Like most US citizens, I get the occasional Summons to attend Jury Duty and that usually involves going down to Court house and then being sent home with a “Thanks for being willing to serve” and a promise of a $6 check being mailed to you for showing up.
However, a few weeks ago, it was different. I sat in the main jury room (along with around 500 people) where the numbers were called out and this time there was a lot of cases and my number was picked. I was instructed to go to the 191st Civil District Court (presided over by Judge Gena Slaughter, a relatively young lady who told us later that she had 4 and 5 year old children) on the 7th floor of the same building.
About 75 or so of us lined up outside the 191st Court and we were shepherded into the Court room in batches by the bailiff. I got assigned to the seat at the left most back corner of the court. “Good” – I thought to myself, since it appeared I would be the least likely to get noticed and picked – and began to plan the rest of my day. Others in the jury pool, from their expressions, seemed be hoping for the same outcome (given that was a Monday and Judge Slaughter had just told us the trial could go on till the following Monday!).
Turned out there were 3 lawyers and a Pro Se (that is, a self representing individual) in the court room. Each of them then conducted a voir dire, that is, a process to find out more about the potential jurors. The lawyers / pro se eventually got to me and I recalled being addressed as Mr. V. “Another good sign”, I thought. “They can’t even pronounce my name, I should be out of here shortly”. However, some other questions seemed to suggest that they might be getting interested in me. They asked about my Electrical Engineering qualification, my IT experience, international travel and most interestingly my knowledge of water borne diseases such as cholera.
Afterwards we all trooped out into the lobby and waited for what seemed like an eternity. I did some reading and took a short nap. We were then called back into the Court room where Judge Gena Slaughter started announcing the names of the 12 jurors who were going to be picked. I was half listening since I was pretty confident of not being on the list when she called out for Juror #11 and it sounded like my name. I stood up, Judge Slaughter apologized for mangling my name. I told her she was close enough – and I was officially Juror #11 and I had to take my place on one of the jury chairs. The feeling was like the opposite of winning the lottery!
The judge gave us the jury instructions regarding dos and don’ts and the hearing then commenced immediately.
The case involved a company called Global Water Group (the plaintiff, a Water Purification company) who was suing another one called Force (the Pro Se, a one man Sewage treatment company) and another company (EMS, a pipeline services company) and its former CEO.
The details are of the case are not what I am looking to focus on in this blog entry – so I will explain it, with apologies to those involved for whom this was serious business, in the manner I did to my daughters Sakshi and Smrithi (13 and 11 respectively) after the trial was over. Here goes:
“There was this guy who knew how to really purify dirty water (like what might be found next to corpses in Iraq) and convert it into pure water (better than Avian!), who we will from hereon refer to as the Pure Water guy. Then there was this guy who knew how to take sewage and convert it into liquid that could be disposed off without messing the environment BUT could not be drunk by humans, who we will from hereon refer to as the Shit Water guy. Pure Water guy then hired Shit Water guy and made him part of his company. Both of them then went together and tried very hard to get some business in a place called Mejedia in Rumania, to take over and run their Municipal Sewage and Water systems and this (and other similar) business MIGHT have earned them profits of around $54 million. Pure Water guy spent a lot of money trying to get this business but Rumania being a very corrupt country, it was difficult to get business without bribing people and so after sometime, Pure Water guy gave up. Then Shit Water guy secretly started to try to get this business on his own without telling Pure Water guy, using Pure Water guy’s PowerPoints, contacts, etc. Shit Water guy managed to reach an agreement in Rumania but needed $1.5 million Bond money to get the contract. Shit Water guy’s finance partner went and asked his friend from Verline (from hereon referred to as Old guy) for a loan of $1.5 million. Old guy did not have the money but managed to find a few Board members at EMS (from hereon referred to as Rich guys) who agreed to give the loan. For this, Old guy and Shit Water guy signed a Promissory note. Shit Water guy then sent this Bond money to his partner in Rumania (hereon referred to as the Foreign Crook guy) who put this money in a bank account, where it was meant to stay for 3 months after which time it was supposed to be returned to Rich guys along with an interest of 15%. The money stayed in the bank account for 2 months after which the Foreign Crook guy made it disappear! When Old Guy found this out, he panicked – he told Rich Guys that their money was gone – EMS CEO (on behalf of Rich Guys) put pressure on Old Guy to compensate for the loss. Old Guy went to Shit Water guy to get the money from him. But Shit Water guy was broke and had no money. So he gave all his patents to Old Guy who in turn gave it to EMS along with his patents. And then EMS tried to get into the Water business to try and make money and recover the lost $1.5 million. And then Pure Water guy found out all this was going on behind his back and the shit then really hit the ceiling (so to speak)! Pure Water guy wrote Shit Water guy a nasty Email scaring the day lights out of him and gave him a lot of conditions to meet – and if he did not, Pure Water guy would “send him to jail”. Shit Water guy complied with all the conditions for fear of being sued. He stopped making any further attempts to do business in Rumania and transferred whatever agreement he had reached to Pure Water guy and made written apologies to all and sundry, confessing to everything and asking all his contacts in Rumania to do business with the Pure Water guy instead of him. However, given the corruption in Rumania, Pure Water guy still could not get any business there. EMS tried to use the patents that they got from Shit Water guy and tried to start a new Water business (in other countries like Mexico but not in Rumania) but failed to close one single deal and so did not make a single dollar in this new business.
To cut a long story short, Old Guy died of natural causes and so Pure Water Guy sued Shit Water guy and EMS claiming that he was owed damages of around $50 million due to the actions of the Shit Water guy and EMS (who Pure Water guy alleged were involved in a “conspiracy”) but Judge Slaughter dismissed the suit without any jury deliberation since she determined that Pure Water guy did not establish that he suffered any loss/damage and no one had made any money from the Rumanian adventure (basically agreeing with EMS’s attorney that the whole thing was just a “cow pile” for everyone involved)”.
Now here comes my impression of the whole process, especially vis-à-vis the jury system.
First of all, the parties had been going at it in front of this same judge since 2008 while the jurors were those who got “accidentally” (and mostly unwillingly) pulled into this matter for a relatively brief period. Although I, with my Engineering/IT/International background, could easily understand this whole matter (and in fact made 64 pages of notes during the trial which I later sent to the judge), I could tell that many of the jurors were quite disinterested and not comprehending any of the detailed technical issues that all parties were bringing up (with some of the jurors just doodling in their note pads). Although we were not allowed to discuss the case till we called upon to do so (which never happened), stray remarks (like “I like that lawyer, he reminds me of Matlock”, “I am waiting for the Pro Se to cross examine himself – that will be fun!”, etc) gave me the impression that if we had actually deliberated on this case, it would have been a sham with just a few of us having really paid attention to any of the testimony (and more importantly, understood what was presented). I would like to think that I could have swayed most of the jurors (with whom I established a good rapport during lunch time and while walking out to the train) and help arrive at the “right” decision – but then I might have ended becoming a de-facto judge!
Bottom line – after this experience, I strongly believe that parties in a dispute looking for a jury to decide their fate, are essentially rolling the dice – they might get lucky and win the lottery even they were completely wrong – on the other hand, they might lose big, even though they might be completely on the right side of the law!
I for one would any day prefer to have my fate determined by a learned, UNBIASED judge – and hope and pray that my fate will never be in the hands of a bunch of random, unqualified strangers!!
What about you? Feel free to comment here – I would really like to hear your thoughts – especially if you vehemently disagree with my opinions!
#1 by saroja on 2012/11/23 - 12:21 am
Quote
Fully agree with your views. The whole jury system stinks
#2 by Ram Ramanujam on 2012/11/23 - 9:56 am
Quote
Hi Venky
The JURY system Per se is not wrong.Perhaps it is better different minds think differently as opposed to a single Judge with legal back ground who can not be faulted for lack of technical knowledge.
But the Key issue to be addressed to is the selection process of a Jury.
Instead of picking up people randomly should try a better method to pick up the members of jury by a meaningful process.
I am sure many people do not want to be called for Jury duty but just fall in line due to a compulsory Law.
Regards
Ramanujam
#3 by S Krishnamurthy on 2012/11/23 - 10:02 am
Quote
So well explained…a read for all ages….will look forward to many such posts.
#4 by P Dougherty on 2012/11/23 - 11:39 am
Quote
Interesting experience! I agree with you – in a complex litigation, I’d much rather have the educated opinion of one judge than be randomly thrown to a pack of uneducated jurors.
#5 by Venky Venkatraman on 2012/11/23 - 2:00 pm
Quote
You are on the right track, Pam! This case actually was pretty complex involving the UNDP (whose mission was to improve the municipal systems in third world countries like Rumania), US Department of Commerce (whose mandate was to assist US companies trying to do business abroad), FBI (due to bribery allegations) and Rumanian government officials with unpronounceable names (who seemed to be all on the take!). I left these details out to make the blog succinct enough to be of interest to the average reader.
#6 by Judge Jeff Coen on 2012/11/23 - 2:08 pm
Quote
I don’t think I have ever read a summary quite as enlightening and humorous as your description of the facts at trial. The CoA summaries are always so dry and boring. They should hire you to do it. You are quite good. Did you do any technical writing? You are able to describe the mundane and technical very well and make it interesting. I was visualizing the whole thing as I read. -Jeff
#7 by Sakshi Venkatraman on 2012/11/29 - 7:44 pm
Quote
Haha well said Dad! Just to make this known, you didn’t have to say the Romanian guy made the money “disappear”. I understand quite well what the word “stolen” means. Other than that it was very well written and you did a great job!
-Sakshi
#8 by Venky Venkatraman on 2012/11/30 - 1:56 am
Quote
Great comment, Sakshi! And you even found a major typo that I subsequently corrected. You are growing up really fast – you might have been a better person to have on that jury than most others who were picked!
#9 by Brad Hunt on 2012/12/02 - 12:30 am
Quote
Nice article! Thank you for sharing it. I practically like the response from your daughter. Nice job!
#10 by Dan MacDonald (Attorney/Judge/Professor) on 2012/12/07 - 6:16 pm
Quote
Dear Venky
You should add comedy writing to your resume’. Thanks. I enjoyed that. Dan
#11 by Hank on 2013/02/02 - 3:11 am
Quote
Well, don’t be so naive as to think that the judge, including THIS judge, is unbiased.
#12 by ram on 2013/02/02 - 10:55 pm
Quote
venky
I have to agree and also disagree with your view.
I agree with your view that JURY process is faulty but can not agree that system is wrong.
I believe the JURY system is meant to provide a fair opportunity to decide guilty or not guilty.
Many Judges are competent on Legal aspects but can not be expected to deliver a correct judgement on a case involving complex trade deals and technicalities.
Therefore in order to provide the benefit of doubt to the right party, a team of chosen people from General Public are put together with some of them possessing certain technical and analytic ability and called as Jurors.
Unfortunately the selection system is flawed.Instead of picking people in random it would be desirable to set certain educational standards as bench mark and short list the prospective jurors with out having to bring all the listed people.
This way the Judge has a better option to choose and has some time to study the potential Jurors.
A jury duty is forced by law which it self many do not relish.
Therefore the Judge has to deal with several dis interested people leaving him with a difficult task of selecting right people with credentials.
Even though you are a competent candidate to be a juror , your mind was working diagonally opposite .
To be a Juror should be considered as honor and not as a mundane duty forced on an unwilling person which naturally results in poor quality of jurors.
#13 by Venky Venkatraman on 2013/02/03 - 12:28 am
Quote
Ram,
Just fyi, the jury is not picked at “random”. Once the jury pool (of around 75 or so in my case) are in the room, lawyers use a process called voir dire to eliminate jurors they consider unlikely to be favorable to their side and select ones they believe would be favorable. In fact, in high profile trials, there are “jury consultants” who aid in this process. For example, someone with a legal background is almost automatically ruled out. So the final 12 jurors who get selected are far from random but picked because they are deemed advantageous to one side or another, not necessarily because they are the best set of people to arrive at a fair verdict.
And probably if jurors got paid more than $6/hr for a period which could last several weeks, they would consider it to be more of an “honor” to serve than an imposition.
Venky
#14 by Detra Hill (Attorney / Professor) on 2013/02/12 - 3:57 pm
Quote
Really, really, enjoyed reading this. Your description of the case was insightful yet entertaining. You made this complicated matter easy to understand and if the lawyers could have broken it down like you did, the jurors may have paid attention.
I agree that jury selection can be a roll of the dice; but depending on the type of the case, you may want a jury instead of a judge. Especially if you believe the judge may be biased against you or, in some cases, your attorney. See you Monday. Keep blogging.
#15 by Venky Venkatraman on 2013/02/12 - 4:07 pm
Quote
Thanks, Detra. Your encouragement will certainly keep me blogging!
You are absolutely right about the issue of potentially running into a biased judge – I did have that experience in Family Law Court which is why I figured there is no point in wasting money with attorneys when I could get equal or better results without any legal expenses by studying the law and representing myself pro se. While family law attorneys beat around the bush even when the judge is clearly wrong (because they need to maintain a relationship with the judge for their other current and future cases), I have no problems with looking the judge in the eye telling her stuff like “you do not have any plenary powers on this matter, Judge” or “this is not in your jurisdiction any more, Judge” and have the judge grudgingly agreeing with me.
I will take the liberty of posting your comment on my blog (to join those from other judges and attorneys) for the benefit of my readership – hope you don’t mind.
Looking forward to Monday.
Venky Venkatraman
#16 by Tom Jacks (Attorney) on 2013/03/01 - 12:49 pm
Quote
Venky,
Thank you for your email. I loved your blog post and think you described the process with brutal (and humorous) honesty.
I really appreciate you introducing yourself at the event. It is always nice to meet good people like yourself. If I can ever do anything to help, please let me know.
Tom
#17 by Allen Mills on 2013/03/08 - 1:06 pm
Quote
Venky,
Having worked for 16 years in an industry helping attorneys decide on the most effective manner to present evidence to juries, I always find it interesting and helpful to hear the experiences of jurors. It is rare to get such insight from someone who on that day was on of the twelve most important people in the courtroom. Thanks for sharing your experience.
#18 by jeff v on 2013/03/18 - 6:28 am
Quote
nice blog post.
#19 by Todd Roeller on 2013/04/16 - 9:15 pm
Quote
Venky,
I enjoyed reading your wonderful post. You certainly have a point about the jury system; it really is a crap shoot by both parties. On the other hand, I have seen and heard of many trials where the judge was very biased and quite honestly the discriminated party had NO recourse. The system is not by any means perfect, but at present it beats most other options used in other places of the world. It seems injustice is a natural part of the justice system since at present there is no perfect judge or jury.
#20 by Nicolas on 2013/07/15 - 2:14 am
Quote
Hello! I’ve been following your website for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the excellent job!
#21 by Reynaldo on 2013/10/14 - 1:37 am
Quote
Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this site before but after browsing through some of
the post I realized it’s new to me. Nonetheless, I’m definitely happy I found it and
I’ll be bookmarking and checking back frequently!
#22 by Marylin on 2013/10/16 - 12:45 am
Quote
Whoa! This blog looks just like my old one!
It’s on a completely different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and
design. Superb choice of colors!
#23 by A Dallas Appeals Court Attorney on 2013/12/23 - 12:47 pm
Quote
Very nice.
#24 by Arun on 2014/01/08 - 8:43 pm
Quote
Really well-written! I felt as if I was in the jury room. I could really hear your voice in this article. To top that off, your points are valid.
#25 by Ramanujam on 2015/07/28 - 3:13 pm
Quote
Author: Ramanujam (IP: 173.74.224.160, pool-173-74-224-160.dllstx.fios.verizon.net)
> E-mail: [email protected]
> URL: http://Jurorselectionprocess
> Whois: http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/173.74.224.160
> Comment:
> Venkey Following on your Jury selection process , i went through this exercise yesterday.
> Thought of haring in your blog
> After watching the whole day , I am of the view that Jury selection process is more of the Prosecution attorney and Defense attorney selling their case with skill full communication by which The fundamental principle of selecting people to be Juror with out any Bias is lost straightaway.
> The tone of language and the way they are putting words in to the mouth of the prospective jurors absolutely changes the basic concept of jury system.
> I would on the contrary suggest that both Prosecution attorney and Defense attorney should not be involved in this Jury selection process.
> The learned Judge should perform this exercise with attorneys as just observers to achieve the goal of an unbiased verdict.
> I do not know if you will agree with me
> RAM
#26 by Venky Venkatraman on 2015/07/28 - 3:57 pm
Quote
Ram,
The process you were subjected to is called voir dire.
In theory, it gives each side an opportunity to eliminate jurors who might be obviously biased against one side or another so that a jury of unbiased people can be seated.
In practice, this is a process in which each lawyer tries to get a jury where a majority is likely to be favorable his/her client. So much so there are roles called Jury Consultants whose job is to ensure that their side gets a “good jury”.
And usually one of the parties asks for a jury trial because that party does not trust the judge. The problem with giving the judge the power to select the jury is that it would allow a judge (viewed as biased by one of the parties) to decide on the members of the jury, thus defeating the purpose of having a jury unconnected to the judge making the decision on the case.
So although the system of picking a jury is far from perfect, if both sides have equally skillful attorneys/jury consultants, neither side is likely to gain a major advantage due to the selection process.
Venky
#27 by JurisPrudence on 2019/01/10 - 11:26 pm
Quote
Actually, the jurors are NOT chosen by the lawyers. Jury selection is really a misnomer. It’s really jury DE-selection. Lawyers eliminate jurors they deem unfavorable to their clients’ positions, and the first twelve people who weren’t eliminated are the jury.
#28 by Venky Venkatraman on 2019/01/13 - 11:24 pm
Quote
Hello Jurisprudence – this post is over 6 years old. Curious as to how you found it.
In any event, between then and now. I have gained a JD but my opinion of the jury system has not changed much. It is still a crap shoot where you pull untrained people off the street to make decisions on matters they are not qualified and many times, not interested.
In any case, with respect to your comment, I am familiar with the voir dire process and yes, you could say that the jury is seated by the process of elimination.