So, I know I’m not supposed to write anything, publish anything online about this jury trial that I’m in, or risk being in contempt with the judge. And because it’s clear to me that electronic records (especially public ones like these) are the stuff of lawsuits, I’ll be super careful here about what I write while still getting my words out there. Besides, I don’t want to be held in contempt of the law.

For the record, I will mention no identifying information in this public journal entry, knowing I’m under oath. I will however, talk about my experience in general terms, as allowed by the judge. I also am rooting for one side that I will abstain from mentioning just in case their counsel is on the internet looking for an excuse to make the case invalid. Sorry bud, not gonna happen here.

I’ve been involved in a trial as a juror recently, and lucky for me it’s been a short trial. Monday we go into deliberations, and I’m really curious about what the other jurors’ perspectives are. Both sides presented their cases, and in this particular case, I’m of the opinion that one side stated a much stronger argument than the other. There were claims made from both sides. Both had strong points, both also faltered on weaknesses as well. But at the end of the day, all it would take is the tipping of the scales one way or the other for the plaintiff to either win or lose their case.

The definition of the preponderance of evidence: 

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.

So, by nature, this whole thing is subjective. It’s funny to me how when they select a jury in this system, they try to weed out all the candidates who might subject their strong feelings to the evaluation of opinion – when all along, feelings are what are used to evaluate the softer points of the case. For instance, we are charged with determining whether a witness’s testimony is true, any or all of it. What are we supposed to base this on, aside from hard facts and evidence where available? Our feelings about whether the person is telling the truth – what else is there?

For me, it was observing whether their body language told the truth, or if there was a searching for a plausible (or false) answer in their mind. The split seconds it takes for someone to respond to a question say it all.

At the end of the day, it’s the feelings of the jury of 12 that determine the fate of a party, for better or worse. After disrupting the lives of 12 people for whatever protracted period of time to determine the preponderance of evidence, I wonder how it is that America has a system that allows the feelings of people equate to fairness in a trial. One would probably respond to my quip by asking if I have a better way than trial by jury, but to this I would say there has to be a better way – I just don’t know what it is. The judge himself said that the system’s not perfect, but I just wish there was a better way.

I’m just venting on my own blog because it’s now Friday afternoon and I’m going to get a drink damnit!