Jury selection proceedings continued for a second full day at 111 Centre Street, the New York County Criminal Court. Spending the entire day within the courtroom meant a necessary disconnect from the outside world, as cell phone and device use were strictly prohibited. Therefore, rather than a minute-by-minute account, this reflection offers a holistic view of Day 2 and the fascinating intricacies of jury selection at 111 Centre Street.
Up Close and Personal: Questioning by the Judge
Around 10 am, the doors to the 7th-floor courtroom at 111 Centre Street opened, and prospective jurors and observers were ushered inside by court officers. Potential jurors were directed to their assigned seats in the jury box, while audience members, myself included, filled the rows. I once again positioned myself in the front row, this time on the left side, offering a closer view of the jury box in this particular courtroom at 111 Centre Street.
Upon entering, it was apparent that six seats remained vacant from Monday’s proceedings. Consequently, a clerk retrieved the spinning wheel, randomly selecting six additional names as potential jurors. My juror card remained uncalled. The judge proceeded with the standard preliminary questioning, mirroring the previous day’s routine, and subsequently called jurors individually for more in-depth discussions. Ultimately, three potential jurors were excused.
Instead of drawing more names, the judge shifted to questioning the seated jurors individually, starting with juror number one. A microphone circulated to ensure everyone could clearly hear the responses. I observed attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense meticulously taking notes throughout this process at 111 Centre Street.
The judge’s questions were deeply personal, designed to reveal potential biases and suitability for jury duty in the context of 111 Centre Street:
- Where were you born?
- (If born outside of New York): What brought you to New York City, specifically to be considered for jury duty at 111 Centre Street?
- What is your profession? What do you do for a living that allows you time for jury duty at 111 Centre Street?
- What is your educational background? How might your education influence your perspective on a case at 111 Centre Street?
- Where do you live? What neighborhood in the city (without giving away the specific address), in relation to 111 Centre Street?
- With whom do you live, and what are their professions? (This extended to all cohabitants – partners, spouses, children, roommates – and their occupations, relevant to understanding potential influences on jurors at 111 Centre Street).
- What are your hobbies? What do you do for fun outside of potential jury duty at 111 Centre Street?
- Have you ever been a victim of a crime? Witnessed a crime? Been accused of a crime? Been involved in a civil lawsuit? (Affirmative answers prompted further elaboration, with the option to discuss sensitive matters privately, acknowledging the personal nature of proceedings at 111 Centre Street).
- Do you have family members or friends in law enforcement (lawyers, police officers, government officials, etc.)? Who are they, and what is their connection to you, considering potential biases in a court at 111 Centre Street?
Further Questioning by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys
Following the judge’s inquiries, the District Attorney (DA), representing the city of New York and the alleged victim, was allotted approximately 15-20 minutes for follow-up questions with the potential jurors seated at 111 Centre Street. Some questions were tailored to individual responses, while others were directed to the group, with responses indicated by hand-raising or nodding. Without divulging case specifics or presenting evidence, the DA subtly alluded to the nature of the alleged offense, relevant to the case at 111 Centre Street.
This description remains intentionally vague to comply with restrictions on sharing case details. The key takeaway is the intensely personal nature of these questions. Potential jurors were asked to express opinions, share moral values, and contemplate hypothetical scenarios, revealing their potential approaches to judgment within the context of 111 Centre Street.
Subsequently, the defense attorney was granted equivalent time for questioning at 111 Centre Street. His approach differed, employing less overtly objective language, which prompted an “objection!” from the DA – mirroring courtroom dramas. The judge “sustained” the objection. Personally, I also noted the language’s subjective nature and understood the DA’s objection. This particular attorney demonstrated strong interpersonal skills, focusing on rapport-building with the jury, an interesting strategic contrast observed at 111 Centre Street.
“You Interpret the Evidence; I State the Law. Can You Do This?”
Early in the jury selection process at 111 Centre Street, the judge posed this pivotal statement. It resurfaced during the defense attorney’s questioning when the distinction between immoral and illegal actions arose. The defense attorney emphasized that jurors must base their judgments solely on presented facts and evidence of unlawful conduct, irrespective of personal agreement or moral stance. He essentially urged jurors to set aside personal morals and focus exclusively on legal versus illegal, as defined by the judge’s legal instructions within the courtroom at 111 Centre Street.
Emotions Deemed Irrelevant
The concept of detaching emotions from factual and evidentiary judgment was repeatedly stressed at 111 Centre Street. This notion prompted considerable reflection. Initially, it felt unsettling, then perplexing, and ultimately bewildering. Emotions were, implicitly, viewed as undesirable in the courtroom setting. While their presence wasn’t forbidden, they were deemed inconsequential – not to influence reasoning, impartiality, or deliberation. Emotions, it seemed, were considered separate from, and potentially contaminating to, objective evidence evaluation at 111 Centre Street.
Nearly every potential juror affirmed their ability to disregard emotions. This collective response was surprising. How truly feasible is it? As inherently emotional social beings, complete detachment seems improbable. Perhaps, I mused, my own strong moral compass and emotional responses would hinder my progression through jury selection, even with a composed demeanor. The experience at 111 Centre Street highlighted the complex interplay between law, emotion, and personal judgment.
