I’m not sure anyone can appreciate the legal system until they are summoned for jury selection. Your appreciation or understanding may only grow further if you are selected to serve on a jury. 

Recently, I was selected to serve as an alternate juror. It was a good learning experience. 

I have some familiarity with the legal system. I’ve covered the FedEx trial and once volunteered in a teen court program back home. The courts run like a machine with purposeful avoidance of any potential bias. Which is a good thing, we are ensured a speedy and fair trial by a jury of our peers by the United States constitution. Those who end up being convicted may not feel the system is fair but that is only natural. 

To me the learning experience came more from the duties of the jury itself and the makeup of the jury. We were all randomly summoned to appear for selection and whittled down through a series of questions called voir dire. 

You wouldn’t think a group of 13 strangers had much in common until the court recessed and the jurors were tucked away in the jury room. Football, high school memories, the absence of driving tests, hunting, snake scares and oilfield work stories were shared to pass the time. At the same time, you are weighing out the evidence that has been presented in the case. 

The duty of the jury is to determine if the State has proved the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant is presumed innocent throughout the course of the trial unless and until they are proven guilty. It is a serious task at hand. A verdict of guilty or not guilty must be reached unanimously by the 12 jurors.  

People may not understand this aspect of our criminal system but to recap, the verdicts are handed down from a jury of randomly summoned people who come from all walks of life and may have different perspectives. None of them could agree on a favorite college football team but the evidence shown in court convinced them to reach a verdict unanimously. 

In this case, the duty of the jury ended at the verdict. From there, the jury was dismissed from the courtroom prior to sentencing. As an alternate juror, I did not participate in the deliberations and opted to watch the conclusion of the trial in the gallery. 

The judge presiding over the case issued a sentence after considering several factors. The defendant actually turned to the students from Brookhaven School District watching in the gallery and told them to make better decisions. 

Several people asked about my thoughts on the case in the moments afterwards. Similar to the FedEx case, I believe it would be prudent to reserve any judgements on the matter. 

I would say this, the case was interesting and there were questions I had which remained unanswered. Whether or not there was enough evidence for a guilty or not-guilty verdict, that was for a jury to decide together in deliberation. I was not privy to those discussions. 

I did feel a weight regarding the case and tried my best to weigh out the facts, evidence and testimony given over the course of the trial in case. I hope the dozens of students visiting the court gained a new appreciation of the legal system because I know I did.