I received a summons for jury duty from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. I first thought that serving on a jury would be cool, as I always have enjoyed movies which involved jury deliberations (like 12 Angry Men). But I quickly concluded that there would not be any chance that I would actually be selected to sit on a jury because I was a practicing attorney in Montgomery County. I reported to the jury commissioner’s office on the designated day and announced that I was a lawyer, so therefore I was unlikely to be selected to serve on a jury, and so I asked if I could please leave and go to work. The response was “no”, with the comment that there are so many lawyers who live in Montgomery County that a jury could never be empaneled if lawyers were ineligible to serve.

I went down to a jury waiting room to await the random selection of jurors for the day. Montgomery County had a “one day/one trial” policy, meaning that if your number was not called by 10 a.m., you could leave and wouldn’t have to come back on any other day, but if your number was called you would serve on a jury for just that one day, unless the trial did not conclude that day, in which event you would continue to serve on subsequent days until the trial ended. In retrospect I wondered if that policy was appropriate. Most jurors would not want to serve for the duration of a trial that could continue for days or weeks, and thus they could be inclined to return a verdict by the end of that one day even though in fairness to both the plaintiff or prosecutor and the defendant further deliberation should take place.

As luck would have it my number was called, and I reported to a courtroom. It was a sodomy case. A 19-year-old male was charged with performing an act of sodomy on a 15-year-old boy. The prosecuting and defense attorneys asked a few voir dire questions of the jurors, such as whether we knew the defendant or his family or friends and whether we had any past or present experiences with law enforcement. They knew that I was an attorney, but neither objected to my presence on the jury. They asked if there was any reason we should not be on that jury, and I pointed out to them that I was hard of hearing and was concerned that I might not accurately hear the testimony of witnesses. They said that since I was wearing a hearing aid it would not be a problem and that they would tell witnesses to speak up when necessary.

The trial started around 1 p.m. The defendant’s appearance was scraggly, and he looked like a person who might have committed sodomy. As I recall there were about 4 witnesses for the prosecution, including the arresting officer, and one witness for the defendant. The victim did not testify, perhaps because of his young age, and was not identified as being present in the courtroom. We began deliberation of a verdict around 4 p.m. The first vote was 10 for conviction and 2 for acquittal. I was one of the acquittal jurors. The other was a lawyer who worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. We explained why we voted for acquittal, basically because we did not feel that the prosecuting attorney carried the burden of proof that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We remarked that the defense witness seemed credible, and we thought the victim should have testified. We took one more vote and while a couple more jurors voted for acquittal the most votes were cast for conviction.

Around 6:30 p.m. the bailiff told us that we could take a dinner break and go to a restaurant in the old Rockville Mall. Drinks were not allowed, and as I recall the food, while paid for by the court, was not very good. After dinner we returned to the jury room for further discussion of the case. It was about 10 p.m. when we reached a verdict agreement, and that was acquittal on the sodomy charge and conviction on a lesser charge of assault and battery. We could all then go home to our loved ones, except maybe the defendant.

About a week later I was telling my law partner, John Hendricks, about the case and I commented that rightfully or wrongfully the two lawyers on the jury brought the defense’s case into the jury room, almost as if we were representing the defendant. I wondered aloud what the result would have been if we were not sitting on that jury. John then told me that a close friend of his who was another attorney in the prosecutor’s office was familiar with the case and disclosed to John that at the time of his arrest the defendant confessed to the sodomy charge, but for some reason that confession was ruled inadmissible.

Perhaps proper justice didn’t prevail, but I was paid $8 for my one-day jury service.