Jury Duty

Every so often, you might hear of someone near to you that gets a letter in the mail from the court system requiring jury duty. I have gotten several while living here in Iowa, and recently I received another. This time, the jury duty was for the county court system, and on Monday, I was required to show up for the possibility of serving.I find myself very interested in the process and certainly willing to provide whatever I can for the benefit of living in a country where we get the benefit of the doubt - presumed innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that one is guilty.

This selection was different that any prior experiences that I have had, and I was musing this morning on how our system works in the framework of a sovereign God. Probably at least 100 of us were chosen initially for a "high profile" case. 75 of us were lined up in a particular order, and filed into a courtroom with the top county prosecutor - John Sarcone, his assistant, two defense attorneys, the defendant, two guards and the judge. The beginning of jury selection included allowing hardship cases to leave for family difficulties, financial difficulties, job jeopardy situations, and health reasons. Then, the Sarcone began to interview each potential juror - "tell me about yourself," he asks. Then he methodically takes each person through the perfectly worded questions that he is using to eliminate anyone that he thinks will compromise the verdict he wants.

"How do you decide if someone is telling the truth?"
"When is violence lawful?"
"Can a citizen use deadly force? When?"
"What is your knowledge of the criminal justice system?"
"How did you get your knowledge?"
"What criteria did you use to buy your home?"
"Tell me something about you that you think I should know."
"Can you sit in judgment of another man?"
"Can you be fair and impartial?"
"Where do you work?"
"Do you like your work? What would you change about it, if you could?"

He spears probing questions into the fabric of our lives, exposing our personal and intimate thoughts before 100 people that we don't even know. It was daunting. After day one, he has only completed the interviewing of about 25 of us. We come back for day two. I was probably number 28, so I was able to answer on day 2, after some thought about what I might say to these things.

I found myself pondering the enormity of sitting in judgment on a man's life. We had been told that this was a murder trial. This man was on trial for murder. He was accused of murdering a 7-month old baby girl, 9 blocks from my house. How horrible to be charged if one was innocent! What despair and desperate anxiety for want of justice for one who is charged with so heinous a crime if he did not do it! Then again, if he is guilty, how pressing it would be to deliver the guilty verdict. I knew nothing of the case and was willing to listen to all the evidence before deciding, but pressed to be sure of my decision, and to do my very best for the justice of this case.

I found too, that the thought of sitting through a trial with all the disturbing pictures and videos would challenge me emotionally. How devastating to see a lifeless baby girl. But, I found that even more, I wanted to do everything that I could to promote the truth - to deliver justice. On day two, Sarcone gets to me. Interestingly, he is not asking me the same questions that he asked others. He notices that I work for Faith Academy, and he hones in on that.

"What exactly is Faith Academy?"
"What do you do there?"
And then, the telling question, "Are your students required to take Bible?"

Wow. I knew immediately that I had been eliminated because I taught school at a Christian school. Sarcone would (could) never say that he was prejudiced against me because I am a Christian teaching at a Christian school, but it was quite obvious.

I wasn't too disappointed that I wasn't chosen. The pictures and trauma of that trial were to be life-changing and very difficult, and in God's sovereignty, He spared me that. However, the sad idea that Christianity creates negative value for the juror is something that our forefathers would have never considered. But, here we are.

I was allowed after dismissal to look up more on the case and found that the defendant, Michael Elliott, was a student body president for Drake University 8 years ago. He was head of the Republican Party on Drake's campus, and was part of the presidential campaign for Mitt Romney. In 2006, Elliott was convicted as a sex offender, and on the night of the murder, he was violating his parole by being in the company of the 16 year old mother of the baby.I could see why Sarcone didn't want conservatives on the jury. I wouldn't have prejudged however, and knew nothing until I was released. His loss was the possible juror who was willing to listen to everything first, and judge later. I was willing to deliver whichever verdict I thought was just.

Long musings for a Wednesday morning. Oh well. Back to math. The world presses on us at times, and brings us to unusual places. I will think about this trial all week, I am sure, and follow the outcome. I'll pray for justice and for the right verdict. It is good to know that our Lord is sovereign. I'll let you know what happens!