Andy Borgmann's Blog

I finally got to do something that I have always wanted to do: be summoned for Jury Duty. Now I know, most of you are thinking, that's crazy (especially Bryan Taylor who gets summoned shockingly often). I know, I am weird. But I have always grown up with a great appreciate for our justice system, and a great appreciate for being an American, so for me it is an honor to be apart of Jury Duty.

I will say that what I didn't appreciate about my jury summons yesterday was the fact it took 12 hours! I was there from 8:15 am to 8:45 pm and they only gave us one meal break! Nuts, I know. But I digress.

I found out at 2pm that the trial I was being considered for was a murder trial. Apparently on October 31, 2004, the alleged (and I do mean alleged) murderer shot and killed one woman and shot another man. If I wasn't excited before, I sure was now.

But my enthusiasm was not shared. In fact, out of the 58 potential jurors, I would say at least half made vocal objection to having to be there, and I would imagine there were many more. But after working in a courthouse for four years, and being apart of quite an extensive "legal family" (I can count 7 attorney's in my immediate family, cousins, and grandparents), I have to say I was a little disappointed in the experience.

Now you could say it is because I didn't get picked and my feelings are hurt, but those who know me, know I have no feelings so that isn't the case. What disappointed me was seeing who these lawyers did pick. It was clear about half of the jurors pretty much fit the defense, and half of them fit the prosecution. Even odder, one of the women selected was one of the most vocal objectors in having to be there (she was pissed to be selected). And this is where I just don't get it. Instead of picking a well-rounded, fair-minded jury, they picked people who hated being there (which I am sure clouds judgment), and a polarized pool. It’s like our Jury selection has succumb to the Hannity/Combs effect where we just divide up sides, get in an argument, and the ratings sky rocket. This man deserves a fair trial, and the State deserves a fair process of the evidence against this man, but with a polarized jury, I don't think either one of them is capable (especially since the burden of proof lies on the State).

I don't really have any great insight about this. The selection process is probably the "best it can be." I just wanted to share observations from jury duty.