10:40 p.m. | 2005-06-26 The Smallest Jury. BestestGirlfriend (BG) invited me to go with her and her roommate (BGR) to TheCity this weekend to participate in a fake trial as a jurist. Let me just tell you, I snatched that offer right up as I�m continually frustrated by the fact that I�ve never been able to sit on a real jury. If you don�t know, law students learn (kind of) how to be courtroom litigators by practicing in fake trials. What I didn�t know was that actual attorneys also learn this way. If they don�t have the opportunity to learn how to litigate via real trials. Anyway, all three of us agreed to travel to TheCity to act as jurists in a fake trial competition presided over by seasoned attorneys and/or judges, tried by attorneys and decided by volunteer jurists. The plaintiff, defendant and all the witnesses were played by whomever the attorneys could cajole into participating. I must say that it�s truly ironic that, as jurists, we were compensated much more handsomely for serving in a fake trial than we would�ve been in a real trial. We were each paid a nice sum, got free parking and were fed continuously throughout the day. Anyway, six separate trials commenced simultaneously; all trying the same case. Hence, BG, BGR and I were all sent to separate courtrooms. When I reported for duty, I found out that I was on a jury of three people. It was a diverse jury in several senses (three different ethnicities, three different age groups and three different backgrounds) but not so diverse in several ways (all female, all under 5�2� and all slight of frame). It had to have been the smallest jury ever. In all respects. And, I have to point out that it�s hard to keep a straight face when a rather tall defense attorney actually bends over to address the jury. It�s also somewhat menacing especially when the defense attorney is being overly passionate. It makes you want to laugh and back up at the same time. There were two attorneys for the plaintiff and two for the defendant. The plaintiff attorneys ROCKED � as did their witnesses � while the defense attorneys� well; we were all embarrassed for them. Not so good. Nor were their witnesses. At lot of sidebars and suppressed guffaws. Very interesting though. I learned a lot about my own biases. I also learned that if your attorney sucks, you�re screwed. Seriously. And, I was hugely relieved that I didn�t have to suffer through any sort of complex medical or forensic evidence. (I think that�s why they use this case actually � it�s the kind that keeps you interested.) Deliberation was interesting also. I knew going in that they were going to tape us and provide a live feed to a monitor in the hallway so the participating attorneys could learn something they don�t otherwise learn as real deliberations are confidential. I also had the relief of knowing that, since this was a fake trial, if we didn�t come to a conclusion after 45 minutes, we�d be declared a hung jury. I wasn�t quite sure what to think about the fact that there were only three of us. At first, I was relieved because it seems it�d be easier to make a unanimous decision with three people as opposed to twelve. But, I was also worried that there might not be enough strong voices in a group of three. There was no reason to worry though. Our deliberations lasted for about 15 minutes and we managed to decide all four of the charges. We ruled in favor of the plaintiff on three charges and for the defendant on one. And, we actually forgot about the camera during our discussions. What I really find fascinating is that all six courtrooms produced the same results. I was able to watch some of BG�s deliberations since we finished so soon. No one knew who I was or anything either so I was accidentally privy to their impressions of her as a jurist. (Her jury was also diverse. Hers had three members also � BG and two old men of different nationalities and of course, different backgrounds. Taller jury though.) All six juries � of three each � ruled for the plaintiff on the same three charges and for the defendant on the other. Also interesting is that every single jury had at least one law student or lawyer. Which may or may not have influenced the result. My jury had myself (a law school graduate), a law student and a retired hospital worker. BG�s jury had BG (a lawyer), a retired military man and a retired, um, other man with a language barrier. BGR�s jury had BGR (a law student), another law student and a rather confrontational older woman who has an odd infatuation with law school. As a side note, once you�re in the legal arena, you discover that there is a strange sect of people in the world that are like law school/legal �groupies�. I don�t really know how to explain it other than that. BGR had one of those and one with a rather confrontational manner. Her jury deliberations were the most combative and had to be interrupted several times. Oh, and it was the only time I believe that I�ll ever hear a judge call a recess and have the plaintiff object because they�re double-booked as a plaintiff. In fact, the plaintiff, defendant and all the witnesses were double-booked. There seems to be some sort of strange fake trial circuit thing going on. No matter, it was fun, interesting, educational and rewarding. It was a good time in a geeky sort of way. The kind we appreciate. After we were done with that, we hit TheCity for dinner and drinks. It was a long night and we had a really good time. TheCity is fun. Wacky, weird, exciting and fun. One of the funniest moments happened in a bar. Of course. BG went to the ladies room and on her way back, stopped to take of photo of two gentlemen from England at their request. (Their table was next to ours, sort of.) After introductions all around and whatnot, BG looked down and was horrified (in an ironic way) to discover that about ten feet of toilet paper was stuck to the bottom of her shoe. We laughed heartily. Sometimes, BG and I just embody classic moments. your thoughts? seed flower