Platform : Could You Spend Six Months Away From Your Job, Home and Family On the O.J. Jury?

MARTIN LUDLOW

Director, Los Angeles Conservation Corps

I cannot commit to jury duty that long for financial reasons. What they ought to have is a jury that’s professionally trained by the courts, one that’s constant. That would solve a lot of problems. The theory behind having an impartial jury is ridiculous: Juries are selected by attorneys, and aren’t necessarily made up of a defendant’s peers. No one on the O.J. jury (will be) a black person living in Brentwood or an ex-football player. So what does “a jury of peers” really mean? I think professional juries would be better equipped to deal with these questions.

JULIE DODD-THOMAS

Director of market applications, Pacific Bell, lives in San Juan Capistrano

I’m the mother of three children, ages 6 to 13, and I have a husband who is also a professional. Our children are very involved in their schools and activities--Little League, soccer, drama. Being removed from them for that long would certainly impact my ability to attend their functions.

From a professional standpoint, I’m a director, a middle-management position with a lot of responsibility. I would be able to take a laptop PC with me and use it during the breaks. There would probably be some downtime during the day and I’m used to going without lunch. Using voice-mail and E-mail and having my staff stay in constant contact, I would probably not be as timely with my activity, and probably sleep a lot less; but I would be able to handle a lot of functions.

If the jury was sequestered and denied the opportunity to use (communications) technology, it’d be almost like being on personal leave.

ALEX ALBARIAN

Dentist, Glendale

It would be interesting. Usually, it’s the most interesting cases that take that long. But I’ve got a business and I’ve got employees I have to pay. I can’t afford closing. Actually, I’ve been asked to serve on jury duty a few times and I’ve always gotten out of it by sending a letter saying that it would cause a financial hardship. I don’t think any professional could afford to do something like that unless they’re retired.

ROGER HOLGUIN

Professor, East L.A. College

The jury selection process really creates a problem because it eliminates the middle-class worker; if they don’t work, they can’t pay their bills. The people left are either retired or out of a job. That doesn’t give you a broad base of the community. It winds up excluding a lot of people and giving too much power to defense attorneys selecting jury members. Then they prep witnesses like actors, telling them how to dress, how to act. They’re no longer doing law, they’re practicing drama. All they have to do is get one juror in doubt and that’s it, they win the case. They’re not dealing with facts anymore, just appearances. So because such a large segment of the population is missing out on jury duty, we’re losing one of our important civil rights.

TIM FONG

Assistant professor of Asian-American Studies, Cal State Northridge

Since I work for the state I presume, though I haven’t checked this out yet, they’d make allowances for people who take jury duty time. It’s not like I’m independent or a student where I’d have to be at a certain place at a certain time.

I heard the jury might be sequestered. I’m here in Southern California teaching full time and my wife is up in Northern California. We never get used to being separated, but we’ve faced that issue before. If I’m qualified for the jury and it’s an interesting case, I would be willing to do that. My wife, who’s an attorney, would, I think, understand as well.

BETTY JEAN TURNEY

Clinic building administrator, Orange County Health Care Agency

I just returned from vacation and found my little greetings from the North Orange County Municipal Court for jury duty. As taxpaying residents, we all have the right (and obligation) to serve on a jury. We should not try and get out of it. One of my favorite sayings is “If you don’t participate, don’t bitch about it.”

Serving for six months would be a big learning experience, if it was non-sequestered. I would still be able to see my family and friends and check in at work and handle some of the problems over the phone.

Being sequestered would give me a very isolated feeling, not knowing what’s going on personally and professionally. It would be an extremely hard thing to be six months away from my job. Because of the size of the clinic, a lot of things can change from one moment to the next.

Retired people would be great for jury duty, but I don’t know how they would handle the sequestering. I really don’t know what kind of person could handle a lengthy, sequestered trial.

LAURA CATHCART

Publicist, Los Angeles

It’s just too much of a hardship for the average working person. I certainly couldn’t do it. Even two weeks would be tough. I just got a jury notice and am trying to get out of it.

A dream solution would be having homeless people on juries. They are never heard from, and don’t participate in society, but they have opinions too--I think they deserve to serve. Realistically, I think those who are unemployed should be considered first for jury selection because they would suffer the least financially and they’re available during the day.

PAUL SAUCIDO

Actor, Los Angeles

I couldn’t serve that long because I have to work, unless my employer would be willing to pay for it. The problem is, the people with the time and money to do it are more affluent, and that means you don’t have a good mix of people on the jury. You need good critical minds, particularly in this O.J. case. You need people who are very open. I’m not saying that older people couldn’t do a good job, but you have to have people who aren’t set in their ways and who haven’t made up their minds beforehand. But this O.J. thing is unique in that everyone has been influenced.