Almost.

I certainly got further along in the process than I ever have in the past. I used to never even get jury notices. That changed a few years ago. I don't know how it works in your part of the country, but here you get a notice telling you that there's a chance you'll have jury duty on a given date (in my case Feb 23) and a phone number for you to call after 6pm the night before where an automated system will tell you if you actually have to go in or not. For several years, that was as far as it went for me. I'd call the night before, and be told that I wasn't needed (kinda like dating was for me in high school...). I have only had to actually go in to the courthouse once, and then I sat around in a room with several other people, maybe 100, for an hour or two, only to be told that an attorney had filed a last minute motion of some sort, so the whole trial was going to be delayed. We were all allowed to leave, and that counted as having served, so we could expect a one year exemption from further jury duty.

This time, I called the night before and was told I would need to go in, so I did. I then sat around in the same room, with another group of people (less this time, seemed like 40 or so). After a bit we were told that the court was ready for us, so we all marched off to the specified room. Upon entering the "courtroom", the first thing I noticed was that this room was nowhere near as nice as any courtroom I'd ever seen portrayed in any sort of media. This place made Nightcourt look large and glamorous. We all sat down and were given a brief talk about how great our country was and how lucky we all were, blah, blah, blah... We then got to listen to so-called mini opening statements from all parties, with a brief summation by the judge. He then asked us if any of us wanted to apply to be excused.

I was torn, I'd really like to do my part, and it seems like something new to learn, but on the other hand, I have responsibilities at work also. The judge expalined that the attorneys felt that the trial would take 4-7 days, and he thought that it was likely to go 2 days more than they thought. Ultimately, I decided that I had to at least try to get out of it, as the only mechanic at a local automotive repair shop, not only would I be causing my employer a hardship, effectively idling the shop, but also the customers whose cars I had in the shop, in various states of repair. I raised my hand at the proper time and was given a sheet to fill out. The judge retired to his chambers to read over all of our sheets, and when he returned, I was excused.

Well, excused to go back to the first room where they'd let me know if they could use me for any same day trials. But they could not. So I went home, changed my clothes and went to work.

Thing is, I kinda wish I'd gotten to be on the case. It sounded interesting.

It was a civil suit, between a plaintiff, the city, and two other people who seemed to be some sort of co-dependants. It seems the story goes like this:

On July 4th 2007 the co-defendants, who will be referred to from here on out as "Mr. and Mrs. Idiot", were going to have a party. Mrs. Idiot contacted the city about closing down their cul-de-sac for a block party. The city informed her about the required permits, which she obtained and filled out. Note, I did not say she read the permits. The permit was approved, so the party was a go. On the day of the party, July 4th, Mrs. Idiot called the city/police to find out when they were going to close the road. They informed her that they were not going to close the road, that was here responsibility, and that the permit stated specifically that she would need to obtain certain equipment and place it in the specified manner. She had not done so, so she and her husband decided the next best thing was to use a length of rope tied between a utility pole and a stop sign, and proceeded to do just that. Then, at approx. 6.30pm, once the party was well underway, the plaintiff, to be referred to as "Dude", who had been elsewhere, attempted to return to his home, on the cul-de-sac. Dude had left much earlier, before the rope was put up, so he was quite surprised when he turned onto his street on his motorcycle... The rope did not take him off the bike, nor take his head off of his body. It caught him under the helmet, against his neck, held for a moment, and then broke. He now is claiming various damages, both medical and emotional. It seems a bit of a stretch, since he only missed one day of work, and didn't complain much at all until Jan 2009, but... So now he's suing the city and/or Mr. and Mrs. Idiot. The city of course had a calm, cool, and collected attorney. Dude had a large, somewhat sleazy-seeming emotional attorney. And Mr. and Mrs. Idiot were representing themselves.

Like I said, it seemed like it could have been interesting. Of course, there is a whole lot of information that I didn't get, but on the surface, it seems like the city should be able to get out of this fairly easily, as I can't quite see how they could be responsible for Mr. and Mrs. Idiot's actions. Dude seemed to be a little bit of a whiner, and Mr. and Mrs. Idiot, well, they thought it would be a good idea to put a piece of rope across a well used road...

Maybe next time. I really think the whole thing could be improved if the courts found a way to give more advance notice to prospective jurors. It's a little rough to not find out until after work the day before.

MV