“It was super educational for me.”

A painting of a courtroom on an electrical box outside the Downtown Superior Court in San Jose, CA. Photo taken in winter 2022.

Excerpt from an interview with Emily, a juror on a DUI case in the Hall of Justice in San Jose, CA in fall 2021.

Interviewer: Now, I would like you to--Well we've already talked a lot about your experience in court, but I would like you to think back about how you felt about your time in court. And if you could tell people in power anything about your time in court, what would you share with them?

Emily: I think it was super educational for me. Just. So, this was a DUI case. I don't typically drink unless it's somebody's birthday or something like that. And so, I'm a little on the animatedly against drinking, actually. But I think it was educational to see how the process works and how the selection process works, which means how they decide on who's going to decide on the fate of someone. I thought it was educational to learn about intoxication and how you're mentally impaired at, I guess, a point zero five. But you're-you're-you're definitely drunk at point zero eight for everyone. And it just the effect of alcohol because it's kind of like a...someone who's... So, it shows the mental effect, and then before you see the physical effects of alcohol and then something else. I was just like, wow, you know, and we were talking about like, well, this also could mean driving under the...or impaired. We could apply to not getting enough sleep and driving. It's just like, oh, OK.

Interviewer: Right.

Emily: You know, so I think it was educational. I am glad...it was interesting to see the variety of people who were jurors in the variety of ages. And it didn't seem to matter...like the youngest juror, who was still in college, he was pretty darn logical and he presented himself well versus I think I'm pretty logical and apparently I still didn't present myself well because I presented myself with too much like, emotionally, I think it should be this versus, actually, at least it feels like this. So, I was like even though I do that, that's not effective in...communicating with others if you're trying to get them to change their opinion. Um. So. Yeah, it was interesting because I figure it's-it should be all based on facts. And so it's like, well logically this is what it is. But it was like, well, some people aren't going to--they're having a hard time with their own sense of morals and so forth. So, yeah, I thought it was--I definitely thought it was an interesting experience. And as I said, I'm glad it wasn't like a murder or some violent case or anything like that.

***

Related research:

Gastil, John, E. Pierre Deess, Philip J. Weiser, and Cindy Simmons. 2010. The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. Oxford University Press.