This week could have gone very differently than it did. I was almost impaneled on a jury for a five day criminal trial in the Springfield Superior Court.
On Monday, I reported to the fourth floor of the Hall of Justice for jury duty. I had originally been scheduled to serve in July but I deferred my service until September because the House of Representatives would no longer be in formal session. I didn’t want to risk missing any hearings or roll calls or debate back in July.
After signing in, I was assigned a juror number (I was number 65) and took a seat in the large jury pool room which was nearly full of people. It was around 8:30 a.m. As I looked around, I made some observations.
There were around 130 potential jurors. It seemed to be about evenly split between men and women. Median age was around 45. Surprisingly, very few people were dressed professionally. I had always been taught that one should dress up for jury duty, like you were going to a job interview, or church.
I saw no more than a handful of men wearing a suit and tie. Some wore jackets but no tie. It appeared to me that the women were better dressed than most of the men. I also found it interesting how casually some people were dressed. There were many people wearing shorts and sweatpants, hoodies and baseball caps. The juror instruction card had specifically mentioned that proper dress was required. I wondered if some people dressed that way intentionally hoping it might disqualify them from service.
The court officer instructed us to watch a video about jury service. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Roderick Ireland introduced viewers to the history of the trial court and the role citizens play in the judicial system. Massachusetts’ own John Adams, who wrote the Massachusetts State Constitution that went on to be a model for the United States Constitution, felt very strongly about jury service.
It was repeatedly stated in the video that two of the pillars of good citizenship were voting and jury service. Viewers were also reminded that their government only had the power to compel them to do two things: serve in the military during time of war (via the draft) and serve on a jury.
One of the first things I noticed as I watched the video was that the television was an old console TV in a heavy wooden cabinet with a small screen. It looked to me like the type of TV we had in the 1960’s or 70’s! I joked with some fellow jurors that it must have belonged to John Adams himself.
Anybody who has served jury duty in Springfield before knows that the room has a great view overlooking the Connecticut River and downtown. It’s a much nicer jury pool room than, say, Holyoke District Court or Westfield District Court. But we weren’t going to be in the room for long.
After the video was over, a court officer escorted a judge into the room to greet us and thank us for showing up. He again emphasized the importance of jury service and said that even if we didn’t end up being impaneled on a jury just our presence and willingness to serve helped the judicial process along. The judge told us that sometimes at the last minute defendants will agree to plea out a criminal case or settle a civil case rather than risk facing a jury of their peers.
Around 9:30 or 10 a.m., another court officer came in and announced that jurors 1 – 99 would be going into Courtroom Two for the impaneling process. We left a few dozen people in the jury pool room and headed down the stairs to the third floor. Once we settled into the benches in the courtroom the judge came in and introduced himself, the assistant district attorney, who would be trying the case on behalf of the Commonwealth, and the defense attorney. There was a clerk, a stenographer, and a couple court officers in the room, as well. And the defendant sat in a chair next to his lawyer.
The judge explained the nature of the case. He read a list of potential witnesses. Then he instructed us to review a paper containing 18 questions on it. They were questions about the case and about jury service.
Some of the questions asked if I was in any way related to any of the people involved in the case, or if I worked for any criminal justice agency, or if I had heard anything in the news that might prejudice me in any way about the case. Other questions asked if I was physically able to serve, if I was on any medication, or if there were any compelling reasons why I would not wish to be a juror.
Each of us then had to go up to the judge’s bench and review our answers with him, the ADA, and the defense attorney. He also asked additional questions ranging from my views on the testimony of police officers and children to whether the defendant not taking the stand in his own defense would prejudice my opinion of his guilt or innocence.
Finally, he asked me if I thought I could be fair and impartial. We were under oath. I could think of no good reason why I should be excused from jury service other than a busy schedule but that didn’t seem to be a good excuse because everybody is busy nowadays. And I told him I believed I could be fair and impartial. So, for the time being, I was impaneled as Juror number four and had to go sit in seat four of the jury box with nine or ten others.
By 4 p.m. Monday they had gone through all 99 of us in the jury pool and still didn’t have the 14 jurors they wanted (12 jurors and 2 alternates). It had been a long, slow process. The remaining people in the jury pool room had been released after lunch so we were told we would have to come back on Tuesday at such time they would begin processing a new pool of potential jurors until they had the full complement of 14. Then the attorneys would have the chance to challenge seated jurors like me for cause or use a certain number of peremptory challenges as part of their strategy to assemble a jury they believed would be most receptive to the case they intended to make for or against the defendant.
I’ll cut to the chase by saying on Tuesday I again went to the courthouse and during the day was called into the courtroom before the judge where he told me he was going to excuse me rather than have one of the attorneys challenge me. I was conflicted. One part of me was glad to be free to go back to work rather than sit in the courtroom for the next five days. But another part of me had started to look forward to the trial. I left the court with mixed emotions.
I haven’t mentioned what kind of trial it was going to be out of sensitivity to the readers. One judge later told me these kind of trials are often more contentious, sordid, and lengthy than murder trials.
I would be very interested to hear from you about your jury duty experience. Feel free to call me at my district office at 568-1366 or stop me on the street if you see me. I am torn over whether I would have liked to be impaneled or not but I am pleased to have done my duty as a citizen and reported for jury duty. I recommend it.
Have a great week.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of the Westfield News.
Representative Don Humason and his Chief of Staff Maura Cassin may be reached at their Westfield District Office, 64 Noble Street, Westfield, MA 01085, (413) 568-1366.
Representative Don Humason may be reached at his Boston office, State House Room 542, Boston, MA 02133, (617) 722-2803.
Email address: [email protected]
Website: www.DonHumason.org
