At least not a major league type trial such as a murder charge. I have been watching the local news the last few nights, which has been covering a major murder trial. The scene is the same at most murder trials, with “tough” prosecutors (translate overdramatic). Irrelevant relatives from both sides saying how wonderful their son, brother, whatever, was. Adding the necessary crocodile tears that is somehow supposed to change my rational view. I would be too tempted to give an obvious “spare me” look when I see and hear such melodrama.
I may do better in a civil trial, such as a contractor vs. property owner thing. Possibly an “evil” corporation vs. someone wronged. Because I feel I could see relative frivoloty, although I do not favor limits on punitative damages, because then corporations could more easily factor potential litigation costs, and possibly feel free to make careless decisions based on this. Although if I let this out in a civil jury pool, they would likely let me know.
Attorneys are pretty good at jury selection nowadays. Given your views, which I’m sure many of us can identify with, there’s hope you won’t be burdened with the task.
Additionally, once the trial starts you’ll be instructed by both the judge and the attorneys as to how the law actually applies to the case. It’s a pretty rigid set of guidelines you must follow. As incensed as you may be by the crocodile tears, they’re really not what the judge charges you to make your decision on.
This can be seen in what sometimes appears to be a clear cut case of guilt that ends in a verdict of not guilty. Take Durst for example, a case your no doubt familiar with. Everything about him absolutely screamed guilty. Personally, I’m sure he did it. Yet the jury made a decision based on the criteria allowed them by the judge.
Not guilty. It sucked (in that particular case), but in a court of law, personal opinions be dammed if everyone does as charged.
Past reflections, when faced with the possibility of serving, have left me feeling that I could, in fact, hold myself to abiding by the judge’s instructions and evaluating the evidence presented dispassionately. While I’ve been called many times, I’ve never been selected. I did consider raising my hand on one occasion where one of the attorneys asked, as a last question, whether anyone wanted to serve on the jury. That was a civil case involving a minority plaintiff and a minority defendant, spurred by an auto accident (connective tissue injury in dispute). I thought I could have weighed that with justice only in mind.
I doubt an individual’s race or subculture affiliation would sway me. But I have wondered about how I would deal with selection, that I have heard of happening, where a professional is advised to ignore their own background and expertise in a field, and stick to just what is presented as evidence. Sticky game, there.
And I also wonder about how I might approach rendering a verdict in a case, probably criminal, wherein I personally felt the law to be unjust.
I will continue to answer the call - perhaps I’ll eventually know my own answers to those questions.