I was on the jury for a murder trial. And it was strange but in a good way - I expected a TV drama, but it was a lesson in quiet Canadian duty | CBC First Person

submitted by

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/first-person-jury-duty-9…

Note about what “First Person” columns are:

First Person columns are personal stories and experiences of Canadians, in their own words. This is intended to showcase a more intimate storytelling perspective, and allow people from across the country to share what they have lived through.

A good piece will spur conversation. It could be a slice of life or a transformative moment that changed your life. Perhaps your personal story will inform how the reader thinks about the world.

Intro:

I knew I was a goner as soon as the sheriff walked into the room. He looked like everyone’s genial Uncle Bob except for the police vest and the walkie-talkie that hung from his belt.

“Juror 322, gather your things. We have to go see the judge,” he said.

A young blond woman picked up her bag and followed Bob out the door.

I knew that exchange meant she wouldn’t be back. And, as the alternate juror for a 12-member jury, I would take her place.

I have never met anyone who wanted to be on a jury. I certainly didn’t.

However, over the course of a three-week trial, we evolved from a gaggle of annoyed people crabbing about how this was going to take time away from watching The Pitt or on the pickleball court to a group that worked hard to figure out whether the accused committed the crime.

In true Canadian fashion, there wasn’t one moment when the piano started playing O Canada or we recited Jeff Douglas’s “I Am Canadian” speech. Instead, it was a collective shoulder shrug that basically said, “We’re stuck here. We might as well figure out the correct answer.”

3
18
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old

I’ve heard numerous times that serving on a jury is actually very interesting and can be very fulfilling.

The problem is that it takes a sledgehammer to your life and routine and the system tells you to go fuck yourself. The financial compensation you are given is pathetic and they have no issues summoning you even if you live hours from the courthouse. There are a lot of people that would be homeless if they couldn’t get excused from jury duty, and thankfully they do include financial hardship as a reason for being excused, but still. This results in our jury panels frequently being comprised of older people who are wealthy enough to spend weeks away from work, or are retired. That is not an impartial, unbiased jury of your peers.

I was summoned early last year and my excusal request was basically: “I’m disabled, have no car, and live in an entirely different city from the courthouse. wtf do you expect me to do?”

 reply
6

I want to serve jury duty, I could care less about the pay I would get, but I want the experience. February or March whenever the lock downs started in 2020 I got a letter saying I would get that experience, but the lock downs happened a few days later (or before don’t remember) the lock downs started. I don’t remember what happened but when I called to find out what was going to happen now I got some voice message saying COVID is F’ng up the system we will contact you later. I never got contacted again.

 reply
3

Comments in Casual Conversation

I’m in the US, but my experience was a lot like that. I ended up as the foreman of a jury that was given an unusually nasty domestic abuse case. It was an intense experience. The court phase lasted three days. The testimony was disturbing and brutal, but the judge did a great job on all counts. The trial was well managed, the legal issues were clearly laid out, and the jury was told what we needed to do and how we should go about it.

Once we were sent to deliberate, everyone settled in rather quickly to doing their jobs carefully and honestly. We had long, detailed, and surprisingly analytical discussions. We requested transcripts of several key sections of the testimony and reviewed some of it word-by-word. Despite the intensity of the subject matter, everyone tried to keep the process rational and not emotional.

There were two holdouts. No one complained about them. We talked with them about why they had reservations and then dug into the evidence around those issues. We spent about a day-and-a-half deliberating, but we did come to a consensus. At the end, I think everyone felt good about our verdict, and about the way we came to it.

The whole process was very much what you hope a trial would be like, but don’t really expect to see. The judge and the lawyers were all engaged, professional, and competent. Everyone on the jury took their jobs seriously. They were thoughtful, careful, and thorough.

That experience actually did a lot for my faith in humanity.

 reply
3
Insert image