(empo-jooryst) My 2015 jury service wasn't as long as my 2013 service

For reasons previously explained, I have waited until now to talk about my 2015 jury service.

Although frankly, there's not much to tell, because I didn't even make it on the jury as an alternate.

In late May, I reported to the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court for jury duty. Eventually I was placed on a panel and ushered upstairs to a courtroom, where I found out that this jury trial was going to be a little different that other jury trials.

This trial was a mental competency hearing to determine whether a defendant was competent to stand trial. Because it was a mental competency hearing, there were two things of significance. First, the burden of proof was on the defense; the defendant was presumed to be competent unless the defense proved that the defendant was incompetent. Second, there was a lower burden of proof; rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden that is usually encountered in a criminal courtroom, the defense merely had to prove incompetence via a "preponderance of the evidence" - in other words, the same burden of proof that you find in a civil trial.

Potential jurors were not told what the defendant was charged with, because in essence that didn't matter anyway. The jurors' only duty was to determine competence by listening to some expert witnesses (from both sides) and applying the law. Needless to say, I was curious about this, but knew that I couldn't research the case until I was released from jury service.

Since I wasn't picked for the jury, I could research any time after that, including during the competency trial itself. However, I knew from previous experience that it takes a while for the transcripts to show up, and I also knew that the competency trial itself wouldn't start until early June.

In early June, I peeked at the records and found out that the defendant was charged with burglary last year. (Speedy justice and all that.) Oh, and I did find out something else - a close relative of the defendant has had numerous brushes with the law, going back over ten years; but that's all that I'll say about that.

Regarding the competency trial itself, this entry was placed in the online records on June 2.

REQUEST FOR A 1368 TRIAL AS TO THIS MATTER
IS WITHDRAWN BY THE DEFENSE.
-
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ARE REINSTATED.

Finally, at the end of June, the defendant was sentenced to time served and released under supervised probation. The 27th and final condition of the defendant's probation?

27) STAY AWAY FROM ALL ALBERTSON STORES

Does that prohibition extend to Safeway's Vons stores?

(empo-jooryst) Now it can't be told, the 2015 edition

Back on March 27, 2013, I wrote a post called (empo-jooryst) Now it can't be told. This was an alert to a series of posts that I published in July 2013, concerning a trial in March 2013 for which I was an alternate juror.

Even the March 27, 2013 post didn't publicly appear until after the verdict - and my (heavily redacted) stories about the trial itself did not appear until over 90 days later.

Why not? Because, according to a very strict reading of California law, my blog posts are written "for compensation," and therefore, a juror - even an alternate juror - cannot discuss a trial for 90 days after being discharged.

Because of this, I did not publicly discuss my alternate jury service until July 1.

Why am I talking about this now? Well, I am writing this post on May 26, 2015 - and am scheduled to appear for jury service on May 27.

I have no idea what will happen. Perhaps tonight (i.e., the evening of May 26) my jury summons will be cancelled.

Perhaps I'll show up on May 27 and won't end up on a jury.

Perhaps I'll end up as an alternate on a jury again. (This has happened to me twice in my life - in 2013, and once in the 1980s. You sit through the entire trial, but never get to render a verdict - well, unless something unexpected happens.)

Perhaps I'll end up as one of the actual twelve jurors.

Regardless, as of this moment (again, the afternoon of May 26) I have to stay away from the "proceedings" pages on the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court website until I am released from jury service (released from a jury, released from being an alternate, or just plain released). After that, I can look all that I want.

Here we go again.

See you in September.

(empo-jooryst) Happy new year?

It occurred to me that I had not recently provided an update on the results of my jury alternate service, although I've briefly discussed it elsewhere.

When I last discussed the matter in August, the defendant was scheduled to be in court for sentencing on October 18.

Well, on October 18, sentencing was rescheduled to November 8.

On November 8, sentencing was rescheduled for next year, to January 24.

As I said elsewhere: "If all goes well, the defendant will be sentenced before he dies of old age."

(empo-jooryst) Speedy justice, August 2013 edition

You'll recall where we left off on July 11.

A crime occurred in November 2008.

The defendant was arrested in December 2008.

The trial was held in March 2013, and the defendant was convicted of a lesser crime. Sentencing was scheduled for May 3.

Then for June 28.

Then for August 2.

So, would you like to hear what finally happened? Here it is, in court speak.

Action: SENTENCING Date: 08/02/2013 Time: 8:30 AM Division: R4 Hearing Status: DISPOSED

STEPHAN G SALESON, J-JUDGE

CLERK: TIFFANY LEMUS

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER: LH2-LONI HUNLEY CSR# LH2-11489

BAILIFF M SHAW

-

APPEARANCES

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAN ROSS PRESENT.

ATTORNEY KT TRAN BY MICHAEL BECKER PRESENT.

DEFENDANT PRESENT IN CUSTODY.

-

PROCEEDINGS

ACTION CAME ON FOR SENTENCING

-

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER IN CHAMBERS

Obviously, these conferences occur all the time, and obviously, there is often no way to figure out exactly what was being discussed. But after the conference, the following significant event occurred:

HEARINGS

HEARING CONTINUED TO 10/18/2013 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

(ALSO SET FOR ROMERO MOTION)

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO APPEAR ON HEARING DATE.

As I've previously noted, the defendant is currently in custody, so the court can make sure that the defendant appears on the hearing date (although I guess he could refuse to appear, the court would at least know where he is).

But what is a "Romero motion"? For the answer to that question, I turned to attorney William Holzer:

A good criminal defense attorney can help a client facing a strike allegation by filing a “Romero motion” with the court. Attorneys are often successful in convincing the court to dismiss a strike under 1385 of the Penal Code. This is because it is not uncommon for prosecutors to overcharge cases by alleging old strikes on minor new offenses.

During the trial, the jurors (and juror alternates) were informed that the defendant was a convicted felon. Obviously this fact has an impact on his sentencing, which is why this is being dragged out to October - or beyond.

(empo-jooryst) Speedy justice?

Remember way back on March 27, when I first discussed this case on this blog? This was one day after the jury had reached its verdict - for a crime that had been committed way back in November 2008.

Obviously it took years for this case to get to trial. But now that the defendant has been found guilty, how long will it take to sentence him?

As I mentioned in that first post, I have now been able to access the material on San Bernardino County's website - and that's where I'm now following the trial, since this case - even though it involved the shooting of a person - is not necessarily newsworthy enough to require day-to-day coverage in the Daily Bulletin or any other local paper.

So when I first accessed the online information on late March, the minutes said that sentencing would take place on May 3.

And if you go to the minutes for the May 3 sentencing, you find this:

HEARING CONTINUED TO 06/28/2013 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

Actually, in a way that was kind of nice for me, since I already knew that this series of posts would begin running on July 1. So, right before the series actually started to appear, I'd have all of the knowledge about the final sentence.

You can guess what happened on June 28:

SENTENCING SET FOR 08/02/2013 AT 8:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

Obviously, whenever sentencing actually takes place, "credit for time served" will enter into the conversation.

(empo-jooryst) The players

In theory, those people who are charged with working for the court are united in their pursuit of justice.

Yeah, right.

While prosecutors and defense attorneys are expected to behave honorably, they still have an incentive to best represent their "side." After all, their jobs are to convince a jury of guilt or innocence, and they want to marshal their best arguments in support of their case.

In my particular case, there was one prosecutor, Dan Ross, and two defense attorneys, Michael Becker and K.T. Tran. But before we look at them, let's look at the judge in this particular case.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the appointment of Stephan G. Saleson to a judgeship in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Saleson, 56, of Riverside, has been a partner with Varner, Saleson & Brandt since 1997. Previously, he was an associate and then a partner with Gresham, Varner, Savage, Nolan & Tilden from 1980 to 1997 and served as deputy district attorney for San Bernardino County from 1977 to 1980. Saleson earned a Juris Doctorate degree from Pepperdine University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State University. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Dennis G. Cole. Saleson is a Republican. The compensation for this position is $149,160.

During the trial, Judge Saleson did not discuss his previous experience as a deputy district attorney, nor did he express his political affiliations or his salary.

Moving on to Dan Ross, I only found a single news account about him, regarding a 2007 incident in which Ross, as deputy district attorney, had some harsh words for a defense attorney who tasered a client to try to prove a point about alleged police brutaility. I did find an avvo.com record that says that Ross has been licensed to practice law since 2005. As noted in the Daily Bulletin article, he was already with the San Bernardino County district attorney's office in 2007.

When researching Michael Becker, I discovered something interesting. At the time of the trial, I had no idea whether Becker was a public defender, or if he had been hired by someone to represent the defendant. Once I found out that Becker practiced law in Las Vegas, Nevada, it became apparent that the latter was probably the case. Interestingly enough, Becker was endorsed by a prosecutor:

Micheal and I faced each other on several matters when I was a Chief Deputy DA. He was always prepared, adept at spotting the issues, and committed to getting the best results for his client. In virtually every case his commitment paid off. I have seen Michael obtain Not Guilty verdicts and outright dismissals of major felony charges on more than one occasion. I have zero reservations in endorsing this lawyer.

Becker has more experience than Ross, having practiced in Nevada since 2004 and in California since 1993. His website is here. And here's a video:

Because Tran is a common name, I was unable to conclusively find the K.T. Tran that appeared in this case. While Becker was the lead defense attorney, Tran took the lead with certain witnesses.

Both the prosecutor and the defense lawyers took care to advocate their positions on the case. And since at the end of the day, the defendant was convicted of a lesser charge, I guess that you could claim that both did their jobs well.

(empo-jooryst) Another view of the analogy mashup

Several years ago, I read a book about the O.J. Simpson trial. That trial was a little different from my trial - in Simpson's case, the jurors were physically sequestered - but there were some parallels. The Simpson jury, like my own, was ordered to only consider evidence that was presented in court. Certain things were not revealed to the Simpson jury, or to my own. In my case, the attorneys and the judge would engage in whispered conversations at times, and at times the judge would ask the jury to leave the room.

So naturally, my view of what was going on was somewhat limited.

However, unbeknownst to me, a complete public record was being published of the proceedings in my jury room. Certain things were confidential at the time, but anyone who was interested in the trial could follow all of the proceedings online.

Take Tuesday, March 12. This was the day that they finally got around to interviewing me, and when I formally became an alternate juror. I've already told you my version of the story, but this is the official record that the court published of that day - something that I was unable to see until after the trial was over.

STEPHAN G SALESON, J-JUDGE

CLERK: RONNA HICKS

CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER: JQ-JULIE QUINTANILLA CSR# JQ-11309

BAILIFF M SHAW

-

APPEARANCES

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY DAN ROSS PRESENT.

ATTORNEY MICHAEL BECKER PRESENT.

ATTORNEY KT TRAN PRESENT.

DEFENDANT PRESENT IN CUSTODY.

-

PROCEEDINGS

ACTION CAME ON FOR JURY TRIAL-IN PROGRESS

-

4TH DAY OF TRIAL.

Let me interject something here. As far as I knew at the time, it was only the third day of trial. However, the jury wasn't even called into the room until the second day.

-

10:45

COURT CONVENES ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE.

PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

- VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

-

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #41 EXCUSED BY PEOPLE'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #32 EXCUSED BY DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #36 EXCUSED BY DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

-

11:16

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

I'm actually going to cut out a lot of the proceedings here. There were more off the record discussions, more jurors excused, a lunch break, and so forth. As Judge Saleson remarked, real court cases are not like TV.

Oh, and one other thing happened - noted in the record as "JURORS ADMONISHED." We were admonished a lot - basically reminding us not to research the case or discuss the case with anyone, including our fellow jurors. The last admonishment applied until (and, in my case, unless) we were in deliberations.

So let's pick it up at 1:51 pm - or, because the court uses military time, 13:51.

13:51

12 JURORS SWORN

-

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

-

13:52

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR NUMBER #45 EXCUSED BY PEOPLE'S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE.

-

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

14:07

OFF THE RECORD, COURT AND COUNSEL AT BENCH.

-

14:08

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PROPER PLACES

VOIR DIRE CONTINUES.

14:16

12 JURORS AND 2 ALTERNATES ARE SWORN TO TRY THE CAUSE. THE NAMES OF THE SWORN JURORS AND ALTERNATES ARE SEALED UPON THE RECORDING OF THE VERDICT.

And that, in the eyes of the court, was the official account of the selection of alternate juror number two, including his analogy mashup joke. Exciting, huh?

Because the court had no idea when a panel of jurors and alternates would be sworn in, there was no attempt to start opening arguments on that day. But the charges against the defendant were officially read to us - after a time.

-

RECESS DECLARED 14:18

-

14:26

COURT RECONVENES, ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ALL JURORS AND ALTERNATE JURORS ARE PRESENT AND IN THEIR PLACES.

COURT READS THE INFORMATION

-

COURT PRE-INSTRUCTS THE JURY.

-

14:48

COURT IS ADJOURNED. JURORS ADMONISHED.

-

HEARINGS

JURY TRIAL (IN PROGRESS) CONTINUED TO 03/13/2013 AT 10:30 IN DEPARTMENT R4.

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO APPEAR ON HEARING DATE.

And the defendant did appear. Although he probably didn't have a lot of choice in the matter.

(empo-jooryst) In which I make a false assumption

Eventually, the testimony ended, the closing arguments were heard, and twelve of the fourteen people sitting in the jury box were dismissed to begin deliberations.

The two alternate jurors remained for a few minutes. The judge thanked us for our service, but reminded us that we were not fully released from service until the jury reached (or didn't reach) a verdict. The judge had no way to predict how long this could take, since every jury is different. The process could take a few hours, or it could take weeks. Either way, someone at the court would call us to tell us what the verdict was.

That was on a Thursday afternoon.

On Thursday evening, I checked to see if the case was still listed on the criminal calendar for Friday. It was, indicating that the jury was probably still going to be deliberating on Friday.

Similarly, I checked the criminal calendar again on Sunday evening. The case was still listed for Monday.

On Monday morning, I received a call from the court. But it wasn't the call that I expected. The court representative stated that there may be an issue with one of the jurors, and that I may need to join the jury. If I had to do so, how soon could I get to the court in Rancho Cucamonga?

After I told him, I figured that this probably wouldn't affect me, since I was the second alternate and presumably wouldn't be needed unless two jurors dropped out.

Wrong, John. The court representative explained that if a juror did drop out, they would draw lots between the two alternate jurors to see which one would be added to the jury.

At this point, I had to start telling co-workers and various family members that I may be back on jury duty again. I would find out within the hour.

Just a half hour later, the court called again. I was instructed to go about my daily business, and that I would not be summoned to the court - that day.

That was on Monday. On Tuesday, I received a second call from the court. But this time, they had reached a verdict.

(empo-jooryst) Some TMI about the hazards of jury duty

During a criminal trial, a jury is restricted to basing its decision on the evidence presented in court. Jury members cannot go and research the law on their own, research news accounts on their own, or consider anything outside of the courtroom.

In the case in March for which I was an alternate juror, the judge reminded us of this constantly. As far as I know, we all honored the judge's request - even when it caused us difficulties to do so.

One afternoon, after a nice lunch with two other jurors (followed by a post-lunch coffee), I arrived at the courtroom in time for the afternoon session. I wanted to stop by the restroom, but didn't have a chance before we were called into the courtroom.

After some testimony, the prosecution was asked to call its next witness. At this point the prosecution said, as delicately as possible, that the witness may be in the restroom. The judge then ordered a brief break in which the jurors were asked to exit the courtroom, and were (as usual) reminded not to discuss the case with anybody.

This may have been a wonderful opportunity to take care of my personal needs, but there was only a single restroom on the floor - and a witness may have been in there! So I decided to wait a while.

Eventually the witness was located, testimony continued, and eventually we got to another break. The jury filed out (after hearing the judge's usual admonition) - and the spectators filed out also. I did not know who the spectators were, but they appeared to have some interest in the case. Were they friends or family of the defendant? I didn't know. Were they friends or family of the alleged victim of the crime? I did not know.

What I did know was that several male spectators took the opportunity of the courtroom break to head to - you guessed it, the restroom.

The story has a happy ending - eventually I took care of my own needs, and was not a victim of jury tampering when I did so.

(empo-jooryst) Is my dog competent to stand trial?

When you spend several days at a trial, things start to rub off on you.

It was the Saturday after the trial began, or a little over a week after jury selection began. I was engaged in important duties that had nothing to do with my jury assignment, or with my regular job. Specifically, I was in my backyard, picking up dog poop.

Frankly, I would rather have been back in voir dire.

As I was picking up after my dog, I was talking to her. Or rather, we were talking to each other. This is what she was saying:

BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

Meanwhile, I found myself saying this to her:

Your job is to keep cats out of the backyard. But here in my hand, I have evidence that shows that you have not done this! Allow me to introduce Exhibit 1, this piece of cat poop...

I wonder if our prosecuting attorney says things like that to his dog.

I just hope that this doesn't mean that poop will become a major part of this case. Heck, I already cut my hair and then discovered a few hours later that the alleged crime took place near a barbershop. I shudder to think of what might happen next.

(empo-jooryst) The strangest coincidence

This is another post about my experiences as an alternate juror back in March 2013.

As I noted in my previous post, I was questioned on a Tuesday afternoon regarding my fitness as an alternate juror. Neither the prosuection nor the defense objected to my inclusion, so I was sworn in as an alternate juror on that Tuesday afternoon.

Opening statements were scheduled for Wednesday morning, and since the judge had other cases to attend to early in the morning, we were instructed to report to court at 10:30 am on Wednesday morning. Since I am no longer constitutionally (heh) able to sleep in all morning, this gave me some free time before my jury service began.

Now remember what I was NOT allowed to do during this time. I was not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, nor was I allowed to research the particulars of the case. For example, I could not search the Internet to find any news articles that mentioned the defendant in the case. I was also not allowed to use the Internet to research anything about the specific charges that were filed in this case. Although opening statements had not been delivered, I already knew the name of the defendant and the four charges against him.

So I decided to do something that had nothing to do with the defendant and those charges.

I went and got a haircut.

After getting the haircut and taking care of other business, I reported to the courthouse. Since I live in Ontario, I was required to report to the courthouse in Rancho Cucamonga. This is a nice courthouse to report to; among other things, it is a building of recent construction that is reportedly able to withstand a major earthquake. (Not that I want to test this.)

I went through security. This is more comprehensive than TSA security, and is the second strictest security that I have been through. (The most secure place that I have entered is the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.)

After security, I went upstairs, met my fellow jurors and alternate, and proceeded into the courtroom to hear the opening statements.

As the prosecution attorney began his presentation, he described the scene of the crime.

A parking lot outside a barbershop.

Luckily, the barbershop that I had visited that morning was NOT the barbershop in question. Otherwise, I would have had a big problem.

(empo-jooryst) The analogy mashup

While I have been known to write blog posts in advance of their publication, I don't think I've ever written one three months in advance. As I write this, it is March 14; I am scheduling this post to appear some time in July.

Allow me to explain.

As I write this (back in March), I am an alternate on a jury that is hearing a criminal trial. While the trial is in session, I am prohibited from talking about the specific case with anyone (including my dog). I am also prohibited from researching the case on my own. While many of these prohibitions will be lifted once the case ends, I am also unable to talk about the case in exchange for money - at least for a period of 90 days after the case ends. (I'm reluctant to research the particulars of this prohibition at this time, due to the other restraints that the judge has placed upon me.)

Since this blog includes advertisements, the regulation could be construed to prohibit blogging about the case during that 90 day period.

Therefore, if the case ends by the end of March, then this prohibition will be lifted by the end of June. Hence, the delayed nature of this post (and any other posts, with the exception of my March 27 post).

Jury selection began on a Thursday afternoon, then continued all day on Monday, and then continued some more on Tuesday morning and into Tuesday afternoon. For those who have never been involved in jury selection, it consists of a brief interview of each potential juror followed by the judge, followed by questioning from both the prosecution attorney(s) and defense attorney(s). The attorneys are trying to determine if a potential juror would be favorable or unfavorable to their side of the case. After the interviews and questioning, each set of attorneys may choose to remove a potential juror from the panel. This continues for some time (in my case, over three separate working days).

In my particular case, the attorneys used a couple of analogies to determine how the jurors would make decisions regarding guilt or innocence. Again, I am prohibited from researching these analogies online at this time, so I'll reconstruct them from memory.

One analogy discusses a driver who is approaching a yellow traffic light. As the driver approaches, he or she can either go through the light, or stop at the light. The driver only has a split second to do this. The question that the attorneys posed - is this a conscious decision by the driver, or is it a reflex? At this point (March 14) I cannot surmise why this particular analogy was presented, although I have a sneaking suspicion that I know why the question was asked.

The second analogy discusses a hypothetical case in which walking on the beach at night is a crime. In this particular instance, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt (since this is a criminal trial, not a civil trial) that all of the elements of the crime are in place, namely (a) that it was night, and (b) that the person was in fact walking on the beach. It is not sufficient, for example, to say that the person was walking on the beach without noting the time that the person was walking on the beach.

These analogies were used in questioning the potential jurors.

Dozens of potential jurors.

Over the course of three working days.

Eventually, by Tuesday afternoon, both the prosecution and the defense had agreed on a set of twelve jurors. But now they had to pick two alternate jurors, so that in case one of the twelve jurors had to drop out for some reason, the court could just plug an alternate juror into the original juror's place and continue with the trial or deliberations or whatever.

I had been waiting for three working days, and had not yet been called. Finally, I was called as a potential juror to fill the second of two alternate juror slots.

The judge asked me if I had any concerns about anything said by the attorneys or by the dozens of potential jurors who had been interviewed previously.

My response: "Well, I don't know what I'd do if I ran into a traffic light on the beach."

The entire court burst into laughter, since this relieved some tension.

I will need to remain silent for the rest of the trial - unless two jurors drop out and I end up in deliberations - so this will probably be the only utterance of mine that will be heard in court. I guess it was worth three days of waiting.

(empo-jooryst) The new post series finally begins tomorrow

Way back in March, I promised all of the Empoprise-IE Inland Empire blog readers that I'd eventually be sharing a series of posts describing my experiences as an alternate juror in the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court.

Well, after more than three months, that series will begin tomorrow, July 1.

To see the posts in the series, check http://empoprise-ie.blogspot.com/search/label/empo-jooryst over the next several days.

(empo-jooryst) Now it can't be told

Yesterday, a jury in Rancho Cucamonga, California returned guilty verdicts in a criminal trial.

I have not said anything about this until now, for a compelling reason - I was an alternate juror on that jury, and obviously a juror can't discuss a trial while it's going on.

It turns out that a juror can't discuss a trial after it's ended, either. You can thank the O.J. Simpson circus - I mean trial - for this:

Gov. Pete Wilson on Monday signed bills spawned by the O.J. Simpson double murder case that make it illegal for witnesses and jurors in criminal trials to sell their stories until the case is finished....

Under the legislation, AB 501 by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and SB 1999 by Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco), it will be a crime starting Jan. 1 for jurors, witnesses or potential witnesses to provide information for compensation, a practice known as "checkbook journalism."...

Jurors will be barred from engaging in any arrangements for compensation until 90 days after being discharged.

Well, how does this affect me, you may ask? It's not that people are beating down my door offering to pay for my story. All that I can say is...um, look to the left over there. While it's a stretch to say that one of those boxes to the left may qualify as "compensation," you can't be too careful.

So I'll tell a few stories about my jury service...in July.

In the meantime, now that I am now able to read about the case and the particulars online, I'm going to do some catching up. When you're a juror, you are only supposed to base your decision upon evidence that is actually presented in court. If there was any coverage of the crime when it originally occurred, I'm not supposed to use it as a juror. In fact, I don't even know if the defendant hired his own attorneys to defend him, or if he were assigned a public defender.

After this self-imposed cone of silence, I have some catching up to do.