Jury Duty 101

I (Avery) just wrapped up my first jury duty experience.  I was summoned by the federal court to appear Monday, was selected to an 8-member jury, the trial began and wrapped up earlier this morning.  Part of me didn't want to be selected because of the logistics of child care, but the other part of me wanted to serve because I know it is a privilege I have as a US citizen.  Fortunately, Bobby was able to stay home Monday and Mamere came in Monday night to provide relief and help with the boys Tuesday and Wednesday.

To summarize, the case was about a man from Atlanta who was pulled over in a local county for following too closely.  When asked if he was carrying narcotics or large sums of money in the car, he said "no".  When asked if the deputy could search his car, he said "no".  Obviously something in his demeanor created enough suspicion to call a K9 unit to sniff the car's perimeter.  The dog alerted to the presence of the odor of a narcotic, which then gave the deputy permission to enter the car and search its interior.  As a result, they discovered an empty bag that had a strong marijuana odor and a suitcase with $40,000.  Yes, $40K cash...I'd say that suffices as carrying "large sums of money".

As the jury, it was our responsibility to determine whether or not we thought the $40K were the proceeds of a drug transaction, and if so, they are property of the US government.  If we found that to be true, then if the Claimant could prove he was the "innocent owner" of the $40K, then he was eligible to keep the money.

Interestingly, in such a case, the jury's decision isn't made "beyond a reasonable doubt", rather based on a "preponderance of the evidence".  As the judge instructed us, "preponderance of evidence" means which is more likely to be true than not true.  In other words, the scales of justice need only to tip slightly in favor of one side to make a decision.

The case was complete with drugs, money, law enforcement, dogs, real estate, taxes, business dealings, etc.  In the end, we determined, the Claimant's testimony was just shady enough that we couldn't give his testimony complete validity.  (It didn't help that during his testimony it came to light he filed incomplete tax returns in 2008 and 2009 to avoid paying taxes.)  So, based on a "preponderance of the evidence", the money was the result of a illegal drug trafficking act and the Claimant didn't prove based on a "preponderance of the evidence" that he was the "innocent owner" of the money.

I'll admit, I was mentally fried at the end of the 3-day case.  Not until you sit on a jury do you realize how important it is to listen to everything said so you can make the right decision.

On a lighter note, one of my personal highlights from the process was during jury selection when the judge asked me a question based on a questionnaire I had completed.  I was the 15th juror questioned, so I had an idea of what the judge was asking and knew there were few, if any, red flags on my form.  The judge said, "Mrs. Jones, I see here as your occupation you put Chief Household Officer."  There is a chuckle from the entire room and I respond smiling "Yes."  To which the judge says, "In all my years on the bench, I've never seen that description before and believe Mrs. Jones you've done it justice. While I think I know what a Chief Household Officer does, can you please describe for the court what you do."  A priceless moment!