My jury duty ended on Tuesday and now I may finally share my small part in making the wheels of justice turn.

Let me start by saying that I have always been of the opinion that one should not undertake to do what others have taken serious time training or learning to do and believe that one can do it just as well. My jury duty time proved that this was indeed not just some strange vendetta against the self taught but a valid point.

My jury duty started on a Wednesday and I was told that I would be kept a minimum of 5 days. I get through Wednesday and Thursday without being chosen to sit in judgment of my peers. On Fridays, due to the summer I guess, the court only calls panels about to noon. If you are not chosen by noon, you get to go for the weekend. So its Friday and the clock is ticking closer and closer to giving me a free afternoon--but no at 11:45, I am called for yet another panel.

I head up to the courtroom feeling pretty confident that I may not get to go at 12:00 but I should be stricken by 1:00 or so and be on my way. All hopes of this were shattered immediately upon entering the courtroom when I look at the defense table and see that the defendant is sitting by himself. I am praying that defense counsel is just in another courtroom doing a sentencing or a quick pre-trial hearing but No, this guy has decided to represent himself.

Now, normally the minute I say that I have practiced law and attended law school, I suddenly am no longer a peer and get booted off the jury. Still praying for the 1:00 release, I give this spiel and cross my fingers. However, due to the defendants vast experience in picking a jury and the prosecution just wanting this nightmare over--I am actually chosen. The case is a criminal matter with some serious charges.

Opening arguments commence and the judge has to tell the defendant for what will be the first but not last time that he is not allowed to make statements to the jury that he is innocent. During his remarkable opening statement, he asks us if we know any con-men or
liars, he proclaims his innocence and then begins to explain the vast conspiracy that exists to put him away. Unfortunately, due to the hour, court needed to adjourn and we had to wait until monday for more.

On Monday, the prosecution begins its case and calls a bunch of people to the stand. One of the people that is called is the alleged victim--who the self representing defendant gets to cross. This is a stomach turning moment for all of us sitting there, but since he really had no idea what he is doing--he doesnt take too long. Then another witness is called by the prosecution that knows the defendant. This I will say provides what has to be the highlight of this travesty.

The defendant starts cross-examination and commits the error that all that attended law school are warned about in their first course concerning litigation and the rest of us with common sense would know not to do--he asks a question that he does not know the answer to. Suffice to say the answer to the question is not what the defendant wanted to hear. Indeed, it informed the jury that our very innocent defendant was currently sitting in jail for a very similar crime. At this point, the defendant objects. The judge has to tell him that you can't object to your own question. This did not make the defendant happy. He goes back to the defense table to look for his notes to ask the witness some more questions and as he is turning and going back towards the witness box--he falls to the ground as though he is seizing or having a heart attack and lies there. At this point, I am trying very hard not to laugh at the absurdity of the situation. The judge of course has to clear the jury out and call EMS. The judge then meets with us and tells us that the defendant will be checked out by medical personnel--but basically if he is not dead or in a coma--the case will go on the next day.

So the next morning, we go up and enter the courtroom and the defendant is in a wheel chair--not just any wheelchair but one of those things that quadrapalegics like Stephen Hawkins use. He is also securely manacled to it. He also has apparently become mute do to the terrible fall of the day before and is unable to communicate. The judge explains that the defendant has been checked out thoroughly by medical personnel and they could find nothing wrong with the defendant, so the judge says he is going to continue on. However, this posed a slight problem as the defendant was on cross at the time of his medical incident--so the judge just asks the now mute defendant would he like to continue to cross but the defendant doesnt answer so the judge takes that as a no and moves on. Occassionally the defendant would start moaning and saying his head hurt and the room was spinning. This prompted the judge to tell the defendant that if he didnt keep quiet, he would gag him.

The defendant eventually realized that the judge was not playing and "recovered" enough to ask for a continuation which the judge did not grant. So then the prosecution rests and the judge asks the defendant if he would like to call anyone--the defendant says yes--but of course the witnesses are not available. So the court gives him an hour to round up the witnesses. We reconvene in an hour and remarkably the defendant was unable to find anyone to testify for him and even more amazing, is now out of his wheelchair and apparently fully recovered.

So he rests and closing arguments are done which went about as well as the rest of the trial for him. We go and deliberate and even though he did not do anything to help himself, the prosecution had managed to put on a decent case and prove all the necessary elements for the various charges for the most part. So after about an hour of deliberation, we return our verdict--which actually included one charge we found him not guilty on. (Not due to anything he did).

The judge immediately unloads--it was like he was waiting for this time for the whole trial. He tells us on the record that the defendant had not one but two attorneys and had fired them both. He told us how he had told the defendant that it was aterrible idea to represent himself and had even told him that he could have an attorney just to assist him with the technical stuff and the defendant would not take that. He explained all the prior problems with the law the defendant had one of which had caused him to serve 12 years in prison. The defendant who seemed unable to stop himself from speaking explained that the prior problems were just bad luck and unfortunate events. This caused the prosecutor's head to explode and the prosecutor was like, Shooting and killing someone with a gun is not bad luck.

The judge sentenced the guy to 15 years each for the two counts. He then asked the defendant if he should run the sentence concurrently or consequatively (sp?). The judge told the guy, If you apologize to me, the jury, and the prosecution for wasting our time and for that pratfall you took, I will run them consecutive. (meaning 15 years). If you do not, you will go away for 30 years. The guy did not apologize and he was sentenced to thirty years.

So ended my stint on jury duty....