The conviction of Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying public records is the latest news in a series of historic events over the course of an extraordinary election year. With this verdict and the reality of a former president campaigning while facing dozens of additional felony counts, there is a lot of news coverage of America’s courts. Can we trust the courts to do justice to this highly politicized environment? Can a jury of peers be counted on to deliver a fair and impartial judgment?
In February I served on a jury for the first time. Experiencing a trial firsthand and being one of the people responsible for deciding another person’s fate gave me greater appreciation for the justice system and for the citizens who make it work.
On that morning, 68 people responded to the summons, some driving 45-60 minutes across my rural Colorado county to the courthouse. I was one of 12 potential jurors randomly chosen for a round of jury selection, during which we were asked questions about being impartial. I began thinking how challenging it would be to be impartial in a highly publicized case, such as one involving Trump. I can understand why some cases are moved to different locations to avoid jurors who may be familiar with news or people in the case. Where could they possibly find a jury who hasn’t heard of Donald Trump?
Now that I’ve been in the jury box, I realize what a big responsibility it is, and I believe jurors take it seriously. I realized the gravity of the responsibility as I participated in the process of the trial. Was it like TV courtrooms? A little bit. What you don’t see on TV is all of the teaching.