Musings of a Juror

While you might think that serving on jury duty is not blog-worthy, I just completed my second stint and learned something new, so I thought I'd share. Similar to my musings about my recent hospital stay, or the earlier blog when I had Covid, I had time on my hands to reflect on the experience and thought I'd capture it here before I forgot!

While I didn't take pictures of the experience, certain images remain in my mind. The recent trial was a case of domestic violence, and the defendant was a 19 year old man. The incident occurred on June 22, 2025, so it took 10 months for the case to come to trial.

The jury duty summons itself proceeded as expected. I called in each night to see if I needed to report the next day, and by Thursday I was feeling pretty confident I wouldn't have to report in person. But no, on Thursday the message said to report at 1:30 the next afternoon. An estimated 120 people reported, we all got checked in and watched an introductory movie, then they brought us into the courtroom where we learned a little about the case. We were told it was a domestic violence case and the trial would take about five days. The names of the witnesses were read off as well as the defendant and victim. People were allowed to raise their hands if they intended to plead a hardship. About half the people did so, and the rest of us were excused to the hallway. People kept coming out of the courtroom but no one was leaving. Then the bailiff came out and read off the last four numbers of the jurors who were excused. I guess they didn't want others to hear what excuses "worked"!

Luckily I had brought a book along so wasn't bored, but there was limited seating and after an hour standing around I was getting pretty tired. Around 4:00 they brought us back in and called eighteen numbers, for twelve jurors and six alternates. They had a list of seven questions on the screen - things like your educational background, your occupation (including prior occupation if you were retired), your spouse's and kids' occupations, whether you had served on a jury before and whether you had reached a verdict. It was interesting to hear how many people had never served before - I'd estimate about half - and these were not young people!

By then it was 4:30, which is the time we were released, so they told all of us to come back on Monday at 1:30. At that point there were about 30 people left in the audience. I knew that some of the jurors would get "kicked out" by the lawyers, but figured my chances were still pretty good of not getting called to serve. Not that I would have minded. And I definitely feel it's our civic duty to serve and that I could be an unbiased member of the jury, but I had plans for the following weekend (including Friday and Monday). Also, the week after that, we were planning to watch Kaia while Anujin's folks were out of town so it wasn't exactly convenient timing.

On Monday, they kicked out five members of the jury after asking lots of detailed questions about whether anyone had been a victim or was close to someone who was a victim of domestic violence, whether they knew anyone in law enforcement, whether they thought they could be unbiased if the evidence was circumstantial, etc. After that they picked five more people and mine was the last number picked! So at this point, I was alternate number six. After we answered the seven questions and they asked more probing questions and dismissed more people, there were three alternates left and I was the third. Turns out alternates still need to attend the whole trial so that they can be prepared to step into the jury, but they aren't allowed to deliberate unless jurors are excused for whatever reason.

At that point, I cancelled my weekend plans and prepared to show up in Santa Rosa for the next few afternoons. There was some question about whether we would be in court on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so there was a possibility that if the trial went longer than five days that I wouldn't be able to help with Kaia the following week. I later realized that as the third alternate, I likely wouldn't have to show up in court once they started deliberations, so I wrote a note to the judge and passed it to the bailiff for delivery. We were in court Tuesday but not Wednesday, and on Thursday as he released us he asked me to stay back and said that while he couldn't make any promises, it was likely that I would be able to meet my childcare commitment the following week. So that was a relief!

Each lawyer gave their opening statements, and we learned that the defendant was observed hitting the victim while they were in a car, and there were two witnesses to the incident. One was an Uber driver who followed the car after he saw what was happening (and got agreement from his customer who was riding with him). The other was a father driving with his wife and infant son, who saw the car rocking with the force of the blows, but didn't think he could do anything to help. He initially got on the freeway but had second thoughts and circled back. The car pulled into the parking lot of a convenience store, and that's where the witnesses stopped and police showed up.

The first witness was the responding officer. It was interesting to see how evidence is presented now. We were shown playbacks of her body camera and interviews of the defendant and victim, and the photos she had taken of both of them. Every time something was shown to the witness it was formally "cleared" with the judge and each exhibit was referred to by a number. In listening to her body cam footage, we learned that the victim was claiming nothing was wrong, that they were "perfect" and when the officer stated that "someone was going to jail", she got quite upset because at that point she realized her boyfriend was going to be arrested. The victim had redness on her face and bruises on her neck, her fake eyelashes were askew, and her fake nails were mostly broken off. The defendant also had a few scratches and some redness on his chest. In the body cam footage he claimed to have been "jumped" by gang members, but he couldn't specify where and there were no follow up questions asked. One of the things we learned from the officer's testimony is that once the 911 dispatcher called for a response to domestic violence, she HAS to make an arrest. Apparently there is a California law that requires that, even if the victim doesn't want to press charges.

The officer was still on the stand the second day, for the defense lawyer to ask her questions about whether or not she or other officers tried to locate the supposed gang members; whether she asked the victim if she was in pain; whether there were security cameras in the parking lot; if the witnesses were interviewed further, etc. It appeared that none of this was done. Once the dispatcher labeled it as domestic violence, the officer made the arrest and was done with it.

Every time we left the courtroom the judge read instructions cautioning us from talking to each other or anyone about the case, from doing research, from making a decision, etc. It was HARD to not do any of those things, but I did my best to absorb the information we were being given and not carry the thought process forward.

The first witness was called to the stand, and we heard his 911 call. Clearly he was upset, but he was able to follow the car, describe it, and get a license plate number. He was asked to identify the driver in the courtroom and was able to do so. On the call he initially said he thought the person was in their thirties, and the victim was either Asian or Hispanic. In truth the defendant was 19 and the victim 22, but given the witness was driving and seeing the incident in a moving car, I don't think I could have done a better job than he did. He was in fear for the person who was being hit, and at one point was told by the 911 operator to leave the area if he was in fear himself. He circled back and stopped in the parking lot after the car pulled in.

The next day the second witness was called, and at this point I started to feel like I was watching a series on TV where each day there was something new revealed. This witness was a father, and he said what drew his attention to the car was that it was actually rocking from the violence of the incident. He didn't initially follow the car when it started moving, but got on the freeway to head home. As he thought about it, he realized that he had three sisters and turned back because he would have wanted someone to do that if it was his sister in the car. Both these witnesses were totally believable and were able to identify the car and the defendant in person and the victim from photos.

The last witness was the victim herself. Apparently when she received the subpoena she and the defendant came to the DA's office and tried to get the charges dropped and the trial cancelled. She was told that if she didn't appear to testify she would have a warrant issued for her arrest, so right away we learned she didn't want to be there. It was no surprise that she denied being hit, claimed the redness was blush, and said the bruise on her neck was a birthmark. It was still visible ten months later, so I believed that part.

The following Monday we were thrown a curveball. Initially there were two counts that the defendant was being tried for, one was battery, and the other was causing injury to a spouse/partner/etc. The second count was being dropped, and we were to proceed with just the first count. I think what happened was the lawyers/judge didn't feel they had enough evidence to prove that she was injured. After that, the lawyers gave their closing statements, and the prosecutor was very convincing. She brought up the question - why would two witnesses, who didn't know each other or either of the two involved, tell the stories they did if they weren't true? The defense attorney tried to use the "confirmation bias" argument. According to Google, Confirmation bias is "the cognitive tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses, while disregarding contradictory evidence. It acts as an internal filter, strengthening stereotypes and leading to biased decisions, such as in medical diagnoses, legal judgments, or media consumption."

While I agree that the officer expected to see a domestic violence situation when she showed up, the testimony of the witnesses was more believable to me than the victim's testimony. It was interesting to me to see how confirmation bias did come into it, and to think about how all of us sometimes "see what we want to see". It made me appreciate the fact that a jury trial did allow the evidence to be presented and reviewed by an unbiased "group of your peers".

It was also interesting to me to see how technology was used in the courtroom now. My last trial was 25 years ago, and the lawyer literally had a whole cart of binders and paperwork. This time, while there was a binder and papers in front of the lawyers, most of what the jury was shown was on a screen. While I don't know if she did it on purpose, using a screen allowed the prosecutor to leave her last slide up after she was done, which could have had an impact on the case. The defense lawyer quickly asked her to unplug her computer before she started her final argument.

While I was not allowed to help make a decision in this case, it was an interesting process. The next evening they called to let me know the verdict, which was guilty. That's what I would have voted for too, so I feel that justice was served. Despite that, I wonder if anything will improve. It appears that the victim and defendant were still together. I don't know what the punishment would be for this misdemeanor, but would it serve to change his behavior or allow her to get free of an abusive relationship?

I'm sure the attorneys and judge spent a lot of time prior to the trial in preparation, and roughly 120 people had to take an afternoon off work to show up. Even after jury selection, there were fifteen of us spending at least four hours a day in court, plus the lawyers and judge who spent time outside of the trial in discussions and preparation. I had to wonder, how much did it cost "the people" to bring this case to trial?

Being in and around the courtroom gave me an appreciation for the people that work in our justice system. The buildings were dreary and not well cared for. The gardens in the interior courtyard were in a sad state, the windows were absolutely covered in cobwebs, and the hallways of the building were cement and cinderblock. I give credit to the people that work in this depressing environment, working with victims or defendants day in and day out, trying to do the right thing and bring justice to people that deserve it.

If I had still been working and under pressure to be producing work outside of the time I was tied up in court, it would have been a more frustrating experience. In my case, it was an opportunity to see how our legal system works. I hope to never have to experience that first-hand, so I thought I'd share this "sworn jurors" experience!