Jury Selection

Having only lived in America, I kind of believe in our judicial process for the most part. It's possible that there are societies that have processes that have advantages over ours, but I haven't studied them. I have seen evidence in our trustworthy and unbiased media of societies that have systems far worse than ours...

Anyways, I performed my service on a civil case a couple of years ago. Sat through 4+ days of listening to a scumbag lawyer present and attack everyone on the stand. Having quite a bit of domain knowledge about what they were talking about, it was pretty easy for me to see through the bullshit. FWIW, it was a case where a towing company pulled a crashed Pontiac Sunfire (how's that for irony?) into the shop and it caught fire and burned the building down in the middle of the night. Actually a quite interesting story, though not one that seemed to warrant the amount of time and resources required to have this case.


In the end, we (the jury) were tasked with deciding if one of the tenants of the building, who had already been paid by his insurance company and had subsequently gone on to expand his business to like 3x the original size, was entitled to some portion of millions of dollars from this one man show of a towing company and the building owner. I, and about 2/3 of the rest of the jury, went into the deliberation room with the very clear perspective that he did not deserve anything. In fact, it was my opinion that these assholes asking for the money should have had to pay everyone for wasting our time.

Two people were kind of on the fence because they were somewhat confused about what they had seen all week. Understandable, since there was so much misinformation and bullshit about topics they had never heard of before that week. They just needed to talk it through.


Then there was that One Guy. Just like our friend CSPhotography over in this discussion. All week long, seemed like a nice enough guy. We talked a lot since we are both engineering types. If I had to wager on anyone in the room having good perspective, it would have been on this guy. But, for whatever reason, he felt (are engineers even supposed to do that?) that the guy with the brand new huge building and Mercedes deserved more.

In the end, we spent like 3+ hours discussing things that didn't need to be discussed and ultimately walked out of the room with both engineers quite irritated with each other. Up until that point, I had always thought the 12 Angry Men movie was just a portrayal of something that could happen in the most difficult of cases. Now, after my experience in the court with a very simple case and watching the insanity of the discussions surrounding the NYC biker saga, I am convinced that the chances of it happening are quite high.


I am conflicted. I feel that it's important to support the process, but that the same time I value my personal (and company's) time and REALLY don't need the aggravation that is guaranteed to come from arguing with insanity.

Have a double dose of cacklefest for having read this rant.

Illustration for article titled Jury Selection

Share This Story

Get our newsletter