The current media attention to the grand jury
convening in Ferguson, MO to consider whether to indict a particular police
officer for the death of Michael Brown brings up and important topic for
bloggers and journalists: what happens
when a news person is called for an extended period of jury duty?
I do see that I last took this up in June 2012 but
it’s time for another look.
When I lived in Dallas in the 1980s, Texas had a “one
day or one trial” system. My name came
up about every two years. I actually
served on two trials: a two-day weapons trial in 1982, where we convicted
someone, and a malpractice civil trial in 1986 where the parties settled on the
second day. Both of these experiences
yield some detail that is worth further exploration at another time, probably
on my Wordpress blogs. The Texas system
tends to promote very brief periods of jury duty that don’t usually create
significant conflicts.
In Arlington VA, the procedure is to send a
questionnaire to a randomly chosen group of voters every year. The summons must be answered within 10
days. Then during the following calendar
year the person may be called for one week or more (if a trial lasts longer). Persons over 70 can refuse to serve. The site
is here.
From 1949 to her passing in 2010, I believe my mother
received questionnaires twice, and served once, for a week, I believe in
1987. I don’t believe my father ever
served (he passed in 1986). This seems
like a low probability event.
Federal procedures seem to be similar (site)
with pay now $40 a day with expenses, possibly $50 a day for longer periods. There is a questionnaire and a separate
summons for actual service.
In northern Virginia, criminal federal trials would
occur in Alexandria. There is a slight
possibility that few trials can be prolonged and high-profile, as related to
terrorism or major corruption. In recent years, federal trials, such as for
sex offenses involving minors or child pornography, seem to have become a
little more common, and some could be controversial. But frequency of service seems to be very
low, maybe once in 25 or 30 years in northern Virginia.
A big wild card is grand jury duty, as noted by
circumstances now near St. Louis. Grand juries come from the same pool as petit juries (for civil and criminal trials). Grand
jury terms can run from one to three years.
And “retired” people, like those in my circumstances, are more likely to
be “invited” to actually serve on grand juries if their names come up randomly. The typical pattern, in both federal and
state courts, is for the number of days a week to go down after the first 30-60
days of the term. Often, a grand jury
may meet only one day a week, if there are no controversial cases around.
This raises the obvious question, for me at least: use
of social media and the web. We all know
that in the most extreme trials (like OJ Simpson in the 1990s in Los Angeles),
jurors may be sequestered and kept from all media contact, including now
Internet use. But these cases are rare.
The possibility that juror Internet use could amount
to misconduct and could nullify a verdict later is serious. Online articles on the topic vary widely
right now on how courts handle this.
It certainly is not a problem for me to avoid mention
of a case (online or even in person) while I am on a jury, particularly if is
an “ordinary”, short trial that is over in 2-3 days. But grand jury service, since it is more
likely at my age, and because it runs a long time, can present “conflict of
interest” issues similar to those of other (management) employment.
In fact, my activity would be problematic because I
don’t use it for “socializing” directly the way others do, as to present my own
news commentary, which because of the nature of the “concentric” positions I
take, covers almost all topics, including crime and intellectual property torts
(like libel, copyright and trademark) that could wind up in court on my own
plate as a potential juror. The problem
for me that a comment online on these blogs about almost any topic could be
viewed as at least indirectly showing prejudice or a propensity to view a
certain defendant or plaintiff a certain way from preconceived ideas. Similar
conflicts, as I have noted, can exist between self-published online writings
and the workplace (where there are subordinates), schools (where students get
grades) and even election law. Ideas in
my world (like race and sexual orientation) are always presumed to be
potentially connected.
Certainly, I would allow (even invite) attorneys in a
voir dire to look at my materials online and draw their own conclusions. It is certainly possible the pre-emptory
strikes could result.
However, I could not “afford” to stop online social
media or blogging activity for an extended period just out of “hyper-concern”
over a particular case (especially in “OJ-like” circumstances). The problem is that, under the circumstances,
I might lose the sites or never be able to resume. So this would indeed involve “sacrifice”.
Grand jury duty invokes other ideas about “service”
indeed, because it can run so long and create conflicts. There
are other areas where “seniors” do some of the service, such as working on
election days as “election judges” where the days are very long and there is a
shortage of “volunteers”.
If I do ever get a questionnaire summons (and I am
probably “overdue” for one), I might refer to this posting in the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment