So a couple of weeks ago, I reported to the Arizona Federal District Court for Jury Selection (apparently, I had not answered the questions on the questionairre in quite the right fashion to be disqualified from the case). This was my first Jury Duty stint, so I was curious how things worked. They started with about 60 of us, and I was on the first panel of 18 called up for questioning. I made a point of mentioning that I was an Engineer, thinking they would drop me for sure for that. Well, apparently that didn't work. I was chosen as one of the final 10 Jurors (which dropped to 8 by the end of the trial).
The case was a Civil Lawsuit (which you might have heard about in the news by now) in which illegal immigrants were suing a Douglass, AZ Rancher named Roger Barnett. The final claims by the plaintiffs dealt with violation of civil rights, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress. It was rather interesting to me that the case was even in court, given the plaintiffs' legal status. However, the judge made clear from the beginning that we were not ruling on that. We were to focus souly on the "rules of law" that were to be given us at the end of the closing arguments. Here is a link to an article about the case: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/rancher-cleared-in-rights-case/
It has been interesting to me to read about what is in the news about the case and compare it with what was actually presented in court. It kind of makes me think twice about judging a court case based on a reporter's article. This case was difficult in that there were very few "hard facts." Everything was based on testimony, which was always conflicting, right down to the location of the incident. Most articles I've read just assume the incident occured on the Rancher's land. There was no conclusive evidence even of that (though there were questions we the Jury were just itching to ask certain witnesses that would have shed more light on the subject).
Here are a few of my "lessons learned:"
- The 6th floor of the Evo A de Concini Courthouse has free wireless internet, but the Jury Deliberation room on the 5th floor does NOT.
- How good your lawyer is makes a big difference
- Lawyers do have a pretty tough job sometimes (but the jokes about them are still all true)
- The current method of border control is completely inadequate (all of the illegal aliens testified that they basically had no fear of getting caught by Border Patrol - just inconvenient that they would have to try again. It almost made it sound like a game)
- It alerted me of new terminology to use in arguments: "Objection, foundation", "Objection, assumes facts not in evidence", "Objection, argumentative", and "Objection, asked and answered."
- Court recorders are amazing. I don't know how they keep up.
- Now I know where to go for topographical maps - across the street from the courthouse.
- Downtown Tucson traffic is a pain at 5 p.m. I'm glad I don't have to deal with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting story Kristie. I learned a lot from your summary- thank you for sharing it. The media cannot be trusted- ever.
I've only had jury duty once and never actually got selected for a case--which was a relief. My poor morning sick visiting teacher was stuck with an 18 month Elyse for five straight days and I don't know what I would have done without her. Elyse then cried for two weeks afterward if I went anywhere near the front door without her. The most surprising thing I learned during jury selection was how many people had been victims of a crime or had a family member that was a victim (it was for a murder case). But then I was living in Detroit at the time, so maybe I shouldn't have been that surprised.
Post a Comment