Personal essays
On taking a field trip to grand jury selection
Summons
Forty years ago the chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court said, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
Two weeks ago a federal grand jury in Washington, DC did not indict a guy who is captured on camera throwing a salami sub sandwich at one of the federal agents who is part of the invasion of the capitol.
In the US, in order for a case to go to trial - the sort of trial you see on television - the prosecutor has to first convince a grand jury.
I knew this and I didn’t know this. Last week I learned more.
About the time that the DC grand jury was deciding no bill in the sandwich case, I got a summons from the Cuyahoga courts to appear to possibly be selected to serve as a grand juror.
If selected, we would meet twice a week from today through the end of December.
The form said that if there was any reason we couldn’t serve because of financial hardship or schedule we should submit the reasons in writing.
I’m committed to five conferences in Europe during that time so I sent the judge the proof of my travel and inclusion on the programs of these conferences.
I checked back with the bailiff as instructed and was finally told that the judge had my materials but hadn’t ruled so I would have to go down to the court on Friday.
The warmup
We checked in Friday and received random numbers.
My number was 53.
The bailiff took us into the courtroom and seated us in order of the numbers. We would be questioned about our eligibility in order of these numbers.
The courtroom was small. When the two prosecutors came in they couldn’t sit at the desk on the right because they couldn’t pull the seats back far enough to sit down. They sat on the left.
I didn’t know they had that option.
Then the judge came in, swore the court reporter in and then had us all stand and swore us in as well.
The judge explained how a grand jury works. I had no idea that only the prosecutor presents to the jury. There is no defense attorney, in fact often the potential defendant doesn’t know they are a person of interest.
Nine people vote on a grand jury. In addition six non-voting members are selected who can be swapped in if a voting member needs to miss a particular day for any reason. There are also ten people selected to replace a member who has to drop out or is removed.
So twenty-four of us would be selected. Fourteen would be serving. Nine would be voting.
Seven of the nine have to vote that, yeah there probably is a reason to take this case to court. This is called a true bill.
The judge then asked us if anyone wasn’t a resident of the county. She asked several other questions including whether we were employees of the court, family member of an employee of the court, a convicted felon, and whether we had served on a jury in the past two years. Then she asked if serving would be a financial hardship for anyone or be difficult to schedule.
With each question she recorded the jury numbers of those who raised their hands.
The Selection
The judge then turned over the proceedings to the prosecutor who further explained how grand jury service works. She explained that the standard for indicting is 51%. Do you just slightly think that this person may have done the crime? That’s enough to proceed to an actual court hearing.
She then started vetting the potential jurors. There were gaps in the random numbers so the first juror was number 4.
We had to state our name and explain what our occupation was.
We were asked if serving would be a financial or scheduling hardship. In fact, if we had raised our hand, the prosecutor would say, “you indicated this would be a financial hardship, can you say more.”
A minute later, juror four was excused.
Juror six passed this test and was asked, “can you be fair and impartial?”
Yes.
“Can you follow the law?”
Yes.
The final two questions were specific. “In the case of a drug residue case, could you bring a true bill?”
Yes.
“In the case where there is the possibility that the trial will result in the death penalty, could you bring a true bill?”
Yes.
Juror six was welcomed to the grand jury as grand juror number one.
Getting Closer
On it went. There were about twenty people before me and by the time the selection got to my row ten jurors had been selected.
One said they could not return an indictment in a death penalty case and the prosecutor made a note and said they wouldn’t be asked to vote on such cases.
Several said they had vacations booked during that time. The prosecutor made notes of their vacations and said the court could work around their schedules.
The woman two ahead of me was willing to serve but it clearly would have been a hardship. The prosecutor asked, “do you want to serve on the grand jury?”
“Not really,” the woman answered.
This was the second time the prosecutor had asked this of someone. The first time she had selected the juror, this time the juror was excused.
The woman next to me stated her name and said she was a social worker.
“Can you be fair and impartial?” the prosecutor asked.
No
I stopped to look at the woman. Her answer surprised me.
The prosecutor nodded and excused juror number 51. As the woman stood to leave, she said, “I’ve had bad experiences with the judicial system.”
I stated my name and profession. When asked I told the prosecutor about my prior commitments. I had written the judge to say when I would be available in case they wanted to schedule me for then. No. I was excused.
I took the light rail back and was walking up my street when an elderly lady stopped at a green light and rolled down her window.
“Pardon me, young man,” she began, “is today Saturday or Sunday.”
I stopped and turned and told her, “it’s Friday.”
She looked quite distressed.
I don’t know why I tell you that part, but I thought, I probably would have made a good juror.
Essay from Dim Sum Thinking Newsletter 285. Read the rest of the Newsletter or subscribe