A citizen does her jury duty

Like many others, last month I received a summons for jury duty. Since it was the beginning of the holiday season, with upcoming events and obligations that are important to me, I did not want to have an uninvited intrusion in my life. My immediate reaction was to plead for a release from jury duty. In fact, when I returned the initial papers I “mentioned” my advanced age, 77, in hopes they would deem me unfit. Much to my chagrin, I received another letter from Skagit County Superior Court, this time welcoming me into service, thanking me for being a good citizen and informing me of the time and place to report (after phoning in the night before, to confirm there was a case pending).

Well, that was not welcome news at the time! Then I began to put things in perspective.

First, if I were on trial, I would want someone like me as a juror, since I am a fair-minded, analytical and reasonable person.

Second, I recalled that once before, many, many years ago I was on a jury and it was a memorable experience in every sense.

At that time, a young man’s life was placed in the hands of eleven strangers and me.

It was a daunting responsibility, not taken lightly and I actually was the hold-out when the rest wanted to give him the strongest punishment for something I viewed as a horrific accident, not an intentional act.

I was stubborn, probably despised by the other jurors, but unwilling to forfeit a young man’s life because of his youthful bad judgment and immense bad luck.

Eventually, I persuaded the others to agree to a lesser charge.

With a new outlook, I arose early last Tuesday and drove into the Mount Verson Courthouse to stand in line with many others on a rainy, windy day, ready to do my civic duty. After being issued an n-95 mask, having my purse and pockets searched and being frisked, I was led to seat #5. There were 33 seats, six feet apart and we were known thereafter by our numbers.

In front of us were the court officials: judge, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorney, the accused, the “administrators,” and the various court recorders. There were wires everywhere from all the technical apparatus and we began with a video presentation explaining how we all have conscious and unconscious biases and how to recognize them when making decisions.

Next, the attorneys asked us probing questions relating to personal data, previous experiences, opinions and perceptions. For instance, I was almost stumped when asked, “How do you determine credibility?” I needed more time to think that one out, but I believe I stuttered some cliches. I was impressed how every single one of the prospective jurors took each question and challenge very seriously and gave honest and thoughtful answers. The majority of us were retirement age, but there was a good balance among the younger prospects.

The selection process is officially called voir dire, a French term meaning “to speak truth”, but it refers to the questioning of jurors in order to select the final panel agreeable to both defense and prosecution. We began at 9:00 a.m., had a couple of breaks to stretch and a lunch break and finished after 4:00 p.m. We were never given specifics about the case, but it was inferred that it involved impaired driving that led to serious consequences. The voir dire process was very thorough, eventually ending with the announcement of the selected jury panel.

Alas, I was not selected. I was surprised at how disappointed I was, but felt confident that those chosen would give a thoughtful and fair verdict. I recalled the worry and fear I saw on the face of the accused and wished I could have learned more about the case. In the end, I was comfortable leaving the courtroom, knowing that our judicial system is working well as long as citizens like me are willing to put aside personal inconveniences and answer their “call to duty.”