How Do You Respond to a Challenge? Jury Duty Edition.

And there it was: the dreaded blue-and-white mailer requiring me to call in to see if I had to report for jury duty. I had already been dismissed from a case in 2024 due to a business trip that could not be rescheduled. I had deferred the one I received in April until last week, and, of course, on the first day I had to call in, I was ordered to report for duty the very next day. I scrambled to cancel client calls.

This isn’t my first rodeo as a juror. I was on a jury when I lived in Texas years ago, and was excused once because I was dating an Assistant DA. Well, we actually only had one date, but I certainly made it work to my advantage. I was on a criminal trial here in CA about 12 years ago that dragged on for two weeks. Back then, I was employed by a company that paid me for that civic duty. Today, every minute I am in the courthouse, I am losing money.

I was talking to someone the other day who told me she would be a professional juror if that were a thing. I am definitely not in that camp. I have been called other times and excused for a variety of reasons, but this go-round, I had a feeling I wouldn’t be so lucky.

Why me and not them?

I was shocked at some of the people they dismissed; they seemed perfect for a jury, but what do I know? After two rounds of dismissals, they had 21 people ‘in the box’. Surely that could get 14 (12 and two alternates) out of this group of 21. I held my breath.

Quite a few people pulled the “I don’t speak English well enough” card. It worked for the most part, and I am pretty sure some of them couldn’t. They had to call seven more candidates, and of course, “Juror 139” rang out from the court assistant.  I am still shocked they chose me after extensive questioning. My husband was mauled by a dog when he was three, requiring over 600 stitches and plastic surgery. My daughter was attacked by a dog two years ago, and it cracked her front teeth so badly that she had to get veneers. And my daughter is a paralegal at a personal injury law firm. All things I disclosed during my interview. I understood what the plaintiff’s team would want me…but the defense?

I ended up being alternate #1. The alternates must listen to all the testimony but cannot deliberate. Fine. Unsatisfying, but whatever. If I'm there, I would rather have a say. From the first day of testimony, there was a juror continually talking to the assistant during breaks, and I knew she was trying to get out of it. Well, on day three, she succeeded. As the judge so eloquently announced with a chuckle, “I had been promoted”.

Not so black and white.

This was a civil trial, a dog bite of a postal worker. No one was going to jail…it was all about the money. I actually prefer criminal trials because the evidence is often more black-and-white and is infinitely more interesting. This type of civil case involves harm and reimbursement for events in the past and in the future. It requires extensive evaluation and critical thinking grounded in evidence and testimony. It is not quite so black and white. Needless to say, they don’t give cognitive empathy and IQ tests to potential jurors, so it is a crap shoot for attorneys and their clients. And that became abundantly clear as we progressed.

There was no dispute that the dog bit the postal worker and that the owner was negligent for having the dog (who had bitten others before) off-leash. But did that bite lead to other physical and mental issues, and how did that translate to long and short-term loss of wages and quality of life, now and in the future? She had multiple character and eye witnesses, and doctors testified to how she had changed physically and mentally, and she quietly wept through most of the testimony. She is a beloved character on her daily 10-mile walking route, delivering mail to 584 properties in Leisure World. Even the defense talked about how great she was.

Why is there always one (or two)?

I won’t go into the details, testimony, or evidence; it just isn’t that interesting or relevant to my point. Both sides did a fine job of presenting their case. But it really gets interesting once you enter the deliberation room. That’s when people show their true colors. Why is it that there is always one A-hole? Sorry, but I can’t think of a better way to describe this type of person.

Any large meeting, seminar, class, etc. There is always one (or two). The person who loves the sound of their own voice or asks questions that have already been answered. Or has to weigh in when it doesn’t help at all, or is an expert on whatever. And if you don’t think there is one, then you are it.

I often see it in people who have no power in their own lives, and this is their time to shine. This was no exception. Our foreperson was a young woman so desperate to be liked, in charge, and to exert her minimal power that it was palpable. And the little man (who also wanted to be foreperson), everything was about him and his experience. It was perplexing to me, but not surprising, because there is always at least one. We had a grocery store manager, a CEO of an AI firm, a tech bro, an assembly line worker, an insurance company employee, a retired RV repairman, a high school teacher, a government worker, and the rest I don’t really remember. A jury of their peers, I guess.

How do you respond to a challenge?

On one of our breaks, I checked my email, and a quote from James Clear popped up. “Your response to a challenge defines you more than the challenge itself.” No truer words were ever written at that given moment. Some people rationally and fairly evaluated the testimonies and evidence, others just went along with the majority, while others made it about what they thought was justified, driven by clear conscious and unconscious biases and their own perceived injustices. It amazes me how people can listen to exactly the same evidence and interpret it so differently. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how much I disagree with it. That’s what negotiation is for.

Once I saw how people were voting based on the variety of financial breakdowns for different issues, the rationale behind the selection process became clearer to me. The attorneys generally know how a jury will act. They put in some ringers that will just go along, and others who will have stronger opinions. They don’t need 12 people with strong personalities.

I am of the ilk that doesn’t mind negotiation and healthy discussion that might be uncomfortable. A couple of jurors went at it over something, and the foreperson freaked out and wanted to call for a break. I said, “Absolutely not. Let them talk it out.” She reluctantly agreed, and they worked it out fine.

Anyway, it restored my faith in some people and reinforced my disdain for how others handled the situation. Thankfully, we only needed 9 jurors to agree, or we would still be sitting there while that little man tried to prove his point based on nothing relevant to the case. And the foreperson declared the plaintiff should ‘heal herself’.

I hope she’s ok.

After extensive negotiations, that lovely, recently widowed, 4’ 11” mail carrier who has dedicated 40 years of her life to public service walked away with $204,000. It may sound like a lot, but when you factor in her medical bills and physical and mental trauma, it’s pennies. I wish I could have given her more, and I tried because, as we know (but weren’t allowed to consider), an insurance company was paying this amount on the defendant’s behalf. And I really hope that little man and the foreperson never find themselves facing a jury… it might come back to bite them.

“Your response to a challenge defines you more than the challenge itself.” ~ James Clear, author and speaker.