May's been a rather hectic month for me. Between recovering from a nasty stomach flu, needing a root canal and crown, and having to serve for jury duty this past week, it's nice to say these things are now behind me. I did, however, have the distinct pleasure of meeting a bunch of cool fellow steemians at the Consensus / EOS VIP Party, so perhaps that makes for a nice counterbalance moving forward!

As for getting chosen for jury duty, I can attest that it's definitely related to voting in an election (at least in my case), though my understanding is that DMV records may also play a role. Last time I voted in 2008, I was also called for jury duty soon after. You can opt for a 1-time postponement, but given the timing of it at the end of May, I figured I'd rather just get it over with now rather than living with anticipation hanging over my head.

As such, I was called to perform my "civic duty" last Tuesday at 9am at the Supreme Court Building at 100 Center Street in Manhattan.

DAY ONE

At first it didn't seem too bad. They tell you it's a minimum of three days, but once you're there, they tell you that if you're not called for a case, you could be done in a day. They have rooms where you can sit and work on your laptop or tablet, with wifi access available. Of course, every single person was also trying to use the wifi, so for the first few hours you were lucky to stay connected with 1k / second throughput! Memories abound of my $500 Prometheus 1200 baud modem from back in the day! lol

By 11 am or so, it seems like many people gave up on the wifi, and suddenly enough bandwidth opened up to get some work done. I managed to connect to my trading platform tymoraPRO and watch the markets again, check in on some steemit posts, etc. Hey, this may not be too bad after all. Just a few more hours to go, and I'm free and clear! Well, as it turned out, for about 5 minutes at least, until...

ANNOUNCEMENT: "Everyone please come to the main room, we need to randomly pick 75 of you for some upcoming trials!"

ARRRGH! That's practically everyone in the room! It would have been easier calling out those that weren't chosen. So, once again I had to pack up everything after finally settling in, and hurry up and wait in the courtroom down the hall...

JURY SELECTION

The rest of the day was spent explaining some of the details of the case, and drilling prospective jurors to determine if they could be "fair and impartial" in assessing the case, which was expected to last no more than 10 days or so. It was an attempted murder case where a man stabbed someone he knew who was a drug addict and prostitute. And that's where it gets really weird and hairy. Apparently, there was no substantive evidence, no weapon recovered, no DNA, etc. The "evidence" would apparently come mostly from police officer testimony, except get this... it sounded like most of the officers testifying have past records of dishonesty and various sordid histories of misconduct!

Apparently none of this was enough for them to lose their jobs. I suppose as long as they remain good "order followers" for the state, it's all good and their "records" may even prove "useful" in the future. Also, the defendant would choose (as is his right) not to testify, so my best take of this is that basically, the woman would claim he stabbed her, and he would claim, nothing whatsoever. It was unclear if anyone else (except the victim, of course, who may also have credibility issues) had witnessed the event first-hand, especially given the emphasis on second-hand (and possibly questionable) corrupt officer testimony. That's more or less the gist of it, without going into too many more boring details.

There was so much "leading" going on it would make your head spin, and the truth is that while most people say "sure, I can be fair and impartial", the reality is that nothing is black and white, especially when we're not presented with all the facts and grittier details (many of which may also be wide open for interpretation). But, I suppose the prosecution and defense must still do their best to find 12 jurors and 2 alternates, and each had there own "style" of going about it, so there you go.

However, asking questions such as "If you saw a kid with his face covered in chocolate standing next to an empty cookie jar vehemently denying he ate the chocolate cookies, could you make the leap of faith that he ate them without having actually seen the evidence?" How does that possibly compare to a case with no substantive "evidence", where much of the credibility of the people involved seems highly questionable and compromised?!

Throughout the process, they also try to ascertain if anyone is familiar with anyone involved with the case. Basically, they ask if you recognize anyone in the courtroom, and then run through a list of witness names. I think many people tend to remember faces better than names (including myself), but I suppose it hasn't been enough of an issue to warrant showing faces as well. However, as it turns out, something did increasingly strike me as oddly familiar about the judge, but I couldn't quite place it. After I was released the next day, it did inspire enough curiosity for me to dig a bit deeper. Not sure if this would have summarily disqualified me as a juror, but this is where I remembered him from:

NY Post Link: Judge abuses his ‘park bench’ perk

Make of it what you will, I'm sure you already know what I'd say about it... lol None of this should be surprising given the growing trend of "Policing for Profit" to subsidize local government budgets. Good luck not paying something on even a completely invalid citation or speeding ticket, unless you're a judge, prosecutor, politician, police officer, or otherwise "well-connected" individual, of course.

Regardless, by the end of day one, it seemed more than likely they would have their jury of 12, since they had narrowed it down to 25 prospects. I was one of 20 or so who had not yet been called, so it seemed likely we might be done after day one... YAY! EXCEPT that they only chose 11 jurors! So, those who WEREN'T chosen of the 25 were done, and the REST of us had to return for our respective grillings the next morning at 10am! ARRRRRRRRGHHHH!!! Couldn't they just go on a bit longer and get the few more jurors they needed? Apparently not, and let's just say having the case sitting in our heads overnight really didn't help make anything better...

DAY TWO

So, after waiting around 'til 10:30am or so twiddling our thumbs, the rest of us were called up for "evaluation". Now here's the thing. Everyone's always trying to get out of jury duty one way or another, and the reality is these guys have heard every excuse under the sun, so what's the point of trying to "whittle your way out". Moreso, if you come off as insincere, the judge may be more likely to toss you right back into the "pool" rather than let you leave, so better just make the best of it, be yourself, and don't be afraid to say what you really think.

That's the direction I opted to take, and I must say in the end, opening up to a bunch of strangers who you'll likely never meet again actually felt almost therapeutic! Of course, half of them must have also thought I was completely nuts! But truthfully, when they're asking you what experiences you've had in life with crime, trauma/hardships, domestic violence, legal experiences (including other trials, arbitrations, etc), for yourself, AND your close friends and relatives, it's kind of mind boggling all the stuff that comes up. The attempted muggings I experienced as a kid growing up in NYC, the robberies, the gun standoff I witnessed on the subway platform, among many other things.

I never once tried to "get out of jury duty", or claim I couldn't be "fair and impartial" (again, often seen as part of the "standard excuses"). But I was always respectful to the court, and I was not afraid to honestly share all my thoughts on what I had been hearing, as well as question anything that didn't make sense to me (which turned out to be a lot). And while I could have "asked to approach" for certain things, it's still captured by the court stenographer regardless, so I chose to openly share any experiences I've lived through that could potentially (in their opinion) impair my judgement and ability to be "fair and impartial". And perhaps that also played a part as to why I wasn't selected. They don't really want people who question everything. They want people who "follow orders" to a "T", right down to "judging the law" exactly as the judge specifies it, and ignoring everything you're told to ignore. Ironically, isn't that the exact opposite of what jurors should do?

I found an interesting and thought-provoking post, definitely worth reading, by @brightstar on this exact topic: Anarchists, If You Get Called to Jury Duty, Here's What to Do... GO!

This is basically the essence of jury nullification.

Jury nullification occurs when jurors choose not to convict a defendant they believe to be guilty of the offense charged, usually because they conclude that the law in question is unjust or the punishment is excessive.

I'M DONE!

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I was not selected as a juror, and I was dismissed from my "civic duty" for another 4 to 6 years. Plus I earned a whopping 80 bucks (especially humorous coming from a state pushing for a $15/hour minimum wage), got a free $10,000 therapy session to boot, and had the "opportunity" to release some long repressed emotions which can only make me stronger in the long run (especially as a trader), so perhaps the experience wasn't all bad after all! As Nietzsche said, “That which does not kill us...” lol

I also had the opportunity to meander around Chinatown a bit to some of my favorite grocery stores around Elizabeth/Mott, and Hestor street such as New York Mart and pick up some great deals on buns, noodles, mushrooms, and even ginger (at 59 cents a pound versus nearly $5 a pound everywhere uptown)!

Link: SeriousEats Gallery: A Look At New York Mart, The Best Supermarket In Town

I am still curious, however, to see how the trial turns out, and wish those who were selected as jurors a speedy trial and a clear conscience throughout the difficult process of judging someone's life and future freedom "fairly and impartially".