Diary of a would-be juror: Waiting ... and waiting

I was recently released from what amounted to a monumental waste of time.

No, I’m not talking about a viewing of Rob Schneider’s latest film, nor am I talking about the umpteenth discussion of Mel Gibson’s apology to people of the Jewish faith on the Fox News Channel.

No, I’m talking about jury duty, that civil duty that all American citizens must report to when called or face fines and jail time.

I know in my heart that jail would be worse, but aside from the company that one would keep in prison and the fact that you don’t leave jail at the end of the day, I fail to see much of a difference.

My term started at 8 a.m. Monday morning at the courthouse in Clayton County. That’s right, all you Citizen.com bloggers, I’m currently a Clayton County resident and I shop at the Fayette Pavilion.

And let me tell you, it’s true, baby: Fayette’s next. Meaning, that’s likely where I’m moving next, when our house gets too small for my family and my son is about to start school. We want to be closer to my parents.

Anyway....

I took my seat and opened my book. When I told everyone that I had jury duty, they told me to bring a book and, boy, am I glad I did. I finished “Bloodsucking Fiends” by Christopher Moore that first day. Great book, by the way.

Yes, I had a lot of free time on my hands.

By 9 a.m, we had been sworn in and had been introduced to the judges that were there that week. We were warned that we would likely have a lot of down time and we were told that our duty was an important one, one that kept the wheels of justice in motion, or something like that.

An hour later, after sitting around and doing some more reading, we were asked to watch a video about being a juror. The video had obviously been played quite a bit. I say obviously because I don’t think a videotape has been used to record an informational film in five or six years and the picture and sound of the video would warble and warp several times a minute.

I couldn’t hold back some of my giggles, especially when “voir dire” sounded something like the sound that comes out when you play Ozzy Osborne records backwards.

After the video, a clerk came out and called 40 names. Mine was one of them, but as soon as we got to the courtroom we were told that a key witness for the prosecution was on military duty overseas for the next 18 months, so the case was dismissed and it was time to go back to the book.

At noon we were let go for lunch. After a 90-minute lunch break, it was back to the grueling process of reading my book.

And then it happened again. Forty more names were called and I was one of them. A case was ready for a jury to be chosen and we were going to go through “voir dire,” which is a jury selection process.

The prosecutor asks potential jurors questions, then the defense attorney asks a few more and after everybody is interviewed, they decide which jurors they want on the jury for this case.

This was the most interesting part of my week and the closest I got to the legal system. I played courtroom quarterback thinking about who I’d want on my jury for this particular case.

I was surprised by the choices and kind of disappointed with the results. Not only did I get a number of jurors wrong, but I was not chosen for the jury, and my feelings were kind of hurt. I wondered what was wrong with me and why one side or the other didn’t think I’d make a good juror.

I didn’t have to worry, though, because the next morning, the 13 people chosen (12 jurors and one alternate) returned to our happy little group after the defendant decided to accept a plea bargain. This was around 11 a.m.

I was looking up from my second book, “The Tommyknockers,” by Stephen King, long enough to see them come in and take their seats either at the card-playing table or in front of one of the three overly loud televisions.

After our 90-minute lunch break, it was back to the chair for more reading. We didn’t hear from a clerk until 4:30 p.m. when she released us for the day, but told us to be back bright and early the next day.

Wednesday was more of the same. I read a couple hundred more pages, got released for lunch and actually came in to work for a half an hour to catch up on what I was missing. We were told to be sure we were back by 12:30 p.m., though, because a judge would be ready to get a jury for an upcoming case.

By 2 p.m., we had heard nothing and at 2:30 p.m., we were told by the clerk that we were dismissed for the week.

That’s it. My exciting and productive three days in the justice system.

I said it when I got home that night and I’ll say it again right here: There has got to be a better way.

Is this the best we can offer our citizens as they perform this all-important duty: $25 a day and hours in what is basically a gigantic doctor’s waiting room?

It is no surprise that people view serving jury duty as a task just above getting their teeth pulled. Americans hate to be unproductive and there is not much you can do while waiting to serve on a jury.

I have no problem with citizens being asked to serve on a jury and I think that it is an important service both to the community and the person being tried, but how can the whole process be sped up and made a little more efficient?

In the case that I would have sat on, had I not been so mercilessly discarded, the crime occurred in December of 2004. Why was this case delayed for almost two years?

Why is it that I have been a registered voter for 13 years and this was the first time that I had ever been called for jury duty?

Last week there were several people, including one retired airline employee, who had never been called to serve jury duty before last week.

So, here’s my idea to improve jury duty, at least for potential jurors. Aside from the obvious additions of a gym, a Starbucks and an arcade to help pass the time, people should have to serve on a jury at least one day every five years. If you report to jury duty and you aren’t chosen for a jury, you go back into the pool. If you are chosen and serve on a jury, you have at least five years before you have to serve again.

As for how to make the judicial process go faster, I don’t know. I wouldn’t want to hurt a person’s chances of having a fair trial, but one would think that with the number of lawyers in this country, it shouldn’t take nearly two years to start a case.

It would be nice if we could take the gambling aspect out of justice too. The accused knows whether or not they are guilty and should consider such when presented with a plea bargain, instead of thinking that they might be able to get away with something if they can pack the jury with those their attorney feels would be sympathetic to their case.

Maybe the reason I wasn’t chosen for a jury was because the lawyers felt that I wouldn’t be sympathetic to their points of view. I can honestly say that I would have been impartial and weighed the evidence carefully. I would have treated it like a “Law and Order” episode, while reminding myself that a plot twist in the third act was unlikely.

The whole justice system seems to need an overhaul and I guess I’ve felt like that since the O.J. trial. But at least those jurors weren’t sitting around reading books while “The Young and the Restless” was blaring from the television that hung over their heads and, hey, if they got $25 a day they could at least go on a nice vacation afterwards, somewhere where no one had ever heard of O.J. Simpson, like the Amazonian rain forest or Tibet.

So, let’s get the brain trusts working on this. Just because this has been our system for many years, it doesn’t mean it can’t be changed or improved.