When I received notification to report for jury duty selection for the state of Maryland, it was my first exposure and experience with the juror selection process, and in actually serving as a juror “alternate.” Apparently, they select 12 jurors plus 2, in case something happens to one or one becomes unable to serve. I did not really know what to expect. I only knew from conversations with other people what it was like and what to say if I didn’t want to get selected. Interestingly enough the later part of that was not really true. Meaning in my case, the questions were not directly to me, but rather to the group of us. We were chosen as a group, I think of about 20 or 30 sequentially by juror number, and were brought into the courtroom, sat down, and questioned as a group. The Judge told us we would be asked questions as part of the what is called the voir dire process, by the defense and prosecution attorneys and should stand as each questions was asked if they pertained to us. As the Jury Duty 101 website states, these would be questions about our “background, beliefs, prejudices, or relationships with any party to the case” and would allow the attorneys to make a decision about who they wanted to select to be a juror, (2018).

The attorneys took turns asking the group of potential jurors the questions, such as “do you know anyone involved in the case—the defendant or the plaintiff?” I suppose I could have stood up to as many of the questions as seemed feasible if I thought it might have help me be dismissed; however, I did not choose that option. Looking at it now, I can see which questions would identify if any one of the group had an interest prejudice—did we know anyone involved in the case. Other questions covered items that may reveal a specific prejudice. In this case racist views may come into account, as the individuals involved were white and black. Interestingly, I remember there being a specific question or two about attitudes and beliefs towards injury compensation from a car accident. That quickly made sense when I came to find out it was a civil case involving a car accident. There weren’t really any normative questions asked I remember, this wasn’t a widely known case to the community, (Schneider, Gruman, & Couts, 2012, p.263). My responses must have deemed me impartial enough because to my surprise I was chosen to be one of two alternate jurors for this case. The juror’s selected consisted of 12 people, more male than female and more white than black jurors, with two alternates, a white female (myself) and a white male. Since it was still early in the morning and the juror’s had been selected the trial started that day.

Even though I was serving as an alternate, I still participated and sat with the other jurors during the trial. The Judge explained to all of the jurors, to include the alternates, their roles and responsibilities as directed by the law. While this may be considered a minor civil case, after listening to the Judge explain and watching the faces of the other jurors, I can see why Ellsworth and Reifman explain the need for reforms designed to help juror’s understand the law as well as the evidence, (2000). As Ellsworth and Reifman state, “ the most pervasive difficulty juries encounter in arriving at accurate verdicts across the whole range of criminal and civil cases is their inability to understand the judge’s instructions about the law”. They also discuss the recommendations for encouraging active participation, which includes having juror’s take notes, (Ellsworth and Reifman, 2000, p.814). I can tell you from my experience being able to take notes would have been extremely useful.

Unfortunately, I only sat through the first day of the trial. When I arrived the morning of the second day, both alternates were dismissed as the 12 juror members all showed up. This meant we were no longer needed and were able to leave for the day with our duty fulfilled. I walked out of the building with the other alternate, and we were both disappointed we didn’t get to hear the rest of the case or be part of the decision or, for that matter, even know what the verdict the juror’s decided upon. We did, however, at that point feel the same about the way we would have voted.

I would just make one last note during the first day we did have a break and went into the deliberation room together. We were told we weren’t allowed to discuss the case at this point. I found this discerning, as the information was still fresh and I felt as though it may have been beneficial. We were able to get to know one another a little, which I do think was good and would benefit everyone once they had to come back into that room to decide on a verdict. This was not a highly diverse group of people, as Schneider et.al. discussed the racial composition of jurors has been studied as a possible source of bias, influencing the outcome of the trial. They also state there have been consistent findings that a greater proportion of white jurors leads to more convictions, especially when the defendant is black and the victim is white. In this civil case the opposite was true, (2012, p.263). I am still curious to this day to know the jurors’ verdict.

REFERENCES:

Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 788-821. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.788.

Jury Duty 101. (2018). Maryland-Jury Duty Laws, Jury Selection, Juror Qualification. Retrieved from: https://www.juryduty101.com/states/maryland

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Couts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2^nd ed.). Thousands Islands, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 3rd, 2018 at 4:09 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.