and the costs to society of incarcerating non-violent offenders -
Ralph Nader asked George Bush to grant clemency to the incarcerated non-violent drug offenders in his campaign bid of 2004 making the point that if George had been treated the same as regular folks arrested for using cocaine he “probably would not have gone on to have the career you have had.” Nader's request for clemency letter was similar to a letter signed by 400 clergy members sent to President "I didn't inhale" Clinton during his term in office in 2000.
More than half of the federal prison population consists of prisoners convicted of drug offenses. The statistics show these are non-violent low-level crimes e.g. street dealers or personal possession cases.
California and New York spend more incarcerating people than they do on higher education.
The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
The U.S. has the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world with 701 per 100,000 people (Russia is second at 606 per 100,000). Compare this with the U.K. which has 141 per 100,000 (which still places the U.K. highest of the European Union Countries).
Human Rights Watch concluded, "Drug control policies bear primary responsibility for the quadrupling of the national prison population since 1980 and a soaring incarceration rate, the highest among western democracies.... No functioning democracy has ever governed itself with as large a percentage of its adults incarcerated as the United States."
Sources:
Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States
Nader Urges Bush to Grant Clemency for Non-Violent Drug Offenders
Drug War Facts: Drug Offenders In The Corrections System — Prisons, Jails and Probation
Postscript -
The questioning process used to select jurors to determine if you have prior knowledge of the case, personal interests, or feelings that might cause you to be biased is called voir dire, which means "to speak the truth."
I'm sure people want to "speak the truth" but I don't think many were. The attorneys keep asking if you will be unbiased, consider only the facts and be impartial. People say yes, yes, yes...I'm fair, unbiased and totally without prejudice.
I beg to differ. We all climb the Ladder of Inference quickly, we all have biases and prejudices and to state otherwise means you are either not telling the truth or not self-aware. Personally I would have convicted the guy based on a five minute observation except for the fact that I have personal biases causing me to question any general theory that law enforcement always acts out of concern for the public "good". The tension between those two bias might have kept me listening to what he said vs. what the state was trying to prove for awhile, except I didn't really like the look of the assistant DA ;-)
I remember years ago making an observation in the L.A. County courthouse, while observing the police and the prisoners interact, that the police seemed to be closer in thought/habit to some of the bad-guy type prisoners than to me. A prisoner and a police officer were "joking" about the prisoner assaulting his wife. It was like they were old buddies talking about a fishing trip. The policeman knew the prisoner from prior convictions. I'm not sure how police who associate with bad guys all day keep from having it rub off, must be tough.
They (police/guards) would beat you up in the L.A. County jail, and on the way there, just for the hell of it. I saw a black man that had been beaten to the point (while restrained) that he couldn't walk and they had to wheel him out in a wheelchair. If you can stay out of the L.A. County jail that's probably best. Let's make that any jail.
I guess for my two cents worth I'd like to see attorneys, courts and regular people devote their time to protecting people who can't protect themselves. Instead of arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating non-violent drug offenders I'd like to see our energies devoted to protecting a child who needs help, victims of crime, a prisoner being abused or anyone else who can't afford, isn't aware enough, or for some other reason can't use the legal system to look out for themselves. When you think about a case like this it makes you think how utterly our system fails some of those least able to protect themselves. I can't hate the sinner even in this one. Joseph Duncan was in his own sad/sick way a victim. He should never have been allowed to be on the street...killing him only shows that we failed as a society.
Jack
