Debating Jury Duty: All Rise!

I'm not un-American. I love our country, and I especially love Paducah. So when I received my jury summons in October, I didn't try to weasel out of it like I normally would in a city like, say, San Francisco, where there's no parking near the courthouse.

But I'm not going to lie to you. I don't like to argue, and I don't like to hear other people argue. And I certainly don't like making decisions that affect other people's lives.

So imagine my sadness when I was selected, along with five other very nice people, to hear a drunk driving case. There I sat, listening to two opposing lawyers argue (yuck) and then had to decide guilt or, in my opinion, probably guilty, but who knows for sure?

I felt torn. Unqualified. Unprepared. And I'm almost certain we let a guilty man go free.

The only bright side about jury duty is cute, cute, cute Judge Chris Hollowell. He's DAR-LING. He was elected judge two years ago and is one of two District Judges in McCracken County. The District Court handles misdemeanors, traffic offenses, juvenile court, and, as I learned from this trial, DUIs. Before stepping up to the judge bench, Judge Hollowell spent nine years prosecuting cases in the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney Tim Kaltenbach.

Is letting a guilty guy go free better than jailing an innocent man? Yes, of course. But I hated the whole experience, and I couldn't quit talking about it for days.

So I asked Judge Hollowell if I could approach the bench, and he graciously agreed without holding me in contempt of court. Here's a look:

OPENING STATEMENTS

Judge Hollowell, let's just get right to it. Why do we all hate jury duty?
I hope it's not everybody who hates jury duty. I guess people have a tendency to look at it as a waste of time. That they have more important things to do. Especially if it's a petty crime. You'll wonder why we've got you down here for someone facing a $20 fine.

Yes! Why do you do that?
Well, that's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it, which is the better way to look at it, is that jury duty is one of the few ways that people can participate in government. I find, frankly, that most people who don't want to serve on a jury usually find it to be a rewarding experience. They learn something about the way the system works.

I know people are busy with their jobs. But a jury pool needs to be made up of a wide range of people — not just those who aren't working and can more easily spend the time on a jury. If someone ran into your car, would you want a jury that includes people as busy as you are, or just those who don't have anything better to do?

I don't want people who don't want to be there!
I guess that's a fair way to look at it. But from my perspective, it's a civic obligation. You owe it to your fellow citizens to serve on a jury. It's like a debt.

THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT A

Ugh. I'd rather pay someone else to do it. What about professional juries? It could be a whole new career field!
Well, as long as you're doing that, why don't we do away with juries all together and let the judges decide?

Yes! Even better! You're more qualified than we are!
Here's the rub. I certainly don't presume to have better judgment than a jury. I don't think I’m smarter than people on the jury.

Geeze, Judge, I hope you're smarter than we are. You're a judge.
Well, I don't think I would make a different decision than the six people selected on a jury. You have six people with six different life experiences and six different ways of looking at things. Generally, when you put them together, you're going to end up with a good decision. Collective judgment seems to work out pretty well.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure our guy was guilty. But that wacky reasonable doubt…
There's a good example of why professional juries may not be such a great idea. Your guy was a first-time offender. If we had a professional jury, and it was his second or third DUI, then when the next person comes in with a first offense, there's a good chance that the professional jury will now be a little jaded.

They'll think, "Oh, yeah, this is his first offense, but you just wait — he'll be back here two or three more times just like the other one." If you're down here for too long, you start to think everybody's guilty.

THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT B

OK, so here's another question. Convicted felons are not allowed for jury duty. That sounds like a perk, not a punishment. And wouldn't you want a convicted felon on the jury? Who better to tell when someone's lying?
Well, the idea is, if you're a convicted felon, you lose your civil rights — one right is jury service.

Mary, jury duty is an honor. Do I need to tell you the dedicated juror story again?

I'll allow it. (That's judge talk.)
In February, Judge Hines had a juror who walked from beyond Berger Road in an ice storm to get here. It was the second day of a two-day trial, and she knew that people were counting on her. We were awful proud of how seriously she took her service.

I had another juror who could no longer drive. She wrote to us and said she'd like to serve on a jury but she couldn't afford the cab fare. She said her son could bring her each morning if someone could take her home. She came and served on a jury or two. We were similarly proud of her service.

So if these two women can be that dedicated, everyone can be dedicated.

VOIR DIRE

OK, I see that. But explain why the lawyers badger prospective jurors with those endless questions? They think they're so clever. Why don't they just come right out and ask us what they want to know?
The questions. That's called voir dire, which in French means, in essence, "to speak the truth." The purpose of that is to seat a fair jury.

But that's not the lawyers' purpose. They're each trying to get a jury that will vote their way. They can't come right out and do that — it's not the way it's designed or its purpose. They have to find inventive ways to ask questions that will betray what people really think without asking them.

I give the lawyers wide latitude in asking questions. The lawyers on each side also give their counterpart quite a bit of leeway, so that courtesy is reciprocated.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Why isn't it a search for the truth? Instead, it's like two opposing forces just trying to out-win one another, regardless of the truth.
The prosecutor is ethically bound — he must believe the defendant is guilty. If the prosecutor doesn't believe the defendant is guilty, he's not supposed to try him — he's supposed to dismiss the case. That's his ethical obligation. So he's supposed to be engaged in a search for the truth.

The defense attorney does not have that obligation. His obligation is to make sure the prosecution proves its case. He doesn't have to ferret out the truth. And by rigorously testing the prosecution's case, hopefully we arrive at the truth.

Can jurors ask questions? Because I had a few questions.
Yes. But it's not something that happens often. I'm not opposed to it. It's potentially problematic because the lawyers know what's a proper question and what's not…

I don't know about that! Both lawyers were asking stuff that caused you to bury your head in your hands! You're so cute when you do that! My whole jury was talking about it!

(Judge Hollowell, unaccustomed to this line of questioning, turns a little pink and takes a moment to compose himself.)

They're not supposed to ask improper questions. The jurors are not trained up in that and may ask improper questions.

What if we wrote them down and you read them first?
That's not a bad idea. I tried 70 to 80 cases up in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. There were times when I finished and then thought, "Oh man, I should have asked this question or that question." A juror might have caught it and asked. But you have to do it before the lawyer is finished with a witness.

You mean we can just pipe up with a question?
Yes.

How would we know that?
Well, you wouldn't. It's not publicized. Well, not until now.

CLOSING ARUGMENTS

I dunno, Judge. I mean, what do you love about all this?
The thing about being down here is there is never a dull day. And there's no end to it — you just wouldn't believe the things you hear in court. It's always interesting and fun.

Are there particular lawyers that you just go "ugh" when you see them coming?
No. No.

No, no, there aren't any lawyers that make you go "ugh" or no, no you're not saying?
When I prosecuted, I'm sure there were judges I was in front of that didn't want to see me, but we are lucky to have some very fine lawyers who practice in our courts.

Have guilty people gone free in your courtroom?
Sure.

Have innocent people gone to jail?
No one that I believed was innocent. I'm not good at predicting what a jury will do, but I've never had anyone go through trial and get convicted that I thought was innocent.

What's the most difficult part of your job?
The worst part is seeing the people who come back over and over — who don't get it. It's frustrating that some people never overcome whatever problems or issues they have.

Yeah, what's up with that? Is it just a feeling of hopelessness on their part?
For some it is. Some people don't care. I have hope for everyone. I haven't given up on anybody, but some people give up on themselves. And some people, frankly, don't care. They don’t mind going to jail. It's part of their life. They say, "This is the way I live my life and if I have to go to jail for a couple of days every once in awhile, OK." But we're sure going to keep trying. Hope springs eternal.

SIDEBAR

Have you seen the T-shirt guy back in court? You got national news attention for that — USA Today, in fact!
That was odd. I didn't think it would gain any attention. I don't know if it had any affect or not, but I haven't seen any T-shirts like that since then.

You raised the fashion bar.
Yes, maybe I did.

THE VERDICT

I notice that you have a copy of Papillon on your shelf. Why can't we just ship all the bad guys off to French Guiana and let 'em fend for themselves?
Papillon is book is about hope. It's about a man who claims to have been falsely convicted. He is eternally optimistic. He never gives up. We should all be so hopeful.

As a judge, I have a great opportunity to look for solutions to problems. And I often do that in the pretrial stage, and certainly after a trial if someone is found guilty. My ultimate goal as a judge to keep people from coming back into the system.

WE FIND IN THE JUDGE'S FAVOR

OK, Judge Hollowell, you've proven your case, no doubt about it. Any parting words?
Yes. The jury system as an institution really puts control of society into the hands of the people. Jurors have enormous power. They represent the will of the people in its most direct form. They have the power to reject unjust laws or to sanction just laws.

Legislatures and state or federal executives can pass all the laws that they want, but if the jury refuses to enforce those laws, the laws are a nullity.

It really is one of the beauties of our system of government, because in the final analysis, the governed (the average citizens) determine which laws are to be enforced and which, in any given case, will not be enforced.

---