LOVE-ly Jury Duty: Innocuous or Injurious, Cute or Creepy?

LOVE-ly Jury Duty: Innocuous or Injurious, Cute or Creepy?

            For better or for worse, I’m back for my second blog.  And since I’m a tuition-paying law student under the tutelage of the blog site administrator, then regardless of whether you enjoyed my last blog I can’t be fired (yay!).  Though perhaps I could be failed or enjoined (boo!).  Well, let us not waste our precious time together supposing frivolous hypotheticals about destroying my semester-long, law school blogging career and let us dive right into this week’s Valentine’s Day-themed topic:  LOVE-ly Jury Duty: Innocuous or Injurious, Cute or Creepy?

            Earlier this semester, I read an article titled, “Why Does Everyone Hate Jury Duty.”  The two-part article explored negative and positive perspectives about jury duty from former jurors.  Particularly curious was the second part of the article, which explored positive perspectives.  A former juror, “[J]uror #3,” recalled that while serving as a juror during a civil case he had noticed “a very cute woman, [who] was chosen and accepted by the attorneys [to sit on the jury panel].”  Juror #3 and the woman, “[J]uror #4,” sat next to each other throughout the trial.  Juror #3 explained that during trial, he took advantage of opportunities to “get to know” Juror #4 better, while developing the resolve to eventually ask her out on a date once the trial ended.  At the trial’s conclusion, after a mistrial had been declared, Juror #3 asked Juror #4 out while they both were in the jury parking lot.  Fast forward to the date of the interview for the article, Juror #3 stated that he and Juror #4 had recently observed their six-month anniversary.  By recounting his serendipitous love story in response to an inquiry about his experience as a juror, Juror #3 intimated that the best part about having served as a juror was his having been influenced by Cupid’s arrow to render a verdict in favor of his attraction to Juror #4, rather than his having been influenced by evidence to render a verdict in favor of a litigant, the purpose for which he had been selected and which assuredly did not occur because a mistrial was declared.  Indeed, Juror #3 recounted nothing substantive about the solemnity of his service, the subject of the trial, the quality of the evidence, performance of counsel, or even why his service ended due to a mistrial.

            In a 2018 blog post, titled, “After Trial, Juror Sends Victim ‘Virtual Hugs,’” a blogger discussed a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in which the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision to deny a Schwartz hearing to investigate alleged juror misconduct after a juror, “apparently [having been] enamored with the attractive victim of the crime,” sent “virtual hugs” via text message to the victim (here is a law review article that explains what a Schwartz hearing is).  Now, before ya’ll romantic types swoon over this juror’s actions read this: “The juror allegedly got the phone number of the victim off a piece of evidence.”  On the one hand, this juror dutifully paid close attention to a piece of trial evidence, seemingly unlike Juror #3 (to be fair to Juror #3, I do not know that he did not pay close attention to his trial’s evidence).  On the other potentially more troubling hand, it does not appear that the juror paid attention to the evidence solely for a reason supportive of the pursuit of justice.  But, remember, both the trial court and the appellate court denied a juror misconduct hearing.

            Consider the following: When romance invades the jury box, is the result innocuous or injurious to the pursuit of justice?  Is it cute or downright creepy?  In which contexts could it be innocuous or injurious, cute or creepy?  Until next time, my LOVE-ly readers!

Note:  I occasionally refer to Juror #3 using masculine pronouns; however, the article cited did not reveal the gender of Juror #3.  While editing this post, I failed horribly in my efforts to keep Juror #3 gender-neutral and maintain some reasonable readability of the paragraph.  And, on a law student’s budget, I could not afford to hire someone more grammatically competent than I am to succeed where I had failed.  I majored in Criminal Justice, folks, not English.  I sincerely hope my choice does not offend anyone.