I didn't have much time to write anything so I dug something I wrote up last year:

I have never had jury duty before so I was looking forward to it (it also gave me several days away from the office, which was pleasant).

All the cases were criminal - at the beginning of the week there were 136 cases. I was in the first group of 30 to be called out and we were asked a bunch of questions by the prosecutor and defense lawyer. The questions were pretty innocuous - were you a victim of a crime, were you ever arrested, do you know anyone in the courtroom, etc. After the questions, the prosecution and the defense 'struck' jurors - they took turns and called numbers out, striking out the people they didn't want on the jury, until 12 remained, one of which was me.

So the judge gave us some preliminary instructions - I don't really remember what they were. She told us what the charges against the defendant were - DUI, driving w/a revoked license, driving a car without a license tag. Then the prosecution gave introductory arguments, then the defense.

The prosecutor was a young man, I'd say in his early 30's. He was well dressed and confident. He had that Sam Waterston thing going pretty good. The Defense looked to be in his 50's, very much an Alabamian and a drama queen.

Any way, I won't go into a blow-by-blow, but the prosecution then had 4 witnesses, the arresting officer, a security guard who had radioed the officer when he had smelled alcohol, the officer who had driven the defendant to the jail, and the officer who was supposed to have administered the breathalyzer test.

The prosecution's argument was this: the defendant had driven to a housing project with a friend, and was stopped at the gate by the security guard. The defendant wanted in to visit a relative, the relative was not on the list of tenants (this place had a real bad reputation and was in the process of being shut down). The security guard sent him away and informed the arresting officer about his suspicions the people in the car had been drinking. The officer, in an unmarked car, followed the defendant and saw him weaving some, so he pulled him over. He gave him some field sobriety tests and the guy failed.

The arresting officer's car did not have a cage in the back. He radioed for someone to come pick the defendant up to take him to jail. That officer smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath. At jail, he refused to take a breathalyzer test. The officer who was to administer it stated she smelled alcohol on the man's breath.

Then it was the defense attorney's turn. He only had 2 witnesses - the defendant and his mother. The mom went first, stating that her son had been with her all day - there had been a death in the family and the funeral had been that day. At midnight her son had received a call from a drunk friend who had asked him for a ride from the bar he was at. Against his mother's pleas, he went to get his friend. She stated he had left her house about midnight. The trip to the bar would have taken 15 - 20 minutes. Since he was arrested at approximately 12:38, the defense claimed the defendant simply had not enough time to get drunk.

The defendant had had an accident when he was 18. He had a learning disability in the first place, and emotional problems. The accident included brain trauma which caused almost total hearing loss. He claimed the failed the field sobriety tests because of his disability, not any drinking. He claimed he and the arresting officer argued, and that he had been a bully. The defendant was skinny and short, and the arresting officer was a bulldog-looking fellow.

Closing arguements were made, then the judge told us what to do. We had to elect a foreman first off- I volunteered for some reason, and got the job because no one else wanted it. Then we had to figure out who the hell was lying to us.

We found that poor bastard guilty. Why? Someone was lying to us, and we found more problems with the defendant's story than with the police. The defense lawyer did not offer up one shred of proof of the defendant's disabilities. None. This lawyer wasn't incompetent - he was playing the sympathy card hard-core. Medical and social services documentation would have gone a long way into getting the jury on his side.

And his mother - she obviously loved her son and took care of him. She could drive - she knew her son had no license. Why didn't she go get the drunk friend?

On one hand we had police officers. Did they have a conspiracy? I doubt it. On the other we have a mother with a troubled (33 year old) son who had been in scrapes with the law before.

I felt really bad for both of them (all of us did), but I didn't feel bad about convicting him. It's a damn shame you can't sentence someone to 20 years to being a productive citizen because sending that poor sod to jail isn't going to do anybody good. But that wasn't up to me.

By the time we finished up, the rest of the cases either had juries or were pleaded out.

It's kind of tough to forget about what happened. I think of every one who left a party and got away with drunk driving. I quit doing it when I was 33, when I got out of a DUI by a couple of hours (a couple of hours earlier, I would have registered above the limit). I think I understand that 'jury of your peers' thing a bit better. It was very tough voting guilty because it could easily have been me.

On the other hand I received a letter from the D.A. which informed me that was the guy's 5th D.U.I. conviction.

When they sentenced him they gave him 5 years probation. Yeah, that will teach him! Sheesh, I hope he keeps himself clean.