It was several years back when I received a jury summons from Lake County. I complied by showing up at the Lake County Government Center Auditorium. I watched some video, some of which was preliminary juror preparation and some of which was to distract us while we waited and waited. Finally, I was part of the venire dispatched to the (criminal) court of Judge Clarence Murray. A jury was selected while I sat far from the jury box. I was excused. Not long after I received a check for $30.00 or so. I hoped the County was done with me as a prospective juror. One point here is that no rational trial lawyer would want to risk having me on his jury. I know too much law, more than jurors are entrusted with by way of Instructions. I have a good idea of the sentencing range for most offenses, a topic concealed from lay jurors. As for criminal cases there is Article 1 Section 19 of the Indiana Constitution which establishes the right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts. Determining the law includes, where appropriate, the right of juror nullification. A criminal court will not give a “nullification” Instruction, but I could in the jury room. I know when my time is being wasted. I know the arguments being whispered at the sidebar. I can feel the sincerity or insincerity of legal argument. To the trial lawyer who sees me on his venire, the risk is not that I would fail to fairly judge the case. Rather, the risk is that I would fairly judge the case.
Many years ago I answered a federal jury summons by opting for the exemption then available to any practicing lawyer. Why the State of Indiana has no parallel exemption is beyond my understanding. Such could be provided by legislation or by court rule. On the local level it seems that an exemption for practicing lawyers could be negotiated between the LCBA and the Lake Superior & Circuit Court. The CLB suggestion here is for an available exemption for practicing lawyers rather than exclusion from jury duty.
It was around Memorial Day of 2022 when I received another Lake County jury summons for duty in Hammond on June 30th. That summons was rescinded near the 11th hour. My reprieve was not long. My next summons was for jury duty in Crown Point commencing August 15, 2022. I knew the probability that any Crown Point jury trial would be on the criminal side in a felony prosecution.
I showed up early, before 8:00 a.m. on the 15th. The venire was told there was to be only one jury trial for the week. There was some preparatory video. Then the numbers were called. I was second on the list of those assembled and dispatched to the court of Judge Salvador Vasquez. At the defense table next to attorney John Cantrell there sat Reginald Carter, on trial for a triple homicide plus arson.
I was escorted to the jury box with 13 others for voir dire. I gave nothing to support a challenge for cause. My theory was that I should draw peremptory challenges from both sides unless those challenges were in short supply.¹ My worry was that each side might (wrongly) assume that the other would strike me and that I could wind up on the jury by accident. There was no chance on August 15th that the exhaustion of peremptories would force me onto the jury.
The trial lawyers approached the bench with their peremptory challenges written on paper. I was excused. I left the building and returned to my practice of law. Most of the “first fourteen” (12 plus 2 alternates), including one other lawyer, were excused.
During voir dire there was mention of how the State would seek to prove guilt by “circumstantial evidence.” My thoughts went to whether such “circumstantial evidence” would exclude any “reasonable theory” of innocence. After my release I looked at newspaper accounts and the online docket of the prosecution. I learned how the State had successfully barred the mention at trial of a prior, unsolved residential arson suffered by one of the three murder victims. If not committed by Reginald Carter, the prior arson might “circumstantially” (though not persuasively) suggest a perpetrator other than Mr. Carter for the offenses being tried. I could not help noticing the double standard of the State relying on circumstantial evidence while opposing the same conduct by the defense.
Then there were the docket entries from August 15, 2022. In addition to a very tardy notice of intent to introduce “other crimes” evidence against the defendant, the State filed three separate motions in limine to restrict what could be mentioned by the defense. The record, I think, makes clear that the prosecution was uninterested in fair play. The online docket does not reveal any judicial ruling on these motions. I cannot say whether I would have made that observation from the jury box or whether it would have made a difference to me as a juror.
Early in the voir dire when I heard “triple homicide” I worried that it might be a death penalty case (a circumstance not shared with the venire at that point). I soon noticed that prospective jurors were not being “death qualified.” I was relieved then and moreso later when I was excused. My hope is that I drew a peremptory challenge from each side.
Though I was happy to be excused, I was willing to serve as a petit juror. I may never again be so close to actual jury service. While there are those willing and able to charge fees as “jury consultants,” there is no reliable evidence of what actually goes on in a jury room during deliberations. A glimpse into that mystery would be worth a few days away from the office.
ADDENDUM: Reginald Carter was convicted on all counts. Sentencing may be delayed but is scheduled for September 19, 2022. Mr. Carter will receive a term of years equivalent to a life sentence.
___________
¹ According to Jury Rule 18 there are 10 peremptory challenges plus one more for alternate jurors in murder prosecutions not involving the death penalty or “LWOP” sentencing.
Leave a Reply