I recently was called up for jury duty, and appeared in the West Palm Beach courthouse. My attitude is that while I'd rather be working my regular job, I still like participating in the system, and the insight that comes with it.
I was selected as a potential juror in a civil case that involved a litigant who was hit by a truck driving for a medical diagnostic service company. The allegation by the guy hit was not only that he was permanently disabled by the accident, but that the diagnostic company he worked for was somehow responsible for his injury, and not just the driver. It seemed to me he and his attorney were alleging that to go where the deeper pockets were, to receive civil damages. From the outset, I found that to be a rather tough needle to thread.
There were about 50 of us selected as potential jurors, and counsel for both sides asked us questions. The first question was by the prosecuting attorney, that his client was Hispanic and required a translator. He asked all the jurors if that would make them biased against him. Not surprisingly, no one said it would.
Then he asked if his client speaking Spanish only would make anyone biased for him. Surprisingly, 2 of the 8 or so Hispanic jurors said yes, they would be more inclined to rule in his favor!
Hey, at least they were honest.
They were excused from the jury.
I disclosed that I've worked in several medical offices on patients injured in car accidents, and had contact with personal injury attorneys handling their cases. That it was my experience that most of the time they were exaggerating or completely faking their injuries, getting medical treatment just to build documentation for a case and receive a settlement. But I also acknowledged that a small percentage had painful injuries that didn't fully heal, and that even a settlement in such cases didn't fully compensate them for those injuries.
The judge introduced herself, and presented her credentials, which I have to admit were quite impressive. She had been a federal judge and had some rather outstanding cases and legal accomplishments. She was a good looking blonde Hispanic lady in her late 30's or early 40's. The attorneys also introduced themselves and their credentials. Then asked each juror to introduce themselves and answer 5 uniform questions.
I was amazed at how incredibly stupid some of the questions from potential jurors to the two opposing counsels were. And beyond mere stupidity, some of the other jurors were clearly expressing outrageous biases in a blatant attempt to just get out of jury service.
Like several other individual jurors, I had several questions that I asked if I could later meet with the two opposing attorneys and the judge individually, without the entire jury assembled, so as not to taint the jury with my questions.
After three hours of jury selection by both counsels, we parted for lunch, and after waited outside to be called back in the courtroom. Both when we left and when we returned, I saw the litigant with his attorney, and he seemed to walk quite well and painlessly for a guy who was suing for damages as permanently disabled.
After several others went in the court individually before me, I was finally called into the court to ask my questions individually. We had actually gone over so much material in that three-plus hours that I had difficulty remembering precisely how I wanted to ask the questions!
I commended counsel on both sides for being able to anticipate so many side issues, beyond the issues of the case itself, in jury selection.
My first question was why the litigant had lived in this country 6 years and yet still required a translator? The judge answered that while he did speak some English, the litigant was more comfortable speaking in his native language, and thus preferred a translator.
My second follow-up question was one created by circumstances that made me ask the first question: Is he in the country legally?
The judge responded that his immigration status was not an issue in this case and I therefore should not concern myself with it regarding this case.
I said to the judge: "Okay... but it is an issue. Because if this man (pointing to the litigant) is in the country illegally and he wins this case, then he is essentially being financially rewarded for entering and living in this country illegally."
The judge looked down at her desk and never made eye contact with me, and wrote something on a pad. Never making eye contact with me, she said: "You're excused from jury service, you may leave the court."
I was tempted to press the issue, and say that it was obvious that the litigant was an illegal immigrant and that the court just clearly didn't want to address that issue, and that by ignoring it the judge was picking and choosing what laws she wanted to enforce, because if he was here legally she would have just said so, and she was therefore allowing a case to be tried that should be dismissed, by her selective omission of the facts.
But y'know, you choose your battles. I was happy to be dismissed from the case, and didn't feel like getting cited for contempt and spending a night in jail.
A bailiff in a sheriff's uniform in his late 50's escorted me out of the court. When we were outside the double doors in the outer lobby, he was smiling and very friendly, whereas before he had been rather stoic and distant. I got the impression he liked what I said in there! He instructed me to go back down to the jury pool room and let them know I'd been excused from the case and was available for another case. But he said the likelihood is they'd just let me go home.
I went downstairs as he instructed, and as he suggested, they let me go home. This was about 1:30 in the afternoon. I went outside, wandered around the nearby restaurants and shops for about an hour, enjoying what West Palm has to offer, and then drove home to Boca Raton.
This is the fourth time I've been summoned for jury duty since the first time in 1994. But this is the deepest so far I've gotten into an actual trial.
