"Please rise for the Jury"

Have you ever been selected to be on a Jury? I traveled to Denton County Courthouse on Monday morning, turned in my forms, and sat with a book for a few hours assuming that my name would not be called. Sure enough, I was one of twenty people to be chosen from on a misdemeanor case to be tried the next day. (Deep sigh of relief that I wasn't chosen for the felony murder case.) I have to admit, I was a little excited at the prospect of seeing our legal system in action.

This particular case would only need six of the original twenty for actual deliberation and Jury Panel for a DUI. What would be my chances from this lot to be selected? I was a Constitutional Law major, this usually disqualifies me right off the bat in San Diego.

The twenty of us went up to the fourth floor and sat in the audience benches while the State of Texas Prosecution and the Defendant's Legal counsel asked us a series of questions. I should note now that the Defendant was present during this period and he was wearing an Army uniform. He did not speak, or really look at us, but he was there. A young man of about 26 years old, the bars on his chest indicated he had served in Operation Iraqi Freedom (as it was then called) and while I did not recognize all the bars, he most likely had four years of military service. Whether the rest of the potential jury members knew this, I just don't know.

Back to the series of questions... The Prosecution wanted to know if we would be able to determine a verdict of guilty if a breathalyzer test was not available, as long as the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt of the Defendant's intoxication. The also wanted to know if we had served on a Jury before and the case/outcome. Finally, they asked if we had any stigma against Police Officers. (I am paraphrasing a bit here, but that was the gist of the three questions.)

The Defense asked surprising questions, to say the least. Were we aware of the Tea Party and what were our feelings on this political movement? Are you a Republican or Democrat? How strongly are you tied to your political party? I was confused how this was applicable to a DUI case, especially as we were not asked if we had military service or knew of someone in service. However, the legal representatives apparently knew as we have to indicate military involvement on our initial forms, as well as our profession.

After these had been answered, we left the courtroom while the six jurors were to be determined. I was lucky number thirteen which meant my chances were decent to be selected. (Starting with Juror number one, either the Prosecution or Defense can dismiss a candidate. This can be done up to three times on each side.)

We were called back into the courtroom and names were read for jury involvement. I was the last name called.

Dismissed for the day, and informed not to read the news or do any research, I went home to await the next morning when the trial would begin. I was still excited about the opportunity to be a part of the process and awaiting the evidence to unfold. Yes, I had a good glass of wine as well.

I arrived at the courthouse, to our little jury deliberation room, wearing my Juror badge as identification and cup of coffee in hand. The other five Jurors arrived... a young music teacher, a mid-thirties pharmacetutical rep, a stay-at-home mother, flight attendant, and IT systems manager. We were an interesting group and had good personalities and attitudes.

"Please rise for the Jury" the Bailiff called out as we filed into the courtroom. Once again, the Defendant was wearing his Army uniform. Counsel waived opening arguments and the Prosecution launched right into the evidence. Two Policemen, one after the other, took the stand and walked through the facts of the case. The Defendant had been pulled over on an expired registration, apparently weaving in the road. At this point, the Officer went through standard and non-standard field sobriety testing. After a length of time, the Officer placed the individual under arrest for driving under the influence and took him to jail. At that point, a breathalyzer (or Intoxicator 5000 machine, something along those lines) was performed. (More to come on those results.)

We were shown the video documentary of the field sobriety testing and subsequent breathalyzer test. The actual video footage of the initial stop was not available, due to an administrative error on digital records archiving, it could not be proven that the Defendant was weaving in the road, or making lane changes. Breaking for lunch, and reminded not to discuss the trial, I had a turkey and swiss sandwich from Arby's with a lemonade. It was pretty delicious, love that horsey sauce!

Back to the courtroom... the Prosecution witness was a technical expert on Breathalyzer testing and maintenance. A lot of technical mumbo jumbo that confused and disoriented me. It was then reveled that the Defendant's breath was found to be 0.15. At this point, the State rested.

The Defense began with a character witness, a Major in the Military who supervised the Defendant, speaking to his trustworthiness. Then the Defendant took the stand. Clearly upset and nervous, but respectful, he admitted to drinking alcohol on the night in question, but did not feel that he was intoxicated. Prosecution argued with him at some length about the amount he drank, which was never clear, and then rested. Final arguements from the Prosecution were fiercly delivered, persuading the Jury that the Defendant was intoxicated and should be found guilty of DUI. The State of Texas notes that anything over a 0.08 alcohol absorption is defined as intoxicated.

The Lawyer for the Defendant then challenged us on the validity of his client's intoxication and urged us to review the footage again. Prosecution was able to rebut, with the same argument that 0.15 is legally intoxicated, despite any loss to metal or physical abilities. It was an "or" situation... if the Defendant had lost mental or phyisical faculties OR an alcohol absorbency over 0.08, then he was guilty of driving under the influence.

We then retired to the deliberation room, I honestly thought that it would be a quick discussion... I was wrong. We reviewed the video footage again. The Defendant was able to say the alphabet clearly from B to S. He was able to count backwards from 52 to 26 clearly and quickly. He was able to walk heel to toe, with a few adjustments, pivot and take the nine steps back. He was able to raise his leg off the ground and hold it, albeit hopping towards the end. We were not able to see the eye stigma test as the footage was too far away.

I can honestly say that my first vote for guilt or innocence was different than the end result. Elected to be the Presiding Juror (actually a coin toss between myself and the stay-at-home mom) we communicated back and forth with the Judge that we were having difficulty coming to a unanimous decision. He urged us to continue. At 7pm, I demanded the Judge bring us food. (Well, not that the Judge had to bring it, but two of us were getting cranky with low blood sugar levels.) Grilled chicken salad, it was decent. Did I mention that our cell phones had been taken away for the day and we couldn't communicate with anyone?

By 8pm, we were now at 5 to 1. Did the State of Texas prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle? Tears were shed. Frustrations were had. Fortunately, no uncomfortable arguments or violence, but it was a heated discussion. The six of us in that room had the power to effect one man's life forever. Granted, it was a misdemeanor DUI case, but we took it as seriously as a felony murder conviction. We reviewed all the evidence, we put aside or personal feelings as best as possible, and did not allow the potential punishment or ramifications sway our judgment. It was one of the most difficult decisions to make, but we finally came to a unanimous resolution around 8:30pm.

Composing ourselves and walking back into the courtroom, we took our places. I stood up, opened the document and read clearly for the Legal Counsel, Judge and Defendant to hear.
"We the jury, find the Defendant..."