Today is Tuesday, the trial I was involved in started the previous Thursday,  Friday and yesterday – Monday.

As explained to us potential jurors by the Judge during our selection process on Thursday, the United States of America only asks three things of its citizenry:

Pay Taxes
Vote!
Serve on a jury if called to.

A month ago or so, I received an official notification via the mail, one that many people (unfortunately) dread – a jury summons.  Unlike most people I know, I was actually excited (and somewhat nervous) about receiving the summons.  The last time I had been summoned for jury duty was (I think) December 2002 – so over 11 years ago.

Prior to that – I had one other summons that I can recall.
The first jury summons experience I had – I was waiting in the large processing room where everyone initially enters on entering the courthouse.  The wheels of law can be notoriously slow some times, so after waiting an hour or so – I left the room to use the rest room.

When I returned – the room was almost completely deserted.  Thinking that everyone had been summoned to a court room while I stepped out – I inquired of the lady at the desk what I had missed.
It turned out – the trials we had been summoned for had been canceled for the day – so everyone had been sent home.  Thus had endeth my almost first (I think) jury experience.

The second experience was the one in December 2002, this one I remember quite clearly.
That day I, along with 27 other people, were lined up in the hallway and marched upstairs to one of the courtrooms.  Once in the courtroom, I first encountered the term “Voir Dire” – which is the process where they shrink the 28 potential jurors down to 12 jurors and 2 alternatives.
This process entails questions asked both as a group by the judge – and individually based on your group responses.  Over that morning – only the 12 jurors and 2 alts remained.

The other 14 were excused.  I remember we then heard the opening arguments from the prosecution, but I can not recall what, if anything, was said by the defense.

The case for my second experience entailed a woman bank teller who was defrauding elderly bank clients who rarely ever accessed their accounts.  She would skim money out of them – and place it in her own account.  I do not recall how long a period this happened over – but one of the elderly customers’ children was balancing their books – and noted the discrepancies.

Prosecution had a pretty much air tight case, this took place at the bank with video monitoring and all of her account activity was recorded as a matter of course.  After the initial argument(s) were heard by us, we were dismissed back to the jury room for a break.

At the end of our break – the judge showed up – and told us that the case had been dismissed – since the defendant changed her plea to guilty.  We were then sent home.

Until this past jury duty – I had never experienced a full court trial from start to finish – but that was about to change – I was going to go all the way!

The color of the summons you receive in the county of Ohio I reside in dictates the type of jury you will serve on.  This can be anything from the local Mayor’s Court to County Common Pleas Court.
Just my luck – my notice was white – which meant I was potentially being summoned to serve on a jury for Common Pleas.  My group number was 56, and the week of my Jury duty was designated as April 14, 2014 through April 18th.

On Sunday April 13th, I checked the jury website mentioned in the notification letter, and I saw that they were calling up groups 1 through 39.  I figured at this rate, I’d be in the next batch.  I was wrong.

Monday the 14th after 5:00, I checked the website again, and this time they were calling up groups 40 through 48.  Again – I figured I’d be next – since I was now just 8 groups away.

Tuesday the 15th, the check in the evening revealed that on Wednesday – groups 49 through 55 were being called in – so I *KNEW* I was going to be called in on  Thursday – if anyone was.

Sure enough – Wednesday evening – groups 56 through 70 were called in – and I informed my boss that night via email I was being tagged for Jury duty on Thursday.  Since I normally get to work at 6:00 and I did not need to be at the courthouse till 8:30, I decided to go to work as usual Thursday – and then walk to the court house since it was just a few blocks from my place of employment.
I was confident that the odds were against my being on a jury, so I left my lunch at work, told my boss I’d probably be back by noon – and headed off on my adventure.

I was wrong…

On arrival at the potential juror waiting room – I checked in, picked up my official “I was really here” paperwork and sat down ready to wait.   At one point, a bailiff walked into the room and started a video that explained the jury selection process and what we could potentially be facing if we were picked.

After the video ended – more waiting.  Recall I mentioned the wheels of justice turn slowly…

At approximately 10:00,  over an hour after I had arrived,  another bailiff walked into the room with the news that one of the trials that day had been canceled – and she was going to read off a list of 28 names, and if you were on it – you were dismissed for the day.
This being Thursday, she said you would still be obliged to check the website for possible duty the next day – but they rarely ever start trials on a Friday.

As luck would have it – I was not on the list, so I settled in to wait some more – with the other remaining folks.  10:30 rolls around, and another bailiff arrives – this time with another list – and it’s a list of folks whom he is rounding up for a trial.  I am the 23rd out of the 28 people called.  That number will be important later…

Over the next two hours, jury selection is conducted – Voir Dire all over again…
This takes place with the defendant in the court room, along with both councilors, and the state’s representative which is the detective in charge of this case.

The judge asks us questions like “Do you have any friends in law enforcement”?  I, along with about half of the people in room raise my hand.  I am good friends with someone who is a county deputy sheriff – but I explain that I am unbiased as to police procedure – since he rarely talks shop.

These questions are intended to weed out any prejudices the potential jurors may have – which would prevent them from keeping an open unbiased mind during the proceedings.

Another question was raised, have you or a relative been a victim of a crime.  This is to get the respondents opinion of the fairness of law enforcement.  In 1986, a first cousin of mine was murdered, but back then I didn’t know if any arrests were made or if there was a trial or not – so I declined to raise my hand – I had nothing to offer.

Another question was raised, I do not recall if by the judge or one of the councilors – this question had to do with lying.  I believe the question was asked by the defense attorney – basically if anyone believed that the mere fact that a police officer wore a badge made him more ethical (truthful) than anyone else.
I do not believe anyone raised their hand at this point.

Another question was asked – if any televised trials had prejudiced you one way or the other where our system of justice was concerned.  At this point, I recall juror #11 (whom I mentally refer to as “Sanford” since he reminded me a lot of that character) answered that trials such as OJ Simpson and others where the defendant was acquitted even though “everyone” “knew” they were guilty jaded his opinion of the ability of the court system to be effective.   Juror #11 had a comment for almost every question asked – and (I later found out) was the cause of considerable eye rolling by the jurors that were eventually selected.

Once questions designed to root our any prejudice were taken care of – then questions pertaining to the hardships you’d be under if you were selected were heard.  These questions had answers such as “I’m the head sales person at our exotic fruit importing company – and the place will fall apart w/out me”  and “I’m in the middle of a major software upgrade at work and no one else can do it”.  The one that really made me shake my head was “I’m a baseball coach at blah blah high school – and we have a game tomorrow (friday) which we’ll have to cancel if I’m not there” (this person was one of the possible jurors who was excused – go figure)

Another series of questions – the ones I remember consisted of gems like this:  “Can you tell if someone is lying by the way they speak?”  A few candidates raised their hands – and one was quite defiant in his declaration in his assertion that if someone can’t look him in the eye – or talk with out wavering or looking away – that they must be lying – no ifs ands or buts.

After a few others gave out similar helpful methods on spotting people whom are not telling the truth – one of the lawyers asked the group if anyone present disliked public speaking.
My hand shot up – and I was the first one picked to answer the question.  I admitted to the councilor that I really, really disliked being put in a situation where I had to speak in front of a group of total strangers – and I was asked if there were any physical symptoms I experienced while talking.
I replied yes, and I mentioned sweaty palms – as did a few other people.

The councilor then told the candidates – please do not judge the veracity of the statements made by the witnesses whom will take the stand based on how they present themselves, none of them are public speakers by trade and will undoubtably be nervous being put (literally) on the spot.

My respect for prosecution councilor who questioned me was raised a few notches by his very subtle knocking the wind out of the previous peoples arguments on how to accurately tell if someone was lying to you based on their body language.

Once the round of questions was finally over – it was now 12:30.  Prior to recessing for an hour lunch break, they decided to excuse three jurors.  Three juror numbers were then called – and they were thanked for their service – told they were no longer needed – and that they were excused.
Surprisingly to no one – juror #11 was one of those three called…

We are then on our lunch break – and I find a small diner in the bowels of the courtroom that serves what almost passes as a hamburger.  At this time I am starving – so it does the job.

At 1:30, we are back in the court room, and the elimination of jurors continue.
Since there are already three vacant chairs in the jury seating area – the first of the overflow juror candidates, #15 is called to take the lowest numbered chair.  This is followed by candidate #16 and #17.

The councilors alternate back and forth removing jurors.  They are constrained in that they can only remove a juror – if they are currently seated in positions #1 through #14.  (12 jurors and 2 alts)

Each time a potential juror is excused from the court – the next overflow juror fills in their spot.
At this time, simple math tells me that the final removal will end up with me filling in the last open jury spot.  As luck would have it – the last juror excused is seat #1 – so I am now officially, Juror #1 and the jury is now settled.  All that remains is the finalizing of the two alts who sit in chairs #13 and #14.
Once that is done – with a “Happy Easter” juror candidate #28 is out the door and on his way home.

For those hoping to get out of jury duty – having a high number is helpful 😉

At this point – there were now 12 jurors – and 2 alts – so we took a break again – prior to listening to the opening arguments presented by both the prosecution and then the defense as to why you should render a decision that agrees with them.
This is also when we finally learned what the trial was about.

The crime took place in one of the lower income housing projects in Akron, and it involved an apartment where the two victims resided – whom I will refer to as “Bob” and “Alice” since I have chosen not to use their actual names in these entries for the sakes of their privacy – and to ensure I don’t get sued.

Bob and Alice lived together, and Bob would frequently smoke pot.  Smoking pot in Ohio at this time is still, sadly, a crime but I tried not to allow my opinions on its legality influence my judgment in this case.  Bob would hang out with other people in the housing project who also enjoyed an occasional joint, and sometimes he’d invite Doug into the apartment where they’d combine their stashes and smoke while playing video games.

Bob had smoked pot with Doug multiple times, and Doug had been over to Bob and Alice’s apartment 3-4 times in the past, so it was no big deal when on December 1rst 2013, at approximately 3:45pm when Doug knocked on their door.  Bob looked through the peep hole, saw it was Doug – and unlocked the door – then turned away and back into his apartment to resume sitting down.

Doug closed the door behind him, and maybe 10 seconds later, it was re-opened and someone unfamiliar to both Bob and Alice strode in carrying a pistol – put it in Bob’s face and told him “you know the drill – get on the floor”.  After staring in disbelief for about 15 seconds, Bob turned away and lay face down on the floor with his feet aimed at the door and his head pointing away from the intruder.

Doug then instructs “Fred” to grab the weed off of Bob’s desk and the duffel bag containing his camera equipment.  While this is going on – Alice is seated at the couch with her back to the front door – but turns her head over her shoulder to see what is going on.  She gets a good view of the intruders for the duration of the robbery which lasts approximately 3 minutes.

“Fred” gathers up Bob’s duffel bag containing the video camera he uses to take a videographer class at a local community college (trying to better his life – more power to him) and Fred also gathers up Bob’s laptop computer along with Alice’s laptop along with Bob’s cell phone, apartment/car keys and some cash they found – I believe $15.  Bob’s small stash of weed (street value $25 is also taken)
Doug says “we’ll be back later” thus the keys they took.

Doug then crows “That’s how we do it – barefaced” as they retreat out the front door – with Fred leaving last and walking backwards keeping Bob and Alice covered.
Originally, Bob thought maybe “barefaced” was the 2nd person’s nickname – but later realized that it was the fact that they didn’t bother disguising their identities.  Doing it “barefaced” was extremely cocky on their part – and not very smart…

Roughly a minute after the robbers have left, Bob gets up and heads for the door and grabs a spare set of apartment/car keys.  Alice tells him to not give chase – but he ignores her and heads out.

Bob assumes they have a vehicle – and since there is only a single main exit out of the apartment complex parking lot – he runs to his car – and drives over to it – parks across it and blocks the exit.

A burgundy Olds Bravada comes flying up the exit lane – and then stops when it sees Bob is blocking the exit.  There it pauses – and then resumes headed for the exit.

Fearing for his safety – Bob backs down and moves aside – the Bravada then drives out of the apartment parking lot and onto the main road.  Bob follows a few seconds later.

During his pursuit – Bob encounters an Akron Patrolman on foot – he is moonlighting after his normal police shift at a local junkyard.  The junkyard hires Akron off duty police to act as security to keep people from climbing over the fences and stealing parts.

Bob stops and tells the Akron policeman what happened – and where he lives.  The Bravada keeps going – and heads for another Akron housing project – about a mile away.  What actually happens between the reporting of the burglary and the Bravada pulling into the parking lot of the other apartment complex is unknown – but what happens in the other parking lot is where things get interesting.

Unbeknownst to the perpetrators in the Bravada – there is an Akron patrol car in the parking lot alongside another vehicle.  The other vehicle matches the description of a stolen car – so the two officers have radioed it in – and are filling out paperwork while awaiting a tow truck.

The Bravada was actually noticed by one of the two officers, but was ignored, since this is a parking lot and people pull in all the time.

What got both of their attentions was the appearance soon after of someone jogging into the parking lot’s entrance – and then having something fall out of his pocket onto the blacktop with a metallic sound.
Both officers initially assumed it was a cell phone – but their curiosity is piqued when the jogger (Doug) pauses to look at the item he dropped – and then keeps jogging away.

One of the officers who served in the military in an armory – recognized the sound as a small gun being dropped – since he’s had experience with butter finger recruits during his military service.

There is a large mound of snow near where the gun was dropped – and small children are playing on it – who also heard the sound and are headed over to investigate.

Officer #1 whom is the driver starts the car and drives over to the object to get there before the children do.  Officer #2 calls out to the jogger to stop – and the jogger starts running.  Officer #2 runs off in pursuit.

Officer #1 secures the gun in his car – sans gloves unfortunately – since he was in a hurry to secure it away from the children – he didn’t have time to put on latex gloves.
Once the gun is secured – he notes which direction his partner and the jogger went – notes that there is a very high wall in that direction between parking lots – so he heads out onto the main road and speeds over to the parking lot where he figures the foot chase will end.

When Officer #2 arrives in the parking lot – Officer #1 has found the suspect hiding under a car and has him in custody.  While frisking the suspect prior to placing him in the squad car – they find a couple small bags of pot on him, a ring of keys and a cell phone.

When Officer #1 and #2 report back to the station they hear about the robbery that happened earlier.
They contact Bob via his home phone number – and they have Bob call his cell phone.  The phone they took from the suspect rings.

A detective is assigned to the case – and heads over to Bob and Alice’s apartment to take their statements and he brings the keys and the cell phone.  While taking the report, Bob unlocks the cell phone with his passcode and verifies that the keys are his by using them to unlock their front door.

The detective tells them that they caught one of the perpetrators with Bob’s belongings – but have not caught the second one with the camera and laptops.  Since Alice had the best view of the person with the gun for the longest time – she is shown a 6 picture photograph lineup – which does NOT contain a photo of Fred.  Alice is 75% one of the people in the lineup with the gunman.  After the police leave, Bob and Alice decide to do some investigating on their own – and decide to search for the phrase “Free Doug” which is a popular expression used in sympathy among miscreants when one of their group is arrested.  They search for that via facebook – and sure enough, they are led to a home page of someone who had recently posted that status on his page.  The profile picture of the person whose home page they are at looks a lot like the gunman, and his banner picture is a picture of him holding a small gun in his hands.

Note – since Bob and Alice are not one of Fred’s facebook friends – the only way they could view his status and his picture is due to him leaving his security settings at the facebook defaults of “everyone”.  If you are going to commit a crime and post incriminating evidence online – you may wish to do so with slightly more secure security settings…

Bob sends the person he suspects as being Fred some facebook messages trying to rattle him into saying something incriminating.  He doesn’t succeed – but he and Alice are pretty sure this is the right person so they call the detective in charge of their case and give him the facebook profile information.
The detective visits the facebook page and makes hardcopies of the pictures and the “Free Doug” status in case they are later deleted.  As it turns out – Fred does delete the incriminating status and pictures of himself and the gun – but not before the detective made his copies.

At this point,  Bob takes the witness stand and is cross examined by the prosecution.
Once the prosecution is finished, the defense attorney takes his turn – and attempts to draw a map of the interior of the apartment on a large flat touch screen monitor hanging on the wall in the court room.  There is a smaller touch screen at the stand where the witnesses are seated – and another touch screen where the councilors present their evidence.  In the jury area, there are multiple monitors at knee level that we can use to follow along – or we can observe the proceedings via the large screen on the far wall.

The large touch screen on the far wall is sadly out of alignment, so when the defense attorney starts drawing the floor plan of the apartment – the lines are appearing approximately 6 inches or so away from his finger – which frustrates him.

He does manage to draw a rough outline of the interior of the apartment based on answers provided by Bob – and it is all we in the jury can do to remain stoic and not burst out laughing at his attempts to master the misbehaving technology.

The attorney finally does render a passable drawing of the apartment – and seeing that it is now 5:00pm, the Judge decides that this is enough for today – and that we will resume bright and early the next day (Friday) at 9:00.  Our bailiff announces “All Rise” for the final time that day – and we march out of the courtroom and head for home – but not until we are once again reminded by the judge that we are not to discuss this case with ANYONE – not even with fellow members of the jury.

End of Day 1.