BREAKOUT SESSION: VIEW FROM THE BOX: The Jury Speaks. QUESTIONNIARE ANSWERS RECEIVED FROM OUR JURORS (Blinded and grouped by question)

Transcription

1 BREAKOUT SESSION: VIEW FROM THE BOX: The Jury Speaks This session afforded practitioners the rare opportunity to hear from former Jurors about their experiences as a juror, providing insight and perspective on persuasion, professionalism and feedback on the jury experience. Past jurors who were recruited and responded that they would participate, filled out a questionnaire before the session, which allowed the questioning moderators opportunity to guide the discussion in an organized, meaningful, and non-intrusive way. Written questions were also solicited from the audience. (CR by the answer indicates criminal juror response; w/out CR = civil.) Moderators: Judges Lisa D. Campbell, Samantha Ward, and Scott Stephens, Michael Boucher, Trial consulting Services, and Kirk S. Davis, Esq., Akerman QUESTIONNIARE ANSWERS RECEIVED FROM OUR JURORS (Blinded and grouped by question) Please answer as many of the following questions as you feel you have some input on; don t feel compelled to answer every question, but as much input as you can give us ahead of time, the more the moderators can effectively lead the discussion. (This information is for the moderators only and will not be disseminated to the audience.) 1. Your name: MASTER ANSWERS General 2. Did you want to be selected for jury duty? Why/why not? CR I was looking forward to the experience and doing my duty. I d been summoned before, but could never do it because I had young children to care for. I must be honest however, when we were told we could be on a trial lasting 3 weeks, my enthusiasm waned. I didn t want to give up 3 weeks of time like that. Either way would have been fine. Yes - Because I feel that it is 'my duty'. Also because I feel that I can make as unbiased a decision as anyone else and because I am interested in learning about the legal system. No. I heard jury duty is awful. Not at first, but then I realized that performing my civic duty is important. CR I did want to be selected for two reasons: I feel it is everyone s responsibility as a citizen to participate in the legal system. I had never served before and was curious to see what it was like to be able to compare it to all of the media experiences I had seen over the years. CR Wanted to participate but a little bit nervous. CR I was open to be selected for jury duty because my caseload was lower and I felt it was my turn to be available for duty.

2 CR yes, I ve been called several times in past but, unable to serve as I was in outside sales. Wanted to serve as civic duty calls. 3. After the trial concluded, how did you feel about your experience? That my fellow jurors and I made the right decision without any doubts. That I had learned a lot. I loved it. It s something I hope to do again. It was a very rewarding experience. I thought the jury made the right decisions. Each side got what was right, based on the law. I felt relieved and my civic duty fulfilled. After the trial, going to the gym and exercising helped to calm my nerves. CR I was impressed with the overall efficiency of the process and by the pains that were taken to explain our responsibilities. I was a little disconcerted by what appeared to be the relative inexperience of all of the attorneys involved, particularly the defense attorney. CR I was proud to have participated and felt good about the experience. CR I felt exhausted and that we had reached the correct verdict. Cr It was a little long and repetitive 4. If you could have changed one thing about the trial process/experience, what would it be? The jury room was very small. To remove the "street" persons positioned with bullhorns in front of the courthouse proclaiming their cause in such a manner that it was difficult to listen for directions about where to go, what line to get in, etc. on the first day of my coming to court. (I know that that is their constitutional right and that nothing can be done.) The deliberation process. Everyone having to be there at the same time 8:00am in a downtown location is very chaotic. It used to be staggered now everyone comes at the same time. Seems like you can have ½ arrive in the a.m. and the rest a few hours later. One of the days trial went into the 5:00 pm traffic hour which took longer to get home. Limit time. CR I would try to reduce the amount of repetition of some information jury instructions were stated clearly and then repeated more than once; technical testimony was repeated for multiple samples of evidence in a way that could be compressed. CR I would have liked to have been able to submit questions for some clarification. CR Since my jury duty was five months ago I no longer have a clear memory of what I might have changed CR Information brought forth would have only needed to be presented once and not 10 times.

3 Jury Selection 5. Did you want to be a juror when you arrived? Why/why not? Did that change during the selection process? Why/why not? CR Like I said above, I was looking forward to the experience, but once I learned it would take 3 weeks, I was reluctant to give up that much time. Either way would have been fine. Yes. I have never wavered in my desire to be a juror for the reasons mentioned in question number one - 1) sense of duty, 2) feeling competent in being able to render a fair assessment and 3) interest in learning about the system. I would have been disappointed if I had not been selected. No. I heard jury duty is awful. Did not have an opinion either way. I always attend jury duty with an open mind. I always answer the questions honestly and assume if I am selected it s because I fit the criteria for either side. At first I was curious; then later felt it was important for me, as an African American to see the selection process work. CR I came expecting NOT to be selected based on the experiences others had shared (odds and selection questions). I was hoping that I would be selected since I wanted to be of service and felt it would be a more interesting experience. My feelings did not change during the process. CR. I wanted to feel it was a case I could be able to understand all the components so that I would make a fair judgment. CR Yes. Since I was there I felt I would be open to staying as a juror. No. Once again, since I was there I was available to stay as a juror. CR I wanted to be a juror. Nothing changed during the selection process 6. During jury selections, were there questions asked that you wondered why the attorney was asking you that? Can you give any examples? CR I have to admit to spending time analyzing why questions were asked. At the end of the day, I surmised that the attorneys were trying to find out everything they possibly could about potential jurors. Each side wanting jurors they could sway with their arguments. Several of us were asked if we had a dog. The fact that most questions were open-ended gave potential jurors the opportunity to reveal attitudes, knowledge, and experience without being specifically guided to do so. No. All questions made sense. Not really, I just assume they are asking questions based on their case and I can t assume one questions would be better than another.

4 CR One thing I recall was the illustration that we break the law if we go over the speed limit. Then we all chuckled because basically we all have done that at one time or another. Not sure what the point of that was. CR No. I understood why questions were asked. 7. What should have been asked by parties to get you to tell us something about yourself that you think might have been important in your selection? Is there something that you thought, wow, they should have asked me this? CR No, these attorneys left no stone unturned after 4 days of jury selection! In fact, I was wondering when I would be asked about my connection to someone in law enforcement, since my husband is a retired FBI agent. That was one of the last questions asked, so I was curious about how that made attorneys view my viability as a juror. I thought the questions were appropriate. I cannot think of anything. In my experiences being on juries, I have never thought that, they usually are very thorough. CR Since the case involved marijuana, and the issue has just been on the ballot, I expected to be asked whether I would be able to render a verdict based on the current law and not on my own personal attitude toward it. Also, we were asked whether we would give MORE WEIGHT to statements made by law enforcement officers who might testify. I was surprised, given current topics in the news, not to be asked if we might give LESS WEIGHT. CR Overall I thought the questions were well thought out and were easy to understand. CR No additional information was necessary in my selection. CR I felt the process of questioning was thorough. 8. Did you experience instances of not wanting to give truthful answers in jury selection because you thought it was not the correct answer to give? Learn about your fellow jurors having not been truthful? CR I did not have a problem giving honest answers. In fact, I thought the attorneys went out of their way to create and environment in which prospective jurors wanted to give honest answers. I felt some however, definitely tried to give answers they felt the attorneys wanted. Some jurors seemed to want to be on the 3 week trial to get out of work. Conversely, at the end of the first day of selections, I overheard a prospective juror talking about things he could say to get out of jury duty. I reported him to the bailiff, to protect myself. No, in my experiences I have never thought that way and I have found that the jurors that I served with were all very respectful and truthful.

5 CR I was concerned about questions related having someone close to me of involved in a criminal trial since I didn t want to be disqualified, but I did answer truthfully. I did feel that there was one juror who may have shaded information about firsthand knowledge of the subject matter of the case (a medical professional who had treated users of the drug involved), but ultimately that was not material to the outcome. CR A question was asked about a Happy Meal. If we ordered one we would expect a drink, fries, McNuggets and a toy. The question was if you received everything but the toy or the drink in other words one item would you say you received your Happy Meal? Everyone responded no except one individual. When asked again they still said yes they got what they ordered. Follow up questions made it obvious this individual didn t want to be on the jury as the questions weren t that difficult to understand. Trial 9. How important were opening statements and closing arguments? Was one more important or persuasive for you? Both were important, but until you get into the trial maybe the opening doesn t mean as much as the closing when everything then makes more sense. I have no opinion about their importance. Neither was more important or more persuasive. Opening statements make you think about what you are going to hear and how are they are going to present their case. Closing statements just bring home what they presented. They are only powerful if they have proven their case in the end. Opening Statements and closing arguments were important because they gave me information about the trial. CR The opening statements were quite important as they set the stage for everything that was to be presented; the closing arguments were less so, since the testimony presented was quite clear in following up on the opening statements. CR I found the closing statements more compelling. At that point we had more information to make their statements clearer and more relevant to their arguments. CR Both statements were important. My feeling is that the opening statements were more persuasive and the closing statements were not quite as strong. CR Opening statement was the most beneficial to me. 10. Did you keep an open mind until deliberations; or did you form a pretty firm opinion at a certain stage of the trial? If so, when? What did it? My opinion was leading in one direction and it got stronger as we went through the testimonies of the witnesses. I kept an open mind until the deliberations. I kept an open mind until I discussed the trial with the jurors. My experiences have been where I have formed an opinion midway through, but always kept and open mind based on new witnesses, new information etc. that could enter

6 into the trial. For me it usually is just maybe one piece of evidence that can t be disputed and pulls it all together. I kept an open mind throughout the trial. CR It was difficult not to form an opinion when the defense presented no witnesses and the defendant did not take the stand. The prosecution s presentation had been quite clear and thorough and without substantive rebuttal it was hard not be in favor of a guilty verdict. Also, we are admonished not to take the defendants appearance into account, but I must admit that this is nearly impossible to do as a human being. Coupled with the fact that the defendant did not take the stand, this had a negative impact on my opinion. CR I kept my mind open to hearing from both sides until the end but I believed the defense had a much stronger case and was decided on my decision about how the case should be decided by the end of the trial. CR I kept an open mind even though I began to form preliminary opinions. CR I kept an open mind pretty much until closing statements, I made my decision but would have listen to others at deliberation. 11. What were your feelings about the attorneys? Professionalism? Objections? Talent? Did that affect your view of each side s case or not? My personal feelings of the attorneys had nothing to do with my decision. I will say there was a stark difference between attorneys. One was very polished and professional, the other did not seem to have much experience or maybe was just too self-confident. Objections seems fair and were not overused. Watching the attorneys was probably the most interesting aspect of the entire process. I found them all to be professional, knowledgeable, and focused on their position. Because I am old (seasoned) I was able to detect inexperience that some attorneys exhibited and I hoped that would not affect the outcome of the decision. Both sides were professional. I do think that the opinions of the attorneys are formed immediately by jurors. In my experience appearance and facial expressions can really have an impact on how jurors look at the case. If the attorney annoys someone on the jury I feel they do not look at their case as credible. I do form an opinion but feel that I can set that aside and look at the evidence and case presented without bias. Objections, are good, but in my opinion, objections can get annoying by an attorney if you are not leaning toward their side. The attorneys showed intelligence and professionalism; however, the objections came too frequently, quite redundant & without merit. CR Again, I felt the attorneys were somewhat inexperienced, but they certainly were earnest and professional in the main. The defense attorney was clearly less competent and made objections and arguments that made little sense. He was clearly grasping at straws and never presented any cogent rebuttal or counter argument that might

7 have given us something to think about. It may well have been the evidence did not permit him to do so, but he certainly didn t help his client. CR I felt both sides were professional. Objections were handled well. One side made more objections but that did not seem to rattle the other attorney. I felt the defense attorney did a better job she made a point to reinforce testimony that proved her case. She did it with brief questions reinforcing points by clarifying not just repeating one obvious fact. CR I felt the defendant's attorneys presented as more professional and skilled than the prosecution. However that did not affect my view during deliberations CR I based my decision on the facts presented. I did feel that each attorney certainly had their own way of presenting. 12. What did the lawyers do that you did not like? One attorney in either his opening or closing statement seemed to talk down to the jurors as if we didn t understand anything. There was one incident where the defendant strolled out amongst the jurors as we were taking a break in the foyer. I was not sure who should have kept the defendant from casually milling around where the jurors were but I did not like it. It was very awkward. Not sure if that should have been the responsibility of a lawyer or someone else. I have never had an experience where I did not like a certain thing that an attorney did. Some are more aggressive or arrogant than others but that isn t something I dislike. CR As in # 11 the defense attorney gave us little to counter balance the prosecution. CR One attorney kept repeating one part of the case repeatedly. My mental response was I heard this the first couple of times and understood it the first time. It was an emotional point of the case but repeated emphasis made it lose its impact. CR Prosecution repeated the same questions unnecessarily and was very aggressive in some cases. She also tended to ignore the jury. CR I did not like the attorneys insulting the witnesses to try and discredit them. CR Female attorney very snarky and condescending to witnesses; one time she even winked toward me after a question, appeared too familiar to the juries; we aren t her Buddy. 13. What did the lawyers do to help you understand the facts of the case? Pictures, expert witnesses. All of their actions helped in giving a better understanding of the case. I like visual aids. Seeing the case come to life during the trial is very important to my thought process. Using displays, timelines, conversations, anything that I see in front of me and can see the entire time helps my thought process. Each lawyer presented the facts clearly.

8 CR The prosecution was clear and thorough. CR Pictures were presented on a screen. One witness was present to give testimony. Other than this testimony was limited to the defendant and the plaintiff. CR The defense attorneys appeared to be invested in educating the jury in the trial process and included the jury in the ongoing dialogue. CR Clearly explained their take on the situation. 14. What did the judge do that you did or did not like during the proceedings? Any suggestions for the judges to make the experience better for you, as jurors? I loved the fact that the judge gave the jurors an opportunity to write down a question to be asked of a witness. I very much appreciated the judge explaining the steps that would occur and what the role and actions of the jury would be and giving us a timeframe in which things should happen. I appreciated the many reminders that emphasized not reading or viewing or holding conversation about the case until we were done. The judge spoke to us as if he had said the same things to the same people 15,000 times - which I am sure he felt he had. It would be nice if the information could be delivered in a manner that is not so mechanical. The judge was nice, explained everything in great detail. In my opinion all the Judge s that I have served on the jury under have been very professional and always concerned about the jurors. Always respectful of their time, comfort, etc. Judges should be more aware of the time spent for jurors in court. More short recesses could be refreshing for jurors. CR I thought the judge was very clear and fair in the presentation of instructions. She clearly cared about the law, the process and the participants. My only complaint would be that a number of items were repeated two or three times which did become annoying, but I get the sense that some folks don t understand things the first time. CR My only suggestion would be to speak a little slower and make it easier to hear. When something is said on a regular basis it is easy to rattle off instructions or information. CR The judge was professional, polite, and very considerate. She did an excellent job of checking in with the jury to inquire about our needs and comfort. At the same time she was clearly in charge of her court room. CR Judge was excellent. I loved her of control & respect. 15. What, if any, conflict did you have between what you felt was right and the law you were instructed on? I didn t have any conflict. I had no conflict.

9 CR I have doubts about the efficacy of some of our drug enforcement laws and felt that in this case if marijuana was legal the case would have been unnecessary since the sale of chemical substitutes would be eliminated. CR For this particular case I had no conflict. CR I don't feel that the jury clearly understood the law about someone's guilt as an accomplice with the same verdict, whether they committed the crime or not. 16. How did you deal with any emotions/your own personal experiences that played into your decision? My emotions were not based on any personal experiences my emotions were based on being a normal, feeling, human being. This was not an issue for me. You just deal with it. I think every juror puts their emotions into it but in the end does what is right under the law. In my experience being on a few jury s, emotions and personal experience do come into play and are used to bring the case to a personal level, but, in the end it comes down to the law. I knew it was important to be fair and impartial in my decision. CR I did my best to decide based on the instructions, the testimony and the law, putting aside personal preferences. CR I had no conflicting feeling or personal experiences that played into my making a decision if I had and felt I couldn t render a fair decision I would have asked to be excused. CR I "stayed in the now" while serving on the panel and disregarded past or future influences. CR Kept going on the facts presented. 17. How were you able to put your personal feelings aside? Did you? Anyone on your jury who you could tell could/did not? I put common sense and understanding in front of any personal feelings. I felt very removed from all of the people involved including the other jurors. It was like I was attending a play. There was no juror on my assignment who was dealing with conflicting personal feelings that I was aware of. Yes, I can put my personal feelings aside. Anyone on your jury who you could tell could/did not? Revisiting the facts helped me put my personal feelings aside. CR I think I was able put my feelings aside. As I stated earlier, I felt one of the jurors, based on their experience was a little strident against the defendant, but it did not affect the outcome. CR As a psychotherapist, I am trained to separate my feelings from what is being presented to me. And to look at the information as objectively as possible. I did observe other juror members who had strong feelings both toward guilt and possibly not guilty.

10 CR Focused on the facts. No other jury seemed to have any difficulty. 18. What are your opinions about the burden of proof? In civil cases by a preponderance of the evidence; in criminal cases beyond a reasonable doubt? Did you talk about this burden? Did it matter? I felt the burden of proof being the greater weight in this case was appropriate. One or both of the attorneys explained the burden of proof to the jurors. I am very comfortable with the way this currently stands and do not remember discussing it other than our chairperson openly reviewed it to establish that as jurors we had followed instructions adequately. No real opinion. The jury did talk about it and it does matter. Yes, we discussed the burden of proof and it did matter. CR I thought the reasonable doubt burden was explained clearly. It was not an issue in this case. CR I believe the greater the penalty and seriousness of the crime it must be beyond reasonable doubt. CR It was difficult since all of the proof was circumstantial. Our deliberations came down to "who do you believe." We talked a great deal about reasonable doubt and burden of proof. We had great difficulty reaching a verdict. CR The burden of proof was clear to each one of us on the jury as soon as we went into deliberation. 19. How important and effective was expert witness testimony? I felt it was important. Very Very important Very important. The expert witnesses came with so many documents of proof (medical records) and technology which proved most effective. CR The expert witness testimony was important and effective. CR Given very open and honest. Easy to understand. CR Expert testimony was important and effective, however, too long, too tedious, and after the point has been made unnecessary. CR Extremely important 20. Have any feelings about experts? Hired guns? Help or Hurt each sides cases? Any comments you have about expert witnesses? I think it is important that the employment history/degrees/publications of the expert be revealed prior to the expert's testimony and that the opposing attorney get a chance to question the expert.

11 I think they are important if the attorney has done a good job setting up the case and reasoning for an expert witness. Credibility is key for an expert witness. CR This particular expert was very professional and clearly had a great deal of experience and handled attempts by the defense to weaken her testimony quite deftly. I m doubt the defense could have or should have countered with another expert. CR See above. Experts are helpful but don't belabor their testimony. CR No it was clear to me through testimony from both sides and the fact presented who was winning the case. 21. How do you feel THEN and NOW about the verdict you rendered? Completely at peace knowing that the right verdict was reached. I am very comfortable that the same verdict would be rendered today if the case were tried again. Good! The jurors unanimously rendered a fair and impartial verdict. CR I am satisfied then and now that we rendered a correct decision based on the circumstances. CR I was an alternate so I didn t participate in the decision but I still feel my conclusions were correct. CR I believe it was the correct verdict. Deliberations 22. How did your jury select your foreperson? At first it was suggested to select the oldest person on our jury. He didn t want to be foreperson, so it was decided since I was the only female on the jury that I would fill the spot. He was the only volunteer. We selected a juror that was a lawyer. We figured he was the most knowledgeable. First we asked if anyone wants the job. Then talked about who wants to be that key person to keep the jury focused, on track, and the right pace. We chose a foreperson who had previous experience. CR It was quite informal; someone seemed anxious to be the foreperson and we all agreed. CR The other jurors expressed a desire not to be foreman. And I agreed to be the foreman based on no other volunteers. CR We went around the room and asked everyone who they wanted for our foreperson. 23. Describe how you began your deliberations. Did you take an initial vote or did you begin discussions?

12 We first went through the jury instruction sheet and answered the questions. After we had 100% agreement on the verdict, we proceeded to come up with the amount of damages. We considered many different things when coming up with the damage amount. We took an initial vote and made a statement about why we were leaning in our direction of thought. We took an initial vote. It was 5 to 1. Then we deliberated. It wasn t really a vote, it was just general thoughts overall to see where everyone stood. The jurors began deliberations with discussions CR I suggested we have a brief discussion but was overruled by the foreperson and the others agreed, so we just voted. CR We began discussions with each person stating their point of view. From that discussion it was clear that we did not have a unanimous view. CR We all wrote on a piece of paper P or D. 24. Did everyone have a fair chance to be heard? If not, why? What could be done differently to improve that? Everyone had ample time to be heard. Yes - Because our chairman was determined to allow all to speak their mind. And also because each of us was bold enough to speak our mind. I do not have ideas for improvement - - unless maybe each juror be approached individually prior to deliberations and reminded that the chairman's duty is to make provisions for the opinion of each juror to be heard. Everyone had a chance to be heard. However, some jurors were more accommodating than others. Some had no patience and were just plain rude. They made you feel like you were being bullied into siding with them. That s awful! It would ve been nice to have a court representative in the deliberation room to make sure nothing like that could happen. Everyone on the juries I have been on had a fair chance. No one ever complained about not being heard. Everyone had a fair chance to be heard. CR After the vote which was quick and unanimous, we all had a chance to voice and confirm our reasoning. CR Yes I made sure that each person had an opportunity to speak and that they were specifically invited to speak if they tended to be more quiet. CR Everyone explained why they made their decision. 25. What challenges, if any, did you experience during deliberations? Worst and/or best parts? No challenges.

13 The best part was that each of us heard/saw different details which, when pieced together, made the 'story' unfold and helped to affirm the decision. The worst part was the john, located right next to the deliberations room, was not soundproof. I did not initially agree with the other jurors, and because of that some of the jurors were extremely hostile towards me. I truly felt uncomfortable. The best part was leaving. I had no idea what I d be in for. I really enjoyed being a juror, listening to the case, then having to experience the rude jurors was truly awful. In my experiences, some jurors are just dead set on what they think. It could be for personal reasons, or whatever, that s not a bad thing but can lead them to be closed minded and more difficult to be open to discussion and instructions of the law. Typically in that situation the majority rules out and they tend to become more open minded and go with the majority in the end. Every jury I have served on, all jurors were satisfied with the verdict rendered. The jurors were very respectful of each other and their opinions CR The only challenge was purely logistical. The bailiff did not respond to our signal that we had reached a verdict and we stayed in the jury room for an extended period before realizing that the signal was not working. It s the little things that get you. CR Some had very strong and opposing views not open to seeing the other side. However everyone listen to each view respectfully. CR No challenges what so ever. 26. Do you really not consider things you are instructed not to? Defendant not testifying at trial? Prior record? Insurance coverage in medical cases? Evidence not introduced in the trial? Your own experiences? None of these things applied in my case. I think it is impossible to "not consider" the things you are not supposed to consider. But I gave it the best try that I could. In my experience those thing do come up all the time. However. most of the jurors conclude that that information is not to be considered. CR I think we all tried to not consider the defendant not testifying, but as I said earlier, I believe this is nearly impossible to do. CR Subconsciously that information is there. However, in looking at and weighing the facts, the information is not considered in deliberations. When evidence is circumstantial, it makes it more difficult to rule out that information. I found it very difficult to determine who was telling the truth and who was not. I felt there were questions about the veracity of both sides. CR No, based solely on facts presented. Juror Communication /Social Media Issues

14 27. How did you handle family and friends asking you about the trial? CR For the 4 days of selection, my family felt a little disappointed that I wouldn t share the trial for which I was in selection. It didn t bother me, though. Told them it was a civil case and that s pretty much where it ended. No one asked. No one asked or cared Just fine. Most of my family members and friends know that I can t talk about the case. If they don t know then I just remind them. Questions about the trial were not discussed with family or friends. CR I just followed the judge s instructions. CR Told anyone asking the day before that I couldn t discuss it. Since the trial was over the same day it began it wasn t an issue to discuss it once it was over. CR No one asked. CR I told them that I could not talk about any of it. 28. Did you find it a challenge to abide by the admonitions not to do research about the case online or on social media? How did you deal with that? I had no problem applying those rules. No challenge for me. No, I do not find it hard. I don t want anything outside to sway my decisions. CR It was a little difficult since I am someone who tends to research things I don t know about, but the judge had been quite clear about this do I did not. CR Not a problem. CR I was curious but I knew that it was part of my responsibility to make a fair, and unbiased decision. 29. Did you follow the instructions given? Why/why not? Yes. Yes. Because it was emphasized often and I did not want the embarrassment of being kicked off the case. Also because our phones were taken to a safe place away from us when we were in court and in deliberations. Also because I would not want a juror making a decision about me based on media publications. Yes Absolutely. Yes, I followed the instructions given because I wanted to do a fair and impartial job. CR Yes it s the right thing to do. CR It was challenging during breaks not to speak about anything regarding the case as that was the focus of our being there. We tried to stay on talking about ourselves and just chitchat. I caught myself starting to make comments then stopped as I was afraid I might be entering into a discussion before the trial was over. I can see how a trial lasting

15 for any length would find this very difficult. That is somewhat like watching a storm brewing but not being able to make any remarks about the weather. CR Yes. That was my responsibility as a member of the jury. CR Yes, because that was my instructions. 30. Did you understand the admonitions given to you by the judge about the importance not to communicate about or investigate the case? Why/why not? Yes. Yes. Because it was emphasized repeatedly. Yes Yes Yes, I understood the admonitions from the judge not to communicate or investigate the case. CR Yes it s clearly a problem to have everyone looking at disparate sources of information, and you can t verify their veracity or point of view. CR YES CR Yes, in order to remain unbiased and make a decision based on what was presented in court. CR yes 31. Did you see instances of your fellow jurors violating any of these rules? Describe that. Did you do anything when you saw this? We all went together to eat lunch each day. One day a juror started talking about the case and another juror in our group jumped in and reminded him that we are not to discuss anything, so it stopped there. I saw no violations. No, I did not see instances of fellow jurors violating any rules. CR No one appeared to have violated the rules. Conclusions: 32. Why did you volunteer for this project/seminar? CR Despite the fact that I found the 4 days of jury selection to be onerous, I find the process interesting. Also, I feel we can t complain about things if we aren t willing to do our part. The work of the courts is so important, I m happy to help. The fact that Judge and staff we gracious and considerate makes me want to help too! I think it s refreshing that judges and lawyers would actually want to know what jurors think. I volunteered because I find some legal cases interesting. I also recently lost my job, so I have time to participate. Because I am interested in learning more about the legal system and I love being a part of any attempt to improve anything. Thank you for this very special opportunity.

16 I have been called to jury duty many times in Cincinnati and Tampa. I have served on many juries and I find it very rewarding. I respect the system. My son is an attorney so I may be bias but I saw this as a great opportunity to provide some insight into the juror s world. If my opinions and experiences can provide insight to the system and give attorneys a new perspective then it was time well spent. I volunteered for this Bench Bar seminar to see how the due process of the law is executed; and how jurors are selected; and to fulfill my civic duty. CR For the same reason I wanted to be on the jury to be of service and to participate in our legal system. CR I m retired felt this would be an opportunity to be a part of the judicial process. In all honesty I also looked forward to the venue, the meal, the gift card (like a free gift) and being in a new experience for this retiree. CR As a continuing part of my responsibility as a citizen in this county. CR Because I was asked and able. 33. Any advice for us lawyers and judges from YOU the jurors about the overall experience? CR The jury selection I was involved in lasted 4 long days. Those days included hours of waiting, and not knowing what to expect. My first day of selection I was there for 11 hours- in part because I had a question about one of the judge s questions (makes me not want to ask a question again!). Other than the size of the jury room, I felt the last case I was on was handled very well by all involved. None that I can think of at the moment. Mutual respect for all. CR The process in this particular court seems quite good to me, and everyone involved was professional. It s not a perfect system, but it d pretty damn good Keep doing your best to keep it that way! CR One of the experiences I most appreciated was when the courtroom including the judge stood when we entered. It showed a lot of respect for the jurors and the importance of our role in the judicial system. CR The bailiffs do a great job of attending to the needs of the jurors. Pillows for the chairs were very helpful. Continue to treat the jurors as guests in the court room as you would someone who is visiting your home. Educate along the way and be attentive to their needs since it is a very tiring process. And my experience was that each of us took the experience very seriously. CR My experience was great; mainly because of Judge and crew. They were excellent. Explanation and instruction was clear. Bailiffs were important, courteous. I didn t realize they could walk us to their cars. Concerns about safety being in same hall with witnesses, defendants, etc.