I'm on Jury Duty this coming week. Maybe they will call me for an interesting case. Maybe not.
Who has had interesting experiences while on jury duty?
\
To all who teach, “practice law”, or may someday be called to serve on a
Criminal jury, this is for you.
I served five weeks in a sequestered jury in a Chicago Cook County
Criminal courtroom.
The charges of murder, rape and arson arose from the investigation of a
tragic fire which swept through a residence in which four children died.
Three teen age sisters and a younger brother,
We listening to 57 witnesses describe in detail the horror where the
defendants committed these all these crimes.
Looking back at this event which occurred
forty years ago I buried all
these horrendous details in the darkest corner of my brain.
I have recently had nightmares which I believe is due to this event..
So think twice about to serve on a Criminal jury, you will
always remember it..
This article appeared in "The Atlantic" last May.
“The Trauma of Jury Duty” Atlantic Monthly, May 15 2015
Jurors in the United States are often exposed to horror—and, like those
empaneled in the Tsarnaev case, would benefit from access to post-trial
counseling and services.
Jurors witness horror on a regular basis. At the close of the Boston
Marathon bombing trial, prosecutors pulled out the clothing and
possessions of eight-year old victim Martin Richard. Item by item the last
shreds of a boys’ life were introduced in excruciating detail—a bloody
jersey, bomb-melted shorts, metal, wood, and the devastating shrapnel that
tore the breath away from a smiling child. The jurors wept openly in
court.
How should jurors—ordinary citizens doing extraordinary duty—cope with
this emotional toll? How should courts respond? While the facts in the
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial were more difficult than most, confronting tragic
loss, disfiguring injury, and death remains a routine part of jury service
in America.
Jury service is stressful. Jurors internalize both the difficulty of
deciding another’s fate, as well as the emotional toll of bearing witness
to tragic events. A National Center for State Courts report found that 70
percent of all jurors feel some stress. Yet the greatest difficulty often
lies in homicide and death penalty trials, in which jurors not only share
the burden of imposing guilt (or even death), but are necessarily
confronted with the loss of life that led to the case. Some jurors even
report physical ailments, including headaches, nightmares, and symptoms
consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.
The reason: Jurors receive little preparation for the traumatic evidence
at trial, and are provided inadequate resources during trial. This lack of
attention stems primarily from the limitations of the trial process.
Judges naturally avoid warning jurors about upcoming evidence for fear of
influencing the jury’s evaluation of that evidence, and counselors cannot
consult with jurors during the trial without interfering with the jury’s
decision-making. Worse, admonishments not to discuss the testimony or
evidence with family or friends means that jurors go through the trauma
largely separated from normal emotional supports.
Even after cases conclude, courts proceed cautiously with offering
counseling services for fear of unsettling final verdicts. Because most
convictions result in criminal appeals, any process that reveals the
feelings and thought processes of jurors might also provide an argument to
challenge the jury verdict. In addition, jurors quickly disperse back to
their communities, providing little practical opportunity to provide
counseling services. Finally, in an era of growing juror apathy, courts
would rather not advertise the possibility of nightmare-inspiring
testimony that awaits citizens.
Despite the difficulties, some courts have begun to offer post-trial
counseling services modeled on other post-trauma assistance to
first-responders and the military. The federal courts have even developed
a process of “critical incident debriefing” for federal jurors in high
profile cases. State courts in Texas, North Carolina, and Minnesota, among
others, have also begun experimenting with similar counseling programs.
Yet these innovations reach only a handful of citizens, and difficulties
with funding and logistics have prevented these services from becoming the
norm.
If courts are interested in addressing juror trauma, they can start by
borrowing from the well-developed literature on trauma recovery. Instead
of discouraging jurors from sharing their experiences, courts could look
for a way for jurors to express their emotional reaction after the
verdict. Isolation and withdrawal heightens the negative effects of
trauma. Finding constructive and safe ways for jurors to talk about what
they experienced would help them heal, while also furthering the public
witnessing purpose of jury trials. Courts might create juror support
groups consisting of former jurors, develop juror forums in which they
could share their experiences, or simply encourage jurors to talk with
family, friends, and the community.
We all have a role to play in this process, by appreciating jury service
in a far more public manner.
Courts might also expand post-trial counseling services beyond
high-profile cases. Most homicides, sexual assaults, and violent crimes
involve potentially traumatizing testimony that hits far deeper than the
special victims unit violence regularly broadcast on TV. Jurors could be
given the opportunity—if requested—to address some of the consequences of
this violence on their lives. These juror recovery programs could pay for
professional counselors who can identify and respond to the distinct
trauma of jurors.
