My first time being called to jury duty was also in New York City, about 22 years ago. I had a similar experience. Shuffled about, not picked, but also feeling like I was “bearing witness” to something profound. A truly civic process. Humbling.
A few years later, in Los Angeles, I actually was picked. A unique, treasured experience. Just hearing 11 other people doing real, live moral reasoning, with actual stakes. People step up to the plate. It’s beautiful.
Two years ago I was a litigant in an 8 day trial at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, MD. The experience was profound in many ways. One thing that struck me during the process was the dignity of the jury. I’m sure few if any wanted to have their lives upended for 8 days sitting on a jury. But during my 7 hours of testimony under oath I saw that they were all paying attention and took their responsibilities seriously. The questions that came out of the jury room during their deliberations also testified to their diligence. I was also struck by the etiquette of everyone in the courtroom standing when the jury came in and went out - a deserved gesture of respect. I came through the experience with a greater respect for the process and appreciation for this service that the government and my fellow citizens provide.
Called several times, though only picked once, and in that case the matter settled immediately before trial (not uncommon). But I’ve always felt similarly about the process.
I was on a jury a few months ago, and was impressed by everyone involved. Our judge and bailiff were professional but also warm and gracious, and we jurors all tried hard to do the right thing when faced with a heinous act and limited information. One of the jurors was very ideologically driven, and even he ended up having to set that ideology aside, with a lot of visible internal pain, after lengthy discussion of the evidence and our instructions. Clearly the system is imperfect, but I think most of us felt heartened by the role we played in it.
Having tried upwards of 500 jury trials, the first couple hundred about as serious as the one the author describes, it is important to note that the jury system is based on the assumption of the general wisdom of the common man, and that elite judges are in fact NOT in a better position to make factual decisions.
Kudos to Mounk for not getting out of jury duty, something most upper-middle class Americans can easily do. And thanks for noting the gratingly ubiquitous woke lectures that are increasingly common as the state seeks to put its thumb on the scales of justice, presumptively implying systemic bias."
Think many of us who've shared that experience in DC -- I only actually served once in about a half dozen visits-- share your well-expressed view. The system is functioning there and it is something to value.
I have been picked twice. Both times the other jurors were conscientious and amicable. We felt for both defendants, but were able to see that and apply the law. It was hard.
Waiting to be called is both boring and suspenseful, even if there is nothing to prevent your serving.
As citizens, there are actually very few mandatory obligations we have, to counter our long list of rights. Jury duty is one of them.
As a lawyer summoned to jury duty, I was usually subject to a then-operational objection that I might try to dominate the other jurors. That has faded, at least where I live, because, as I often tried to explain, law school taught me the law, but it could not teach me the facts of this particular case. And I couldn't apply any old law I'd learned that I thought was right for the case. The judge would determine what laws were applicable; that was his or her job. The lawyers would present the facts, each focusing on their version of what facts there were, and their version of how best to interpret them. The jurors were there to decide, as disinterested citizens, which side seemed to have the better version of what happened, within the boundaries of the law were in instructed to apply.
For many people, I hope, serving on a jury helps to make real what "due process" means in very real life. All the cautions about potential bias become tangible, not only in deciding an actual case, but in those long, dull waiting periods. We had many opportunities to assert our neutrality, but there was plenty of time to contemplate what that actually meant. That is something few other parts of life provide. I have always come out of jury selection (never been chosen) feeling better about having to think about how important it is to the people in the case that I am required to be my best self for them.
I found it to be a unique, almost transcendent experience. Aside from being required to serve in war if young enough, citizenship carries with it two “Musts”, paying taxes and responding to jury summons, and a “May”, the right to vote. That’s it. Serving on a jury, with someone else’s fate, future or fisc at risk, was a unique responsibility and a life event of many levels. Glad I got the chance.
An interesting description of DC jury duty. While much of the process is similar to CA, it is also different. CA jury duty is very streamlined. The questionnaire is completed before jury selection so prosecutor, defendant and judge have the answers. The questions are related to specific responses by potential jurors. Much of the discussion is about the potential jurors employment status and time constraints. Self-employed vs working for an organization/government. Thank you for sharing.
My first time being called to jury duty was also in New York City, about 22 years ago. I had a similar experience. Shuffled about, not picked, but also feeling like I was “bearing witness” to something profound. A truly civic process. Humbling.
A few years later, in Los Angeles, I actually was picked. A unique, treasured experience. Just hearing 11 other people doing real, live moral reasoning, with actual stakes. People step up to the plate. It’s beautiful.
Two years ago I was a litigant in an 8 day trial at the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, MD. The experience was profound in many ways. One thing that struck me during the process was the dignity of the jury. I’m sure few if any wanted to have their lives upended for 8 days sitting on a jury. But during my 7 hours of testimony under oath I saw that they were all paying attention and took their responsibilities seriously. The questions that came out of the jury room during their deliberations also testified to their diligence. I was also struck by the etiquette of everyone in the courtroom standing when the jury came in and went out - a deserved gesture of respect. I came through the experience with a greater respect for the process and appreciation for this service that the government and my fellow citizens provide.
Called several times, though only picked once, and in that case the matter settled immediately before trial (not uncommon). But I’ve always felt similarly about the process.
After all the intellectually challenging reading/listening I've done (and redone) on your site, I have to say that this was one of my favorites.
Just a simple telling, a true story of your experience as a juror candidate.
AWEsome Mr Mounk.
I was on a jury a few months ago, and was impressed by everyone involved. Our judge and bailiff were professional but also warm and gracious, and we jurors all tried hard to do the right thing when faced with a heinous act and limited information. One of the jurors was very ideologically driven, and even he ended up having to set that ideology aside, with a lot of visible internal pain, after lengthy discussion of the evidence and our instructions. Clearly the system is imperfect, but I think most of us felt heartened by the role we played in it.
Having tried upwards of 500 jury trials, the first couple hundred about as serious as the one the author describes, it is important to note that the jury system is based on the assumption of the general wisdom of the common man, and that elite judges are in fact NOT in a better position to make factual decisions.
Kudos to Mounk for not getting out of jury duty, something most upper-middle class Americans can easily do. And thanks for noting the gratingly ubiquitous woke lectures that are increasingly common as the state seeks to put its thumb on the scales of justice, presumptively implying systemic bias."
I was surprised how proud I felt of my country when I served on a jury. Thanks for this article which helped remind me of that feeling.
Nice work Yascha. It's kind of a pity that more folks don't realize what a gift this system is.
Thank you for writing this. It was very interesting, and encouraging.
I have lived in the UK almost all my life, and never been called for jury service, although my wife and at least one of my children have.
Think many of us who've shared that experience in DC -- I only actually served once in about a half dozen visits-- share your well-expressed view. The system is functioning there and it is something to value.
I have been picked twice. Both times the other jurors were conscientious and amicable. We felt for both defendants, but were able to see that and apply the law. It was hard.
Waiting to be called is both boring and suspenseful, even if there is nothing to prevent your serving.
As citizens, there are actually very few mandatory obligations we have, to counter our long list of rights. Jury duty is one of them.
As a lawyer summoned to jury duty, I was usually subject to a then-operational objection that I might try to dominate the other jurors. That has faded, at least where I live, because, as I often tried to explain, law school taught me the law, but it could not teach me the facts of this particular case. And I couldn't apply any old law I'd learned that I thought was right for the case. The judge would determine what laws were applicable; that was his or her job. The lawyers would present the facts, each focusing on their version of what facts there were, and their version of how best to interpret them. The jurors were there to decide, as disinterested citizens, which side seemed to have the better version of what happened, within the boundaries of the law were in instructed to apply.
For many people, I hope, serving on a jury helps to make real what "due process" means in very real life. All the cautions about potential bias become tangible, not only in deciding an actual case, but in those long, dull waiting periods. We had many opportunities to assert our neutrality, but there was plenty of time to contemplate what that actually meant. That is something few other parts of life provide. I have always come out of jury selection (never been chosen) feeling better about having to think about how important it is to the people in the case that I am required to be my best self for them.
In our jurisdiction, lawyers are barred from jury duty as it would be a conflict of interest.
You would have been an exemplary juror
I found it to be a unique, almost transcendent experience. Aside from being required to serve in war if young enough, citizenship carries with it two “Musts”, paying taxes and responding to jury summons, and a “May”, the right to vote. That’s it. Serving on a jury, with someone else’s fate, future or fisc at risk, was a unique responsibility and a life event of many levels. Glad I got the chance.
Well said thx
An interesting description of DC jury duty. While much of the process is similar to CA, it is also different. CA jury duty is very streamlined. The questionnaire is completed before jury selection so prosecutor, defendant and judge have the answers. The questions are related to specific responses by potential jurors. Much of the discussion is about the potential jurors employment status and time constraints. Self-employed vs working for an organization/government. Thank you for sharing.