Even though wasn't selected for the jury of the court I was called to yesterday, I was expected to pay attention to the proceedings, just in case I was called to replace a dismissed juror.  So I listened as the prosecuting and defense attorneys each got up and asked questions of the prospective jurors.

The most interesting question to me, and the one that most made me want to have been up there in the jury box, was asked by the defense attorney.  To paraphrase: Under the law, the state brings charges against the defendent, and the burden rests entirely on the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defense does not have to prove innocence; the most it has to do is show you that reasonable doubt.  Would you agree with the idea that justice might be better served if, sometimes, the burden was placed on the defense rather than the prosecution?

I guess I can see the point of the defense asking that question.  A prospective juror who answered that the defense should sometimes have to prove innocence  would possibly show that he would be harder on the defense than the law provides for.  I think you could agree to that statement without your judgment in a particular case being called into question, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.  If I recall correctly, though, the only juror who answered positively to that question was not dismissed by either team.

Had the question been asked of me, I think my answer would have been something like: "What are you, nuts?  Our justice system safeguards the rights of the accused so that it is less likely he will be hurt by an overzealous prosecutor.  Of course, the burden of proof must reside with the accuser, or you open the door to all kinds of abuses. Even if the state knows someone is guilty, they should never expect the court to take their word for it.  Justice practically demands that accusers bear a higher cost than defenders."

OK, I wouldn't really have used the long, kinda flowery sentences.  More likely I would have said "Uh...no, I don't think so.  The burden should always be on the accusers." and left it at that.

A chance to do my civic duty just went down the drain.

A couple of months ago, I was summoned for jury duty.  I had to go downtown with 3,000 other people and sign up for one week of actual duty.  This week was my week, so yesterday I went downtown with 200 other people to sit in the jury pool.  We sat and listened to Clyde Carson, the Jury Commissioner, give a one-and-a-half hour talk about the things we needed to know.  Mr. Carson is a terrific speaker, by the way, and seems to be very personable.

After that, it was time to wait to be called.  Two calls for jurors came in the morning, and I was not in either of those groups.  My chance came after lunch.  (Lunch, by the way, was a delicious bowl of red beans and rice from Elliot's on Second Street.  Heartily recommended.)  I got called up with about fifty or so people to one of the Criminal Courts.  At the end of vior dire, I had not been called up.  Those thirty or so of us who left the courtroom after the jury was seated were told by the sheriff's deputy that we were free to go.  There was no need to report back to the jury room yesterday or this morning.  All the courts had their cases for the week lined up and juries seated.  We were all done for at least ten years.

I must say, part of me is disappointed.  I was all ready to perform my duty and help the justice system for my state, and they tossed me aside without even asking me a question.  Yes, it would have been a hardship to be away from work and my family for the rest of the week (this jury I watched be seated is now sequestered for the trial), but it would have been a good experience.  I'm not going to say I would have enjoyed it, but I think I would have made a good juror and it would have been a good moment of growth for me.

The court will never know what it missed.  Maybe in ten years or so, I'll be given a chance.