Jury duty

In Iowa, if you are registered to vote, have a driver’s license, or a state ID card you are in the state’s potential juror pool. I have observed that most people dread receiving a jury summons. But for me, as a history buff and political activist, I have always wanted to serve on a jury. On the other hand, because of my political activism, I never thought that I would actually be selected for jury duty. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that I was wrong!

Like many Iowans, I have received multiple jury summons over the years. The summons comes in the form of a postcard with a number to call to see if you are required to report for jury selection. Most of the time, when I called the number, I got a recorded message thanking me and saying that my services would not be required. That changed a couple of years ago when I received a summons to report to the federal courthouse for jury selection in a federal criminal trial.

The first step is to fill out a jury questionnaire. The questionnaire asks questions about potential jurors' backgrounds and experiences. I remember answering questions about my profession, whether I had ever been the victim of a crime, and whether I had any relatives or close friends in law enforcement.

The next step, called ‘voir dire,’ occurs in the courtroom. This is where the defense, prosecution, and judge question potential jurors. Some of the questions are for everyone, like, “How many of you own guns?” Others may be related to answers from the jury questionnaire, like, “On your form, you said you were the victim of a crime. How long ago did this occur?”

During voir dire, lawyers will often ask questions about the case's specifics. Both times I have participated in voir dire, the cases involved drug use, so jurors were questioned at length about their opinions on drug use. In one case, with an African American defendant, the judge noted that the jury pool was all white and asked if we would be able to treat the defendant fairly. I raised my hand and pointed out to the judge that while I am of mixed-race descent, I am not even ‘a little bit white!’

Sometimes, people use voir dire to try to avoid jury duty. In my case, I was afraid that my answers in voir dire would cause the defense or the prosecution to request that I be excused! Jurors are under oath during voir dire, and I knew that I would tell the truth, even if it reduced my chances of being selected for the jury. The reason is that I believe in jury nullification. Jury nullification is the idea that juries have a right to judge both the facts and the law in determining whether a defendant is guilty. In other words, the facts may show that the defendant violated a law, but the jury may find the law itself unjust and declare the defendant not guilty. This goes against the instructions typically given to jurors by the judge in a criminal case. Judges traditionally give jurors a definition of the relevant law and instruct them that if the evidence proves that the defendant violated the law, the jury should return a guilty verdict.

Jury nullification has a long history in our legal system. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, said that juries have the right “to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” Jury nullification has been used for both good and evil in our history. Critics point out that all-white juries acquitted KKK members during the 1960s. Supporters point out that a century earlier, all-white juries in the North refused to convict people who violated the Fugitive Slave Act and refused to return fugitive slaves to their white “owners.” Judges cannot tell juries what to decide, and once acquitted, defendants cannot be retried for the same offenses.

I was surprised. Even though I stated my views on jury nullification, I was not excused and got to serve on a jury! I explained to the judge that I did not anticipate any issues in this case that would be cause for nullification.

I was elected to be the jury foreman, and in that role, I worked to help the jury reach an agreement on the verdict. When deliberations began, I took a quick poll and found that a small majority was leaning toward acquittal. All the jurors took their roles seriously. We reviewed the evidence presented in the trial. We watched some of the video evidence multiple times and discussed what we had seen. Sometimes a juror’s experience in a particular area helped to sway the group. In our justice system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In a criminal case, the standard is proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’

After deliberating for half a day, the jury reached an agreement. The case was about a felon in possession of a handgun. The prosecution had failed to prove that the defendant met the legal definition of possession. The defense had produced a witness who claimed that the gun was his and he had left it in the car the defendant was driving. The witness was credible, and the prosecution failed to produce facts to the contrary. We found the defendant not guilty.

While serving on a jury is a pain, it’s time-consuming and interrupts work, school, family, and other commitments; it’s essential to view this duty through the lens of the principles which define us. Iowa’s state motto, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.” describes what we Iowans hold dear. Serving on a jury is one of the practical means by which we uphold and maintain our liberties and rights. So, when you receive a jury summons, don’t view it as a task to avoid; instead, view it as an opportunity to engage firsthand in the justice system by ensuring every individual gets a fair trial.

David Chung is a Gazette editorial fellow. david.chung@thegazette.com