Weblog Sin Pies

By Charley Daniels

Looks like things are working around here for the most part (site was broken yesterday). That’s good, because I’ve got some things to say. Like, I bet you didn’t know I spent yesterday on jury duty, which was interesting. It wasn’t the first summons I’ve received, but it was the first time I’ve ever had to appear.

Every lying asshole I talked to told me, “Oh, yeah, don’t worry. You’ll just sit there all day and then go home.” Which actually didn’t sound too bad. I planned to get some work done, read a little, make some friends. You know, typical day off stuff. I just had to stay in a room. How hard could that be? Not hard at all, it turns out, until about an hour in when I got called for the very first panel.

That actually worked out well, because I got to take a two-hour lunch while the people who couldn’t serve on a jury for the next two weeks had to tell it to the judge. By “it,” I mean they had to explain why they couldn’t serve on a jury for two weeks. I tried to quickly think of a good reason, but I had nothing. Jaxon suggested I should have just lied, which is a good point, but I’m glad I didn’t, because then I wouldn’t have had such a long lunch.

So after my luxurious break, I went back for jury selection. It’s a process I’d describe as frustratingly deliberate, punctuated by moments of something straddling the gap between pure genius and the highest level of dip-shittery.

I’m just in the general pool; I haven’t been called up to answer questions. But I have to go back Monday, owing to the thorough nature of the proceedings and the exhaustive replies by the 24 people who are currently being questioned. Everyone understands, it seems, that the more you talk, the likelier you’ll say something that one of the attorneys doesn’t like.

A few have taken a more direct approach, declaring their bias against this or that, but each time they wilt under the judge’s inevitable grilling on the subject: “Do you think you would be able to put aside your personal feelings and render a verdict without prejudice, based on the evidence presented?” Sheepish replies, all of them, but they all say yes.

It’s like watching children trying to bring down an elephant with sticks. Running in hesitantly, swatting a leg, getting kicked back. There’s always one that won’t give up, and such was the case during this selection. Each time he’d try a fresh angle of the “I don’t think I can put aside my bias” approach, which is actually sort of, I don’t know, admirable if his only goal is to be excused. Because unless he’s really stupid (which obviously could be the case) he has to know how bad he looks using the “Your honor, I’m too prejudiced to serve as a juror” line. He was relentless.

The subtle approach is way better, I think. One of the questions is whether we’ve ever served on a jury before and whether or not that jury reached a verdict, to which one lady’s response was: “I have served on a jury before, and the verdict was guilty.” I’d lay odds she’ll be released by the defense attorney on Monday based on that one answer alone.

They haven’t excused anyone yet, but they’re choosing 15 out of about 80, so there’s a good chance I won’t even be questioned, let alone picked. We’ll see Monday.

Oh, and if this treatise wasn’t detail enough for you, I Twittered jury duty live, as it happened. For the most part.