I just got back from six days of Jury Duty.  I’m so grateful that my employer supports its employees that are serving on Jury Duty.  Here in Washington, companies must allow employees to serve, but aren’t required to pay its employees while they’re on Jury Duty.  The current compensation for jurors is $10 a day, so the fact that Metia pays its employees while they serve on Jury Duty is just another reason it’s on the list of the Best Places to Work in Seattle.  

Something struck me while I was serving last week.  The whole process was so counter-intuitive in the age of social networking. 

Cartoon (c) 2009, from Dave Wagner, dotProblems.

First, jurors were selected completely at random, and then one-by-one, the pool of 50 selected was whittled down to 14, as each lawyer asked questions pertaining to the case.  It sure seems like the whole process of sitting in a room with 50 people could have been done using demographic and historical information.  The state knows the size of my family, if I’m involved in law enforcement  or have family that is, and if I’ve ever been a party to a similar case.  While not everyone is as “social” as I am online, they could do a quick Google search to see public information that could more completely let each lawyer know if I’d help or hurt their chances as a juror. 

Second, as jurors, we had to sit through two and a half days of testimony, without asking any questions, or giving any feedback.  The hardest part was the instruction that we not talk about the case while we were hearing it, even with the other jurors.  For those days, we had to listen, we could even take notes, but we couldn’t react, or really process any information except by ourselves.  The other jurors, even the judge and attorneys were complete strangers, even though we spent all day with them. 

Third, we were sent to the jury room to deliberate.  For three days, we poured over the evidence, and the notes we took, but we were told not to do any research on our own.  We had our cell phones, but we couldn’t use them to Google information that might have helped (or hurt) our deliberations.  At one point, we were given an 8-inch thick binder of phone records, but when we asked the court clerk which numbers were the defendant’s, and which were the plaintiff’s, we were told “to rely on our memory or notes.”  Frustrating! I felt like I was caught in an episode of Criminal Minds or Law and Order: SVU. 

Finally, as the judge dismissed us to deliberate, we were instructed not to discuss the case with anyone outside of the jury deliberation room.  Every day, he repeated the same instructions: “Do not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, and don’t use any kind of social media: Facebook, Twitter, or MySpace.  Don’t text or Tweet anything.”  Funny to hear a robe-frocked judge talking about “tweeting.”  It made me smile every time.  It was so difficult not to explain anything about the case to anyone.  My kids would ask how things were going, and I had to be vague.  I couldn’t even let co-workers know how long it would be, or whether we thought it would be a day, a week, or a month. As someone used to keeping friends and family updated using Twitter and Facebook, I seemed strangely disconnected about something that I wanted to discuss/debate/decide. 

I imagine that the system used by the courts will evolve over time, but it was clear there is a digital divide.    And for the record, we found the defendant not guilty...