Week 2: June 14-June 18 Personal Contributions to the Selection of a Jury

This week marked the actual start of the internship as we were given our first project of the summer–juror research. A jury is a group composed of 12 random civilians who will sit in trial, hear a case, and decide upon a ruling. This approach is primarily used for felony convictions that make it to trial–although a grand jury, composed of 6 civilians, can also be used at the preliminary stage of the felony conviction. Given that these individuals are the central barrier standing between an individual and their freedom, it is critical to make sure that these individuals meet a particular set of standards so as to ensure justice in the conviction. 

Although there are many standards that are crucial in the selection of individuals for jury duty, one of the aspects that is critical for a jury to possess is impartiality. Bias in jury, whether implicit or explicit, is extremely case dependent. Thus, in order to avoid this discrepancy it is imperative to have both a wide variety of individuals to select from as well as a vast amount of information on the person. The initial list is composed by the state and consists roughly of 600 people of all ages, backgrounds/upbringings, religions, political identifications, etc, all within the Richmond area. The only information that is readily available from the list is the individual’s name, age, as well as their last reported home address and place of employment. From this, it becomes our job to utilize our databases to research the individual and report all points of interest that could potentially allude to bias. 

There are a number of ways in which jury research can be conducted but in order to uphold the confidentiality of the office’s practices I will include only the most general/broad approaches. One of the central and most effective ways to conduct research on a potential juror is through their social media accounts. This includes, but is not limited to: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, etc. Although one would think that people only portray their best versions of themselves on social media, it has become apparent that what constitutes as ‘best versions’ is highly variable from person-to-person. For instance, while one of the potential jurors only uploaded family photos, updates on achievements/promotions, engagement in philanthropic work. There are other people on the list who dedicate much of their social media to upholding political views and discussion of other controversial topics. Although these individuals portray two different perceptions and appear to utilize social media in two distinct ways, they are both inherently critical to understanding the person. Thus, while one aspect may be critical for one individual–i.e politics, another component–i.e family, may be imperative to understanding another individual, and it is our job to identify these points of importance so as to better understand them.