Bryan D. Brown

The trial began as expected. The prosecution made it’s opening statement, and for the most part their case followed the outline they laid out. I won’t go into too much detail. Suffice it to say that if the prosecution proved what they claimed, then we’d have little choice but to convict the defendant.

The case itself was not nearly as painful as I had anticipated. Yes, the subject matter was difficult. And watching a little girl divulge horrendous things to a trained counselor - the film of her disclosure to the counselor was shown in court - was not easy, and not an experience I’d like to go through again. But I expected it to be much worse.

What proved a bigger battle for morale was getting through the delays. During the jury selection, the judge timelined the trial. Jury selection - which ran longer than anticipated - would take a few days, the trial about a week, and deliberation would be up to us. No matter what, we should be done before the end of February - keeping in mind that my original summons was for February 7th.

Yet plenty of time went by with us either sitting in the jury box waiting, outside the hall waiting, etc. Courts seem to operate their breaks in the same manner of musicians - five means ten, ten means twenty - except worse. Often, and by often I mean almost daily, a fifteen-minute delay would turn into an hour fifteen minute delay. If we were lucky, we were in the jury box, and had access to the jury room, the Folgers instant coffee, and the padded chairs of the jury box. If we were unlucky, it was out in the hallway with the unpadded wooden benches.

A typical day, for example, would go like this:

Arrive at the court at 10am. Wait 15 to 45 minutes, depending. Take our seats in the jury box. Wait another 10 to 15 minutes. Listen to 45 minutes to an hour of child molestation testimony. Then, LUNCH TIME for 90 to 105 minutes, depending. Come back at 1:30pm-1:45pm. On good days, wait in the jury box until 2:15pm or 2:30pm. On bad days, wait in the hallway (with stiff wooden benches) until 3:00pm or 4:00pm. Listen to more child molestation testimony. Take a 15 minute break at 3:00pm (on good days). Wait another 15 minutes after the break. Listen to more testimony. Go home at 4:30pm, have a nice day, see you tomorrow.

I began calculating the delays based on a simple formula - take whatever length of time the judge gives, double it, add another fifteen minutes, and round up. That would be the bare minimum. So if the judge said, “Take a fifteen minute recess”, we wouldn’t really start hearing testimony for forty-five minutes.

That was how things worked. Initially, I thought the delays were exceptional, and that things would eventually get rolling. It simply didn’t happen. Something always came up, and we never really knew what was going on. And just when it seemed like we were gaining some momentum, one of the attorneys would have an objection and everyone would rush off into the judge’s chambers. Save for us, the jury. Sitting there waiting. Again. It soon became clear that there was no way we’d be done by the end of February.

By the time the prosecution rested, it was the first week of March.

For a few moments in my life, some as recently as a year ago, I considered going to law school. I even researched a few schools and purchased a few LSAT study guides, and considered entertainment law, or media law. But either wisely or foolishly, I decided against it.

Yet when my jury summons arrived last January, I laughed out loud right there at my mailbox. No doubt, this would only last for a day or two - if I even had to go down to the courtroom - even if I got called to the jury box. Surely, I would be dismissed. Like a parking ticket, this would be a mere inconvienence. As was said on one of the 50 CSI shows currently on television, “Who wants a court case to be decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty?”

But honestly, I figured the truth would be enough. I work at a non-commercial radio station. I’m on the Isla Vista Recreation and Park District. My girlfriend is SUING the City of Santa Barbara and is represented by the ACLU over the permit process for a living wage protest. My thrift store blazer and my khakis would not be enough to fool anyone.

When, after the deferrals left, the judge read the remainder of the jury pool the charges, a few people were in tears. A 40 year old hispanic man was charged with consistently sexually abusing his girlfriend’s five-year old daughter. It sure made the Michael Jackson jokes very unfunny. None of us, not even the folks who eventually “deferred”, knew going in that this was a child molestation case.

The judge - who I grew to like very much, as he seemed not only very competent, but intelligent and kind - made it clear that the only people who should serve were those who thought they could handle the subject matter. No questions asked. People who were looking for any excuse now had an open door out. If they didn’t have a good reason to defer before, they had a perfect reason now. And many used it, even if it was clear they were full of shit.

And at some level, I understood. I was dreading being on this jury. This was not going to pleasant. The subject matter alone would be difficult to sit through, not to mention that the stakes were very high. If the jury was wrong, either a child molester would go free, or an innocent man would go to prison. All I hoped for was a clear cut case, either way.

But I still held some resentment towards people who left on untruthful terms. No one thinks serving on a jury is important until they need a jury. Here is this man, who is “presumed innocent”, who barely speaks English, who is on trial for a horrendous crime, and who needs 12 fair and intelligent people. All of the people who fit the “fair and intelligent” description want to be somewhere else.

All I was willing to do was present who I am - not lie or exaggerate. And when I revealed all my girlfriend and I were involved in and the attorneys excepted it and didn’t dismiss me, then it was my obligation to see the process through, however unpleasant. The defendant deserved a fair trial - guilty, innocent, or inconvenient.

One of the great things about the jury slection process is watching the lawyers question - voir dire - the perspective jurors. They vary little the kinds of questions they ask. However, there was a question that really got to me after a while: “Are you more logical or more emotional?” It varied from person to person, but only slightly. Sometimes a different word was used for emotional - “reactionary”, “instinctual”, etc. But the meaning was pretty much the same.

I kept wondering, evey time I heard this question, who would NOT answer “logical”. The framing of the question, the context used, made seem ridiculous to answer anything but “logical”, as though they were asking if you were “sane” or “crazy”.

And then I remembered, “Who wants a court case to be decided…”