So I Got Summons for Jury Duty...

Hello Dreamers.

Photo by Sora Shimazaki: https://www.pexels.com/photo/judgement-scale-and-gavel-in-judge-office-5669602/

So I got summoned for Jury duty the other day. Spoilers: no I didn't get selected to a jury panel. Still, I can give you a bit of a rundown of the day.

So to the courthouse

I had to show up to check in at 8:30am - earlier than I would like to be up, but then again, I ain't got much of a choice. Approaching the Superior Court involved walking past vagrants at the entrance to the parking lot - people I suspected might have been homeless. I get to the hall where I had to wait to be let in alongside other confused people.

Once in the courtroom the court registrar did attendence. She called out a five digit number that would have been on our summons as opposed to our name. Fun! I mean, as dehumanising as it is, we are all a string of binary in a database as far as a computer is concerned.

Once confirmed who showed up and who has some explaining to do they make us watch a video going over how a court works, who sits where and what everyone's function was. All while playing out some propaganda about jury duty being this rewarding experience, an honour, and the most important thing a citizen can be asked to do during peacetimes. All while insisting our justice system is the envy of the world.

Sure.

Once these admin tasks were out of the way we all have to fill out a questionnaire outsdie the courtroom that, in theory, would be handed to the judge and counsel as part of determining suitability. It went over things like "Do you speak English?" and "Are you deaf or blind?" It also listed occupations that would excuse you from jury duty. Some made sense, like if you are a lawyer or law student, or a police officer. Others, like medical practitioner and, I kid you not, veterinarian, were on the list. You also couldn't have an indictable conviction that you haven't been pardoned for.

On the questionnaire it listed the details of the case, and asked if I knew anyone part of the case, like defendant, the counsel, and witnesses.

So it begins

We are brought back into the courtroom where the judge introduce the proceedings. I found it funny that the judge and lawyers all had to wear what later research calls judicial robes in court.

This thing. Apparently they're $1000 according to Legal Attire Canada

So the judge explains that the first thing they have to do is Arrangement - the part where the judge lists the charges and the defendant enters a plea. This is when we find out that the case we were sitting in wasn't the case in the questionnaire. No one said anything, as the court steward warned us not to piss off the judge. Between the two cases the only thing they really had in common was they were a man defendant accused of aggravated assault against a woman somewhere in Ontario.

So the case before us, the white business suit wearing defendant pleads not guilty. Le Gasp!

Judge tells us the case will take about a week and there are only 3 witnesses. I didn't recognise a single person, so I could be sure I knew none in the case.

This is followed by the judge rambling about how we have to be impartial and unbiased.

The Complicated Process of Determining Who Goes First

I shit you not. The next thing that happens is the court registrar pulls cards out of a box with our numbers and occupations written on them.

A lottery draw for prizes! Only the prize is being grilled and losing days of your life. Photo by David Bartus: https://www.pexels.com/photo/light-inside-chest-box-366791/

She reads them out. If your number and occupation is called you step forward, where the court steward confirms its you.

Fun fact, my occupation was listed as Founding Owner of Space W. Damn character limits. Would have been funny to hear how the registrar would have read this out. Shame she never called my number.

Once the 14 people (12 plus 2 spares) were picked we then had to wait in the hall for 2 hours. Then we broke for an hour long lunch break.

When we got back we were let into another courtroom where we were briefed on the case that actually was in the questionnaire. Got to hear a brown guy in a light-coloured suit plead not guilty to his aggravated assault charge of a woman. That case had an estimated run time of several weeks with dozens of witnesses.

Geez.

The judge in this case goes into how we need to be impartial and unbiased, while also explaining that we can't judge case based on the fact that the people involved were middle eastern Muslims. Funny no one needed to tell us not to judge the last case based on the fact everyone's white Christians.

Like before, our numbers were pulled out of a box and our suitability as jurors is judged.

At about 3pm everyone was picked. Anyone left in the hall just had their questionnaire sent for shredding and were dismissed, being thanked for our service on the way out.

Overall

All and all, it was an interesting glimpse in how the justice system works for better or worse. In all its silly, disorganised, glory.

Jurors serve a function in making sure one is judged by a panel of their equals. Jurors are believed to represent the community in trails and are the conscious of the courtroom. This is part of a defendant's right to a fair trail. Even if the defendant is guilty as sin, knowing that trails are fair gives confidence to the rest of us - that we can trust the justice system to actually make an effort to find the people who committed the crimes and not just any sacrificial lamb the communities need for blood.

As awful as the crimes are, we have to remember - you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, and if the case was that clear the defendant would have plead-out.

Course, its still annoying to have my day wasted like that. I could have spent that time drafting my next book.