Here's a little story from my day today.
So, there I sat, meekly undergoing questioning from the lawyers after hours of waiting and listening to speeches in preparation for jury duty.
Unlike almost every other potential juror, I didn't actually mind the prospect of serving in a jury. It's not something I've done before, I felt in a dutiful mood (lol), and I don't have much else going on.
A bunch of folks were trying to wriggle out of it just as hard as they could, a few going so far as to make themselves out to be biased in every which way possible. I mean, I totally sympathize with people who have to work, who have employers who don't compensate them, but it was getting a mite ridiculous.
So, I answered the best I could, and then the defense gave us his long metaphor story outlining reasonable doubt.
In version A:
A mouse and a cat are trapped under a box securely taped to the floor, after an hour the person lifts the box to find only the cat and no mouse.
Is there a reasonable doubt that the cat ate the mouse?
In version B:
Everything is done the same, except now there's a hole in the side of the box. After an hour, there's only the cat left in the box.
Now is there a reasonable doubt that the cat is guilty?
One of the potential jurors brought up the circumference of the hole... and you know my hand shot right up to deliver this useless factoid.
"A mouse can fit through a half inch hole. Rats and mice can fit through anything they can stick their heads in."
The defense didn't quite hear me, so I repeated it, and as such things go, added more useless detail in the process.
Feeling silly, I chuckled, and then the defense clarified that it was a sufficiently sized hole that the mouse didn't have to contort itself to get through it. Did I agree then, there was reasonable doubt the cat was guilty? "Yes" and I giggled, because now I'm embarrassed for making an issue out of it.
TBH I was embarrassed as soon as I raised my hand, but couldn't halt my trajectory towards silliness by any means.
The prosecutor gave me some side eye, and it was soon thereafter that I found myself dismissed.
I can only posit that translating the metaphor back to reality yielded a version where I unintentionally opined that the accused needed only a tiny hole to escape under reasonable doubt.
But in truth I was only thinking of Hardware Cloth diameter vs Rodents. Like any proper chicken person would be.
And that, my friends, is how you lot are responsible for my rejection from performing my civic duty.
So, there I sat, meekly undergoing questioning from the lawyers after hours of waiting and listening to speeches in preparation for jury duty.
Unlike almost every other potential juror, I didn't actually mind the prospect of serving in a jury. It's not something I've done before, I felt in a dutiful mood (lol), and I don't have much else going on.
A bunch of folks were trying to wriggle out of it just as hard as they could, a few going so far as to make themselves out to be biased in every which way possible. I mean, I totally sympathize with people who have to work, who have employers who don't compensate them, but it was getting a mite ridiculous.
So, I answered the best I could, and then the defense gave us his long metaphor story outlining reasonable doubt.
In version A:
A mouse and a cat are trapped under a box securely taped to the floor, after an hour the person lifts the box to find only the cat and no mouse.
Is there a reasonable doubt that the cat ate the mouse?
In version B:
Everything is done the same, except now there's a hole in the side of the box. After an hour, there's only the cat left in the box.
Now is there a reasonable doubt that the cat is guilty?
One of the potential jurors brought up the circumference of the hole... and you know my hand shot right up to deliver this useless factoid.
"A mouse can fit through a half inch hole. Rats and mice can fit through anything they can stick their heads in."
The defense didn't quite hear me, so I repeated it, and as such things go, added more useless detail in the process.
Feeling silly, I chuckled, and then the defense clarified that it was a sufficiently sized hole that the mouse didn't have to contort itself to get through it. Did I agree then, there was reasonable doubt the cat was guilty? "Yes" and I giggled, because now I'm embarrassed for making an issue out of it.
TBH I was embarrassed as soon as I raised my hand, but couldn't halt my trajectory towards silliness by any means.
The prosecutor gave me some side eye, and it was soon thereafter that I found myself dismissed.
I can only posit that translating the metaphor back to reality yielded a version where I unintentionally opined that the accused needed only a tiny hole to escape under reasonable doubt.
But in truth I was only thinking of Hardware Cloth diameter vs Rodents. Like any proper chicken person would be.
And that, my friends, is how you lot are responsible for my rejection from performing my civic duty.
A mouse with a half inch head could...
