I spent the last two days as part of a jury pool for a criminal case. The defendant was accused of trying to blow up a mobile home, and possession of explosive devices and materials.

The lawyers did extensive questioning of each potential jury member. Their questions included:

– is it ‘fair’ for the prosecution to bring up prior felony convictions (theft, drugs, kidnapping, rape) about the defendant as part of determining the truthfulness of any defendant testimony)?

– will knowledge of these prior convictions affect the juror’s judgement of the case (does it make the juror tend towards the prosecution or defense)?

– any prior jury duty experience?

– any knowledge or use of welding or explosives?

Some of the potential jurors had problems with being impartial. Some (usually female) had problems with the prior kidnapping/rape convictions. Some appeared to not be able to be impartial. So those potential jurors were let go. Some because of specific reasons, and some were dismissed with no explanation.

I have served on two juries, both as foreman. I have found that if you site at the head of the jury table, you are more likely to be elected foreman.

The first case was a civil case for ‘landscape rock theft’. The defendant was accused of taking without permission large landscape rocks from a fields, thereby causing damage to the ground and removing valuable rocks. Those are the large moss-covered rocks and boulders that are used for landscaping.

Now, you should know that at this time (about 10 years ago) that the wholesale price of landscape rocks was about $100/ton, and the retail price was about $1000 a ton. So, there is some good profit available, although you have to be careful about how you grab onto the rocks so that you don’t damage them.

During the two-week trial, we learned a lot about landscape rocks, statistical analysis of rock placement in the fields, and damage done to the ground by large equipment during the rock removal. We even got to take a field trip to the ‘crime scene’, where we noticed that the damage was minimal (and the tire tracks were ‘fixed’ by the cows that were grazing in the area).

So we finally got into the jury room. I was one of the last to get inside, so I got the seat at the head of the jury table. That got me elected as foreman. We discussed the evidence, and went through the process of determining the dollar amount of damages. We were provided a sheet with the formula to use to determine the damage. We ended up deciding that the one defendant (the owner of a one-person company, since out of business) did most of the damage, and the co-defendant (the company that apparently contracted with the guy to provide some rocks) was minimally responsible. We gave a total judgement of about $1200, as I recall. Not a large amount, and certainly not what the plaintiff was looking for (we thought he was looking for the deep pockets of the 2nd defendant).

So, it was an exciting trial.

The second trial was two years ago, and involved a DUI-caused accident. The DUI driver had done some wine tasting touring earlier that day, and was driving home in her restored 1970 Corvette) when she rear-ended a passenger van stopped at a traffic light. The defense’s main theme was that old brake fluid caused the accident. We sat through a day’s worth of testimony about how brakes and brake fluid work.

But the charge was not ‘driving with bad brake fluid’. It was “driving under the influence”. She was clearly over the limit for alcohol content, and shouldn’t have been driving. And since we (the jury) had to determine the guilt/innocence of the charges, the process was quite easy after we got past determining the “bad brake fluid” smokescreen.

Did the evidence support that the driver was under the influence? Yes. Did the evidence support that the driver’s drunken impairment caused the accident? Yes.

So a verdict of “guilty” on all four counts was returned. And that was that. Even though we thought there should be an additional charge of “stupid driver causing destruction of a classic car”.

So, back to the present. During my ‘voir dire’ (juror questioning), I explained my prior jury service (not as detailed as here). I did mention that I thought the ‘rock theft’ trial was not the best use of the court’s time, but that the plaintiff had the right to have that trial. And I mentioned that I had a brother with some prior drug convictions.

On the issue of using the defendant’s prior convictions, and the use of that information during the trial, I said that I thought that was reasonable to include that as part of the evidence to be presented. But I said that I thought that I would be able to use the evidence presented as part of my judgement of the case, and do that fairly.

Other juror’s voir dire took up to 20 minutes. Mine just took a few minutes.

And then the defense lawyer stated “The defense would like to thank and excuse Mr. Hellewell”. So I was done.

Apparently, defense lawyers don’t like me. And I wasn’t even wasn’t even wearing my Clint Eastwood “Hang Them High” t-shirt.