In jury selection this week, when each member of the jury pool was answering voir dire (questions to probe suitability for jury duty), out of the 28 jurors, 2,when asked to indicate their spouse’s occupation, without pause or diffidence, acknowledged their gay partners. There was also, of course, a large contingent of WILDS (white impressive Later Day Saints), including a well spoken, slightly heavy set, attractive single-female Temple-Grounds Gardner.
This openness by the LGBT community rarely happened just a few years ago. In my opinion, this is a welcome societal shift because it shows progress in bringing these members of our community within the circle of our humanity, culture, and communion. It also engenders honesty and thereby conveys important information.
Yet this openness has adverse consequences in jury selections. This is because we do not select a jury of our peers, we winnow the pool by the process of elimination. First by challenges for cause and then by each attorney, for any unspoken reasons, eliminating 3 persons. The remaining first, 6, 8, or 12 as the case may tie, are seated. When a party or an important witness to the litigation is a minority, this most invariably eliminates any member of his or her class and saturates the sometimes collective bias of the majority.
In my particular case we had a gay man who was a key witness. The opposing side knew this. We needed a juror who could relate to the peculiar challenges that such a person sometimes faces in our society. Who do you think was peremptorily eliminated from the jury pool by the opposing counsel? If you guessed the Temple Grounds Gardner, you are wrong. It was the lesbian. (The other gay man was too far down the lineup to be selected.)
So you know, this is not a diatribe against WILDS or WASPS. Nor is it a claim that one member of a minority is invariably lenient or apt to give his or her minority a pass or an unfair advantage. They don’t. They sometimes are more harsh. What I do believe is that we in the majority sometimes are insensitive, ignorant and even at times unfairly biased against minorities. When you are in the minority and know this to be true, you would take great comfort in having a peer or two on your jury sitting in judgment.
Unfortunately, the consequence of jury winnowing is that we don’t get a jury of our peers, we get a jury that is estranged from the issues, experiences and needs of minority litigants. For instance, imagine being a WILDS in the early 1800s and having a jury trial in the Missouri capitol and having your jury selected from a pool of mainly non-mormons: Would you want to at least have one member of your faith on the jury?
We should fix our jury system to be sensitive to this issue by retaining challenges for cause and then allowing each attorney to select, rather then eliminate, persons to serve on the jury. Half the jury selected by each side. This would truly be a jury of our peers.
Comment 1: Russell Josephson - Perhaps the biggest problem is the categorization of people into stereotypical groups, instead of seeing them as individuals. I never even heard the WILDS (white impressive Later Day Saints) label before you posted this. Perhaps you can define what it means to you?
Comment 2: Loren M. Lambert - WILDS is merely a clever way to refer to the outstanding members of the LDS faith who rendered public and patriotic service as jury members. As Rush and Shaun know if you don't have something clever to say--regardless of its factual validity and connection to reality--don't say or write it at all.
Comment 3: Loren M. Lambert - WILDS (white impressive Later Day Saints) HILDS(Hispanic Impressive Later Day Saints), etc.
Loren M. Lambert © June 12, 2014
This openness by the LGBT community rarely happened just a few years ago. In my opinion, this is a welcome societal shift because it shows progress in bringing these members of our community within the circle of our humanity, culture, and communion. It also engenders honesty and thereby conveys important information.
Yet this openness has adverse consequences in jury selections. This is because we do not select a jury of our peers, we winnow the pool by the process of elimination. First by challenges for cause and then by each attorney, for any unspoken reasons, eliminating 3 persons. The remaining first, 6, 8, or 12 as the case may tie, are seated. When a party or an important witness to the litigation is a minority, this most invariably eliminates any member of his or her class and saturates the sometimes collective bias of the majority.
In my particular case we had a gay man who was a key witness. The opposing side knew this. We needed a juror who could relate to the peculiar challenges that such a person sometimes faces in our society. Who do you think was peremptorily eliminated from the jury pool by the opposing counsel? If you guessed the Temple Grounds Gardner, you are wrong. It was the lesbian. (The other gay man was too far down the lineup to be selected.)
So you know, this is not a diatribe against WILDS or WASPS. Nor is it a claim that one member of a minority is invariably lenient or apt to give his or her minority a pass or an unfair advantage. They don’t. They sometimes are more harsh. What I do believe is that we in the majority sometimes are insensitive, ignorant and even at times unfairly biased against minorities. When you are in the minority and know this to be true, you would take great comfort in having a peer or two on your jury sitting in judgment.
Unfortunately, the consequence of jury winnowing is that we don’t get a jury of our peers, we get a jury that is estranged from the issues, experiences and needs of minority litigants. For instance, imagine being a WILDS in the early 1800s and having a jury trial in the Missouri capitol and having your jury selected from a pool of mainly non-mormons: Would you want to at least have one member of your faith on the jury?
We should fix our jury system to be sensitive to this issue by retaining challenges for cause and then allowing each attorney to select, rather then eliminate, persons to serve on the jury. Half the jury selected by each side. This would truly be a jury of our peers.
Comment 1: Russell Josephson - Perhaps the biggest problem is the categorization of people into stereotypical groups, instead of seeing them as individuals. I never even heard the WILDS (white impressive Later Day Saints) label before you posted this. Perhaps you can define what it means to you?
Comment 2: Loren M. Lambert - WILDS is merely a clever way to refer to the outstanding members of the LDS faith who rendered public and patriotic service as jury members. As Rush and Shaun know if you don't have something clever to say--regardless of its factual validity and connection to reality--don't say or write it at all.
Comment 3: Loren M. Lambert - WILDS (white impressive Later Day Saints) HILDS(Hispanic Impressive Later Day Saints), etc.
Loren M. Lambert © June 12, 2014
