Voir dire

Last updated on: June 13, 2012 at 11:30 am by Fred Clark

Voir dire 2012-06-13T11:30:48-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Forty of us are asked by the judge if we have ever served on a criminal jury before. I am not among the few who had done so, most of whom had previously served here in Chester County. Two had previously served in Philadelphia. And two had previously served in Harris County, Texas. An odd coincidence.

The judge works his way through the questionnaire we had filled out. Those of us who had answered “Yes” to any of the questions are asked to stand and to explain the context of these answers, and then to say if we believe that context would affect our ability to serve fairly and impartially.

Most of us are seated on high-backed benches in the back of the courtroom — pews, essentially — and I am reminded of church. We are testifying. We are sharing our personal testimonies and publicly confessing our sins, beliefs and affirmations. The ritual language concluding each such testimony reinforces this sense of church. “Do you believe that this will affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially?” the judge asks each in turn, and after they answer I am half-tempted to say, “And also with you.”

But some of this reminds me less of upstairs church and more of downstairs church. Some of this anonymous sharing and confessing doesn’t seem to belong in this dignified chamber with its pulpit and pews, but rather in a linoleum-tiled basement with a circle of folding chairs. Sometimes it seems we should all be responding, “Thank you for sharing.”

I’m impressed by the honesty of this random cross-section of registered voters. Many had answered “Yes” to the question about whether “you or someone close to you has been the victim of a crime.” Some of their stories are quietly devastating, even just as stark recitations of the facts. Prospective Juror 26 explains her answer with dignity, courage and an economy of language. “My son was …” she begins, and her jaw shudders and her shoulders twitch. She clenches her teeth and gathers herself for a moment, then completes her report to the judge.

“Do you believe that this will affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially?” the judge asks.

“I don’t know,” Prospective Juror 26 says. “Honestly, I just don’t know.” And she is not the only one fighting back tears as she says this.

Remember, on a daily basis, that everyone else has a story.

But I’m also impressed by a kind of ritualized dishonesty in this proceeding. It’s not a deliberate attempt to deceive, but the implicit recognition that some of these questions have “correct” answers, and that the correct answers are not necessarily the true ones. We are charged — under oath or affirmation — to answer truthfully. But we also seem to be expected to answer correctly, and that expectation seems inhospitable to some truthful answers.

Thus, for example, the miraculous implausibility of 40 people, selected at random, and not a single one of us saying that we or anyone close to us has been the victim of domestic violence. It’s possible that this is truthful, but statistically it is far less likely than having two former Houston jurors in a Pennsylvania courtroom. Truthful or not, there seems to be an implicit assumption that domestic violence is not among the crimes that count on that question — not a correct answer.

Two of the more interesting questions are Nos. 8 and 9, which ask, respectively, if we are more likely or less likely to believe the testimony of a police officer than that of any other witness in court. Those who answered “Yes” to question No. 8 — including many, but not all, of the cops and cop-relatives in our group — were later quizzed individually by the judge at sidebar. None of us answered “Yes” to question No. 9.

That includes me, although I thought longer and harder about that question than any of the others. I reflected on that distinction between truthful and correct, and on the meaning of informed skepticism and how it relates to impartiality. I decided, I think truthfully, that my skepticism would not make me less likely to believe the testimony of a police officer.

Had I been selected for the trial jury, I would have had to revisit that reflection, as the case being considered included a charge of “resisting arrest.” There is, of course, such a thing as resisting arrest and the letter of the law means something there. But my informed skepticism is in high gear when considering such a charge. I hear those words, “resisting arrest,” and cannot help but recall numerous examples — documented, corroborated, videotaped instances — in which that charge has meant nothing more than a failure to grovel, or than a protest of actual innocence perceived as disrespect or disingenuously portrayed as disrespect. An impartial consideration of such a charge, I think, demands a high bar of proof that the person so charged did more than simply ask, “What did I do?”

Maybe that means I should not serve on a jury considering a charge of resisting arrest. Or maybe that means I should.

Some of the questions are more routine. “Are you, or is anyone close to you, employed in the criminal justice system?” Here I dutifully stand and report that my father, now retired, served a couple of terms as a municipal judge in New Jersey. And here we learn that two of the 40 of us are police officers. The judge takes this opportunity to ask each of them again about question No. 8.

“Honestly, yeah, I am,” says the first. That’s an honest answer, spoken truthfully despite not being correct. The second police officer/prospective juror gives the correct answer, attesting that he does not believe that his status as a police officer would make him inclined to trust a fellow officer’s testimony more than that of other witnesses. If that answer is honest as well as correct, then he is probably a better police officer than the other. If not, then he’s probably just more dangerous.

The entire process takes several hours, and the final series of questions seems a bit rushed and perfunctory. Here the subtle pressure to respond correctly rather than truthfully becomes more overt. Anything other than the “correct” response would require an interruption and an apparently unwelcome delay in the process.

“Let the record show no response,” the judge says at the end of each of these questions, with a rhythmic cadence that makes it clear that this non-response is correct.

Tucked in amongst this rapid stream of questions is another statistical improbability. “Have you or has anyone close to you ever been treated unfairly by the police?” I’ve scarcely begun trying to parse the bounds of that category — “anyone close to you” — and the judge has already hurried on to “Let the record show no response.” I’m thinking of a shouting match at the Radnor police station, of a traumatized teenager calling his mom from my apartment, and of my friend Dave Gushee’s reminder that the “boundaries of moral obligation” are a dangerous illusion, but none of that has time to take shape in my brain before the judge has moved on to the next standard question expecting the next standard answer.

I look up to study the face of the defense attorney, the only African American male in the room. He seems accustomed to this customary non-response. Whether or not it was truthful, it was expected and conventional for no one present to say that they or anyone close to them had ever been treated unfairly by the police. It was the correct answer.

Ultimately, I am not among the 14 selected to serve as jurors and alternates. Maybe it’s because my dad was once a judge. Maybe it’s because I truthfully, but seemingly incorrectly, reported that I’d answered “Yes” to one question because someone close to me was a rape survivor (another statistical anomaly). Probably it’s simply just a random outcome of the 7-in-20 odds of being selected.

Anyway, my service to Chester County has now been fulfilled and I will soon receive a check for $9, plus 17 cents a mile. It was interesting. I hope I am called again some day.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 13, 2012

Life would be better if Esquire made its blogs mobile friendly

Next Post

June 13, 2012 Smart people saying smart things

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How many verses are in the shortest chapter in the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

5 2 7 10