Jury Duty and Lawsuit
By Craig Stevenson
When I seek help from a doctor, a dentist, a carpenter, a mechanic, an accountant, or a host of other occupations, I expect competence and fair treatment from the professionals I consult or hire. I assume that greater technical expertise enables a person to perform his or her job more effectively. In the business world, if you don’t treat people fairly, you won’t remain in business very long. However, my experiences in recent years have shown that fairness and specialized knowledge are not always valued, particularly in the judicial system.
About 25 years ago, a friend of mine, who was a teacher at the local school district where I lived, asked me for help with a very important matter. His teenage daughter was receiving harassing emails from an unknown person and they couldn’t identify the sender. Time was critical as he feared for his daughter’s safety. As the local “computer guy” in town, I was the logical person to ask for help. I conducted basic forensic analysis on one of the emails and located its general point of origin. This information allowed my friend and his daughter to identify the culprit, contact the police, and seek justice.
My training and experience with computers and the internet helped me solve this mystery and prevent any further harassment of my friend’s daughter. A few weeks later, I received a letter of appreciation from the county attorney. This process is exactly how the system should work – people like me helping their fellow citizens by using their unique skills to assist law enforcement with challenging cases.
Ten years ago, while living in Otter Tail County, I received my first jury duty summons, unsure of what to expect. By then, my technical expertise had expanded to include networks, mobile communications, data storage, and forensic analysis. In one instance, I successfully retrieved data from a failed hard drive array, despite the manufacturer’s claim that the data was unrecoverable. Like many in technical fields, I continually refined my skills.
During jury selection, I underwent voir dire, a word derived from an Old French term meaning “to speak the truth.” Voir dire is the process by which judges and attorneys question potential jurors to assess their suitability for a case, attempting to ensure impartiality. Prospective jurors received basic details about the case, the parties involved, and some key arguments from both sides. We answered numerous questions about our background, education, and occupation. We were also asked whether we knew any of the key players—the parties, judge, attorneys, police, or prosecutor. Like those before me, I answered all the questions.
The case involved evidence found on the defendant’s cell phone or computer, and I believed my background in digital forensics could provide insight into the case. For example, when I heard the defendant’s likely argument about this incriminating evidence, I immediately recognized its flaws based on my own experience. Ultimately, I was not selected for this jury, having been stricken by one side or the other. Initially, this surprised me, but I later realized my computer knowledge likely led to my exclusion.
After being excluded from the first case, I was later called for jury selection in a different case before another judge. I found it quite interesting that each judge had a different command of the courtroom and a totally different pace and process for questioning potential jurors. Once again, this case involved incriminating evidence found on the defendant’s electronic devices. Based on my earlier experience, I thought it was unlikely that I would be chosen for this jury. While I couldn’t discuss case details, I mentioned to my family during a dinner break that I would likely be dismissed again—and I was. I wondered if the attorneys might prefer jurors who were easier to persuade rather than those with specific knowledge that might contradict their theory of the case.
After my jury duty experience, I still believed that fairness and impartiality were the cornerstone of the judicial system, and what I witnessed was simply the system working as intended. It was clear that in order to get a fair trial, jurors could not be biased for or against either side. The judge who oversaw jury selection did not indicate what he thought of the parties, the attorneys, or the case, in order to prevent the jury from being tainted in any way. I viewed the judge as an impartial referee who was there to ensure that everything was done properly and that the rights of both sides were protected as required by law. I thought the entire process would be a search for the truth. I also understood that while the legal representatives would vigorously prosecute or defend their respective sides, ultimately it was up to the jury to hear all of the evidence and decide the case on its merits. At that point, I still had faith in the judicial system. However, my experiences in later years would challenge this belief.
My faith in the judicial system began to change about five years later. After exhausting all other options, I pursued a lawsuit to protect my family from further harm and during this time I gained a much clearer understanding of the judicial system. Having gone through the process myself, I now realize there are many questions I wish I had asked before filing my lawsuit. For example:
- Is the process truly fair and impartial?
- Do people actually tell the truth?
- Do attorneys and judges always behave in an ethical manner?
- How is evidence gathered?
- How are privacy concerns addressed?
Some of the answers surprised me—and they may surprise you too.
My business experience taught me that competence, fairness, and honesty are essential for success. However, it appears as if the judicial system operates under its own set of aspirational rules that sometimes differ from reality. I have learned a great deal over the last five years about how the judicial system actually works, its strengths and weaknesses, along with its flaws and some of its hidden secrets. Although I didn’t expect perfection, I certainly expected far more than I witnessed.
My legal journey began with protecting a friend’s daughter, continued through jury duty, and culminated in a civil lawsuit to protect my own family from harm. Experiences in recent years allow me to answer definitively: “Is the judicial system fair and impartial to all parties?” The answer, at least from my perspective, is “No.” In my view, the judicial system does not always search for the truth or treat everyone fairly.
In upcoming articles, I’ll provide more detailed answers to some of these questions. I’ll expand on my conclusion that the judicial system is not always fair and explain how my technical expertise—while a liability in jury selection—became invaluable during the evidence gathering process known as discovery. I’ll also explore legal motions, ethical concerns, and due process. I’ll even elaborate on how I used Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other legal tools to help uncover some irregularities along the way. These articles should be both educational and enlightening. Stay tuned!
Craig Stevenson
Fergus Falls, MN
Footnote: Craig Stevenson is a husband and father, and has been the President and CEO of a small business located in Fergus Falls since 2001.