About six weeks ago, my number came up: I got selected for alternate jury duty! Serving jury duty’s been a dream of mine for years–ever since I could vote, I’ve wanted to be on a jury. Yet, even though I’ve lived in Chicago for 14 years, I’ve never been called.
On the fateful day the summons arrived, the Boy and I went to the mailbox together. He handed me the envelope, and I did a little cheer, raising my arms into the air. Yes! I’d been called!
Then I actually saw it was for alternate jury duty, and that I didn’t know until the day before if I needed to attend. Luckily, my last name fell between I and V–all of us alternates in that alphabetical range had to show.
I was assigned to Daley Center (another big relief–the easiest court for me to get to), and last week Monday, I made my way downtown (have I told you lately that commuting is for the birds?) and into the jury room. I turned in my paperwork and was assigned to a specific panel and told to sit in the holding pen with the other prospective jurors.
As time went on, different panels were called to court. Our county has a “one day/one trial” policy, where you either sit in the holding pen for the day, or you have one case. Then you’re done for at least a year. Not a bad deal–until you get the $17.20/day paycheck. Still, as time went on and my panel still wasn’t called, I got antsy. Would I not be picked to go to court? 11:00 hit, and they turned the TV’s on in half the room, blaring crap daytime television, forcing me over to the quiet side of the room, where a handful of us tried to read or work.
Finally, around 11:30, my panel was called. Wh-hoo! A police officer shepherded us down to a municipal court room, and we awaited jury selection. I was in Judge Casandra Lewis’ courtroom, and the case turned out to be a car accident involving a civilian and a cop. Oh, boy, would this be interesting!
I was in the first group of people to be chosen for the jury. We were all asked various questions on whether we were fit to serve for this case. It’d be a two-day trial. Would that cause anyone undue hardship? Did you know anyone involved with the case? Were there any health issues? An older woman piped up on that last one. Judge Lewis asked her what was up.
“I have diabetes and high blood pressure,” the woman said.
“And that would prevent you from serving, how?” asked the judge.
“Um, well, I have medications and I have to eat at certain times…and my kidneys…..” the woman attempted, trailing off.
“We’d make sure you’d get breaks to eat, if you needed. My father had the same problems.” Shot down! Way to go, Judge!
However, this self-proclaimed “retired homemaker” did get excused from the jury. As she shuffled out, she kept saying, “Thank you, Jesus! Thank you, Jesus!” Lady, (a) jury duty isn’t that bad, (b) you look like you could use the 17 dollars, and (c) what the heck is a “retired homemaker”? I can see if you live in senior housing that has an onsite dining room which means you don’t cook, but don’t you still make a home in some way, shape, or form? I mean, even homeless people sleeping on the streets still make homes in boxes, or with blankets, or with shopping carts. How do you retire from homemaking?
I’m still curious about the retired homemaking thing, but I’m glad she didn’t get on the jury. I made it through in the first round, and was escorted to the jury room until we had our 12 jurors and 1 alternate.
The trial was to be a two-day trial, and it basically was. It wasn’t as dramatic as you see on television, but it had the same elements–opening statements, plaintiff, defendant, closing statements. Because this was a civil suit, we didn’t have to decide guilt or innocence, rather, in favor of one side.
The case basically went like this: A woman was driving home from work, traveling northbound on a two-way street. At the same time, a cop car a couple of blocks over responds to a call looking for a suspect on foot heading their way. The cops turn on their lights (and perhaps their siren) and head off, turning on a one-way street to get to their destination. However, they’re driving the wrong way.
Back in the woman’s car, she hits the intersection and doesn’t stop–she doesn’t need to because she doesn’t have the stop sign, the east-bound street does. However, she didn’t see the flashing lights heading her way and the fact that a cop car was trying to roll through the intersection. The cop car hits her car, causes some damage, and jars her. The cop goes to check on her and after a few minutes decides she probably needs an ambulance. She takes the ambulance to one hospital, waits for a couple of hours, then goes to a different hospital, complaining of chest, breast, arm, leg, and foot pain. The hospital doesn’t find anything. The next day she heads to a chiropractor. She’s off work for a little while and is in chiropractic care for a couple of months. She would like the city to pay for her bills, her lost wages, and a little pain and suffering.
Mostly, this case was “he said/she said” (or, possibly, “a cop hit us, and we are going to get some money out of them”), but we ended up finding in favor of the cop. Why?
- The plaintiff was looking straight ahead while she drove, yet noticed trick or treaters on the sidewalks. This means she was using her peripheral vision anyway. She didn’t see the flashing blue light coming at her from the wrong direction?
- Claims of ‘a hill in a park completely obstructing my view of the cop car’ were hard to believe, since Chicago’s not that hilly of a place.
- Witness for the plaintiff? A very nice neighbor lady who was at home when the crash happened watching TV with her husband. She heard the crash but didn’t see anything, and saw the lights on the cop car. What good was that testimony?
- “Pain and suffering” for the plaintiff’s husband? Having to cook for and play with their three kids while the plaintiff was laid up. Most people call it “stepping up and doing your job as a parent,” not “pain and suffering.”
- We really believed the cop’s testimony that he slowed down for the intersection and rolled through it. Supposedly another SUV had yielded and the plaintiff went around that, so the cop didn’t see her until the very last second. We weren’t sure about that SUV, but we believe the cop’s actions. If he’d have been going faster, there would’ve been a lot more damage.
- We also thought that two cars hit the same place at the same time, and it was an accident (or she should have seen the cop car and yielded right of way). Even if she was hurt–and she probably was–it wasn’t necessarily due to the cop. She could’ve been at fault. If she was at fault, the city shouldn’t be paying her bills.
- Driving the wrong way down a one-way street factor didn’t matter–it was legal at the time for cop cars with their lights on to do so.
Although our decision was pretty quick, it was still tough to do. The woman didn’t seem to have a lot of money, yet she had a lot of medical bills (one chiropractor had a lien on the case), to the tune of over $7,000. Lost wages? $365. Yep, just over three hundred, which made me feel bad. Pain and suffering desired? $15,000. You know, because a husband had to temporarily take care of his kids.
What could’ve helped the plaintiff?
- Pictures of the car would’ve been nice. Supposedly these cars were “t-boned.” T-boned! Stuck together! Totally awful! But the cop testified that his front fender only had a couple of nicks on it. So show us the car to give us a better story….or was it not that bad? And why no asking for money for the car?
- Coach your plaintiff and the witnesses. The plaintiff couldn’t say the officer’s name right, which really confused me. She also claimed that the cop driver never got out of the car and talked to her, that it was his partner. Both the cop and his partner said otherwise. Having to basically tell the husband what the so-called hardship was didn’t play well either.
- Show us some medical visuals! Oh, the defending attorneys brought out the easel for the closing statements, and we all got excited over seeing some images. However, it turned out to be enlargements of hospital reports. Bummer. Show us something in the x-rays or whatever test would show nerve problems. Yes, nerve problems are tricky to show, but there’s got to be a way.
- The accident happened three years ago. Everyone went through a deposition in–I think–April 2008, and the plaintiff’s attorney kept trying to trick the defendant (and witnesses) in piddly numbers that they didn’t repeat verbatim. He said earlier he was going 25 miles an hour! Now he says he’s going 20! Um, it’d be different if it was 25 vs. 50. And if he blew through the intersection at 50 miles an hour, she’d have a lot more medical issues than hurt boobs, and the almost instantaneous visit to the chiropractor might’ve made sense, though the hospital would’ve probably admitted her in that case.
At any rate, it was a good couple of days. The jury couldn’t talk to each other until deliberations, and that was uncomfortable. When we could finally speak, all the tension went out of the room.
Another interesting tidbit? One juror didn’t show up for day 2, which meant an alternate got to serve. We don’t know why she didn’t come, but if she doesn’t have proof of a real emergency, she could be in serious trouble of violating the oath she took as a juror and could even go to jail.
Was jury service everything I’d hoped it to be? Sure, even though I thought the trial could’ve gone a little quicker. I get that lawyers have to repeat the same thing over and over in hopes that you’ll believe them, but when a case has holes, it’s tough to listen to the nonsense again and again. However, it’s one more thing I can cross off the list, and even though I won’t have to serve again for another year, I’d do it again if I’m called.
