Justice Judy on Jury Duty

Did you know that even a justice or judge can be called to serve jury duty? During the first week in April, I was called to the Lucas County Courthouse to report for jury duty.  In Ohio, citizens are randomly selected for jury service from a list of registered voters or licensed drivers.

I’ve already served once as a juror while a judge. And because it’s my civic duty, when I received the summons this time as a justice, I didn’t hesitate to follow through.  I also wanted to see if the process had changed for jurors in the 14 years or so since I had last served.

Indeed it had, but for the better! The process was much better at respecting our time.  Instead of waiting for hours only to be sent home at the end of the day, our summons told us to call in after 5 p.m. the day before to see if we had to actually report.  My phone call said those in my group who lived in the area covered by Toledo Municipal Court had to appear. 

We also got more information ahead of time. The map on the summons showed where to park (but did not say the amount needed), though the summons could have explained exactly where to enter the courthouse (two of four doors were closed for security). We were told that jurors are able to keep electronic devices, and that the magnetometer is much like airport security. 

When we reported to the jury room at 8:45 a.m., we were given badges and were shown an orientation film sponsored by the Supreme Court for use throughout the state.  The film explained what could be expected if you were selected as a juror.

Our jury manager, Juanita, kept us aware of the progress of the case that might go to trial. We were told that it was a municipal case, which meant 8 jurors would be selected from the 22 of us waiting.  Although the jury room was relatively comfortable with books and TV, no one was required to stay there as long as we wore badges and didn’t talk about jury duty.  Most everyone sat quietly, though.

At 10 a.m. a deputy and manager took us to the municipal court where we met the judge who would try the case. He put the first-timers at ease and let us knows it was a one-day trial, and he expected that a jury would be selected by noon.

In fact it took only until 11:30 a.m. when we were sworn in.  Eight people were randomly selected for questioning on “voir dire.”  The judge told us the defendant had been charged with improper handling of firearms while intoxicated.  He then asked those in the jury box about their employment, and the employment of their spouses and adult children.  He asked what part of town they lived in, whether they had been convicted of a felony, and whether any close friends or family were police officers.  They were asked whether they could consider the testimony of an officer just as any other witness—with no greater or lesser weight.  The judge wanted to know if they had any time or employment concerns, health problems, or any reason why they could not be fair and impartial.  The prosecutor asked questions about gun ownership, and the defense counsel questioned them on the meaning of the presumption of innocence.  Only three people were excused on peremptory challenges – one by the state and two by defense, and it felt like a lottery when a new person was chosen to replace someone.

When the jury was finally selected, we breathed a collective sigh of relief and gladly returned to common pleas to be signed out.  Some people asked for and were given letters for work.  We turned in paperwork and were told to call in again after 5 p.m., but that we would probably not be needed.  She was right—my jury service of two days or one trial was over.

This past week, the Ohio Judicial College and Ohio Jury Management Association held their annual jury management course.  This year, four people who served on a jury were asked to comment on their experiences.  I wish I was one of them.

Statistics show that the United States holds 95% of the jury trials in the world that 5 million citizen’s report and approximately 1 million serve each year.  Unless you’re a judge, lawyer, court employee, party to a civil case, or a criminal defendant, this is the one chance you have to be a participant in the court process.

But as my experience shows, it is very possible that even if you show up, you will not be seated.  No one is automatically excused anymore because of having a certain occupation. So many people wonder — shouldn’t I try to get out of it?  Isn’t it just a waste of my time?  Before you answer, ask yourself:

If I ever need a jury, wouldn’t I want someone like me to be judging my case??

Recess is Over

If you have been following the court schedule, you may have noticed that from July 11 until August 21 the Supreme Court took a bit of a recess in hearing new cases. Of course, in the meantime we justices handled administrative matters and continued to work on our opinions for cases that we have already heard. But the Supreme Court of Ohio is unlike the U.S. Supreme Court in that we do not begin a new term on the first Monday in October and do not have three months off in the summer.

This fall we will again travel for Off-Site Court – this time to Cleveland. We will hear four oral argument cases at the Case Western Reserve University Law School on Tuesday, September 25, and then convene at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse on Wednesday, September 26 to hear four more cases. Both sessions will begin at 9 a.m., and just as in the past, will be attended by local high school students who have been briefed on the case they will attend by their teachers and volunteer attorneys. Law students will attend Tuesday’s oral arguments. A summary of the eight cases (four civil and four criminal) can be found here.

As always, I look forward to sharing thoughts about the court process beforehand with my colleagues to all students. We enjoy the questions asked by the student participants.

Supreme Court Lecture Featured Book About Priest’s Murder in 1921

During the Supreme Court of Ohio’s third Forum on the Law lecture on April 27, an Ohio State University law professor told of how her family’s history and the U.S. history of laws banning interracial marriage led her to write a remarkable book about a 1921 revenge killing of a priest and the resulting trial in Birmingham, Ala.

Sharon Davies, the John C. Elam/Vorys Sater Distinguished Professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law, discussed her book “Rising Road: A True Tale of Love, Race and Religion in America” before a crowd of 200 people in the Supreme Court courtroom.

Davies explained that she came to write the book after becoming interested in U.S. laws banning interracial marriage and procreation in part because of her own personal story of being the daughter of parents who were forced to travel to New York to be married because their union was still illegal in South Carolina.

“It was not until I was 7 years old that these laws were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court,” she said. “We were considered the evidence of a crime.”

In the book, Davies recounts how Methodist minister Edwin Stephenson murdered Fr. James Coyle on the front porch of the Catholic rectory in August 1921, shortly after learning Coyle performed the marriage ceremony between Stephenson’s 18-year-old daughter and a Puerto Rican.

Here's the video from the event.

'New Media' Challenges Discussed at Jury Management Conference

The Ohio Jury Management Association's annual conference this week focused on "Modern Jury Management," and I was delighted to be given the opportunity to address the group.

One of the topics I discussed is how so-called "new media" are transforming the way people communicate and how this effects courts and, in particular, the management of juries.

What do we mean by "new media"? The national Conference of Court Public Information Officers is doing a research project on the topic and has identified seven categories of new and emerging digital communication technology that are having an impact on the judicial system. These are:

1) Social Media Profile sites like Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn allow users to have an online personal profile and connect with defined networks of "friends."
2) Microblogging sites like Twitter are systems that allow users to post short (in the case of Twitter 140 characters) entries about what they are doing or thinking and build a network of followers and also other people they are following.
3) News categorizing, sharing and syndication is a broad category of sites and applications that are transforming the way news is delivered and consumed.
4) Smart Phones and Tablets like the iPhone, the Droid and the iPad, place portable multimedia capability in the palm of your hand and create obvious challenges for judges managing  their courtrooms.
5) Video sharing sites like YouTube and Hulu give anyone with a video device and an Internet connection the ability to compete with the evening news.
6) Wikis are collaborative online tools that allow for anyone to contribute to and access vast information resources.
7) Monitoring and metrics are sites and applications that give us powerful capabilities to make sense of this complex new media world by systematically collecting and analyzing information about how people are using new media and what people are saying in cyberspace.

All this new technology poses both great promise and potential complications for the courts. On the one hand, with enhanced  ability to communicate, we are aided in our mission of supporting public trust and confidence in the system by making it more transparent, accessible and understandable. However, the judiciary has a set of unique challenges when using this technology because of our equally important mandate to be independent and impartial. Jurors Twittering, judges Facebooking? Video iPhones in the courtroom?

It is indeed a brave new world, but it is also an exciting time to be working in the court system.

For more information about the CCPIO New Media project, visit this site, where if you like, you can join and contribute to the conversation.