I go in today at 1:15. I have no idea what the case involves. Part of me wants to head down there and be summarily dismissed; part of me wants to have a chance to let a truly innocent person go free.
I wonder if any lawyers have googled my name? I can't imagine I'd be high on a prosecutor's list as a prospective juror...
More later.
LATER 7/24/2007 4:25pm
I should have known. This was municipal court for a guy who wanted a jury trial for running a red light. I wasn't aware that 6-person juries were used for these things. Kinda screws up the flow of "rather by tried by twelve than carried by six."
I joined my other 20-odd prospective jurors in Room 2B on the second floor of the main municipal court building on East 7th Street. We were supposed to be ready at 1:15 and other than sign a form instructing the court what to do with the compensation we'd get if selected, nothing happened until just after 2. Moved to an adjacent room and met the judge (Mitch Solomon, if I remember correctly), the prosecutor, and the defendant. More than anything else, I was struck by how much the judge looked like a middle-aged Robert DeNiro.
Well, I was struck by two questions the prosecutor asked of us before we were removed so the jury selection could take place. The first was "does anyone here want to be on the jury?" No one raised their hand, but the judge did remind us of the exemption college students could claim, an exemption I declined. I suppose that means I lied to the state because if I wanted out, I could have argued for it.
More interesting was a question he asked shortly before giving the defendant the chance to question us: "Do any of you hold it against me that I'm prosecuting this man?" Not in the sense that he was just doing his job, but that the state was actually going through with it's case against the accused. I said nothing, but inside I was yelling yes, yes I do, you slick-looking cog in this awful machine.
I made it a point to read up on jury nullification and after browsing the Juror's Handbook published by the Fully Informed Jury Association, I wasn't surprised to hear Judge Solomon say something to the effect of "your task is to determine if the facts presented by the evidence conclude the defendant committed the crime he is accused of." He was a nice guy and eased the mood in the room with a few jokes, but I was under no illusions that he wanted the jury to restrict itself to judging whether the defendant broke the law. In the end, I wasn't selected for duty so I didn't have the chance to see the evidence. However, in principle, I do not think the law is legitimate.
Would I have hung the jury on this point? It's a freakin' traffic ticket for running a stop light. The cost of administering the docket and of us potential jurors waiting around probably exceeded the original fine by a few magnitudes. When I mentioned what crime I might have judged to some co-workers and friends, they all threw up their hands in exasperation and asked why anyone would bother fighting something so unimportant. I know from experience (An Austin Parking Ticket, Busted for Speeding, and A Timeline of Automotive Doom) that it is easier to take the small financial hit and move on. I also know from open contemplation (Costly to Govern) that doing so inevitably creates friction with my ideals.
Did the defendant break the law? Let's assume that he did. Let's assume he did not come to a complete stop behind the painted lines underneath and in front of a traffic light turned red. I do this all the time, sometimes intentionally; at other times, absentmindedly.
If by breaking this law, did the defendant do something wrong? I don't think so. I don't think the City of Austin, Travis County, or the State of Texas has any rightful authority over the lands it claims to govern. I don't think any of these entities, to the extent paid for through taxation and fines, has any rightful claim on the property they use to create and enforce their rules. Therefore, the only respect I have for their rules ends once we move beyond the coincidence between existing government rules and hypothetical reasonable rules a legitimate property owner would ask others to follow while on his or her property.
Even if Mr. Defendant had blasted through the red light with 50 high-resolution and high-speed video cameras clearly capturing his every tire-smoking move across the intersection and the state presented five trustworthy individuals who witnessed what he'd done, you couldn't get me to say he had done a bad thing, that he had done something wrong. He wasn't being tried over injuring someone or damaging a 3rd party's property. He had disobeyed a government instruction preempting him on how to operate his vehicle. (sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?)
I don't know if, selected to be on the jury and presented with clear evidence the defendant broke the law, could have fought with five other people to see my viewpoint. In all likelihood, they wanted to be done with their "service" and go home. In all likelihood, they were going to have little sympathy for someone who engaged in a somewhat dangerous act. In all likelihood, I wouldn't have made any friends on that panel (which woulda sucked because one of the more attractive women was selected to it).
Hanging a jury on this question wouldn't have any societal-wide effects. It wouldn't have abolished the red light traffic law. It wouldn't stop people from being fined on the street. It wouldn't get any of us our time or money back.
But I think it would have been right. And I would have done it just to see the reaction on the faces of the judge, prosecutor, and arresting officer.
