When we came back from lunch, it was the lawyers' turn. They were both in the courtroom the whole time, as was the defendant, though I didn't notice him there until they pointed him out, due to where I was sitting.

The prosecutor was most concerned with finding out whether we believed we could convict based on the testimony of a single witness, assuming we believed that witness completely. She got herself in trouble several times by coming too close to talking about the specifics of the case -- that was my understanding, at least. The defense attorney objected several times, and several times the judge called them up to the bench to discuss it.

She also (or possibly this was the judge) said that the full range of possible punishment in this case was anywhere from five years' probation to life imprisonment, and we were asked if we would be able to "consider" the full range of punishment options, if the defendant was convicted.

The defense attorney was mostly concerned with the lower range, and wanted to know who would not be able to consider giving the defendant probation. A lot of people spoke up for this one, and it looked to me like several people considered this their way out of having to serve on the jury.

After that, the judge and attorneys conferred. The judge said that the attorneys were "lenient" or "forgiving", I forget which one, and that they'd come close to not being able to make a jury. As number 50, I was the last regular juror called. The alternate, who was somewhere around 55, was not too pleased.

I think a big part of Giuliani's pull is that he appears (and certainly did on 9/11) as more presidential than the President.

Liese, you should train! The head of my type of jiujitsu (small-circle) is a teacher at a high school in Los Angeles, and frequently has to break up fights. He does H2H training for LAPD also, but says he uses the martial arts principles more in his teaching job.

Plus, it's fun.

She asked if anyone had either been the victim of a violent or sexual assault, or was close to someone who'd been the victim.

Your experience was worse than mine, but when I was called a few months ago I was also surprised at how many people had been victims of crime or connected to it.

ALSO this reminds me that everyone was telling me all this shit I should pull to get out of jury duty, blah blah blah, and like the week after I got rejected this same judge was in the news for punishing a member of the venire for attempting to get out of jury duty by making him come in for the duration of the trial anyway. And I read this whole long article today about how he's a great judge but rather high-handed when it comes to potential or current jurors. So I'm glad I didn't try anything.

Why are you a pacifist?

Whew. That's a biggie.

I'm a pacifist because I value the human being. I think that human life is valuable and should not be harmed without a gravely serious reason. I believe that when we do violence to others, we do violence to ourselves. It seems to me that it is rare when causing injury solves problems. I believe that great fundamental social change can come non-violently, so that informs my activism.

In the pacifists I know, I admire their fortitude and integrity. I admire their willingness to put their bodies in the (literal) line of fire in order to protect the innocent. I see pacifism as a methodology for mutual respect and for establishing communication.

I am in fact, one of the borderline pacifists who would prefer, when attacked, to resist non-violently rather than fight back. But I know quite well that I would and will intervene using violence to protect someone else. So I can't really ask, say, the SO, not to protect me if he is able.

There's some faith-related stuff too, but that's tougher to explain, particularly since most people in my faith don't agree with me.

(I should mention that I appear to be fine with consensual violence. I am a hockey fan, after all.)

I would like to learn to fight because I think I would enjoy the mental and physical discipline of it, and because I always think it is better to know how to de-escalate a situation if possible. It's like guns. I'm pro gun control, but I would like to learn to shoot because I think it's better to know than to not know in the case of an emergency.

I also feel that with my current job, it's fairly likely that I will be in explosive situations involving physical confrontation and possibly various types of weaponry. I would like to be able to hold my own long enough to get help if a situation came up.

My kids get jumped all the time. One got stabbed this last week. Where I interact with them is generally safer, but not always.

Closeness to victims of similar crimes can taint you in the eyes of the lawyers--what about closeness to law enforcers or law enforcement?

I was told that, even if eligible, I'd be unlikely to be kept on a violent crime jury because of the whole krav thing and training cops and abuse victims and working part time for the ADA. Bogus?

Okay, the food smells are making me quease.

Wow, that's very sad-making, Dana.

what about closeness to law enforcers or law enforcement?

Yup. Most of the time, all I have to say is that I was married to a cop and that I served as a police dispatcher and I'm politely whisked from the jury room. Now, all this was 20+ years ago, but that doesn't seem to matter.

There have been times, especially in DC where the jury pool seems so tight that they send my notice exactly 2 years and 2 says on the dot, when that was overlooked. But I've only served on two juries in my adult life and I've been called oh, so regularly.

ita, depending on the case, being close to law enforcement persons could have an effect. For example, police officers often testify in criminal cases. Knowing police officers could affect how much weight you'll give to that testimony.

In theory, depending on the facts, virtually anything could be cause to keep someone off a jury.

I've been called oh, so regularly.

Sometimes it's nice to be off the grid.

Yes, I'm one of those punk kids that's not registered to vote. That'll probably change for next year, though.

Feels too much like admitting I live here, though.

Closeness to victims of similar crimes can taint you in the eyes of the lawyers--what about closeness to law enforcers or law enforcement?

You're right, the judge also asked if people were in law enforcement or close to someone who was.

After we were chosen, we were pretty much sent home. They showed us where the jury room was, they handed out bus passes for those that needed them (I took public transportation after that first day), and they told us to be back at 9:30AM.

We didn't actually get started until after 10 the next morning, and that was the case the whole time. We spent more time waiting in the jury room than we did in the courtroom, I think. And we were locked in the jury room, I guess to prevent us from being tampered with.

The prosecutor's opening statement laid out pretty much everything, and this was the first time we learned anything beyond "aggravated sexual assault" and the fact that the weapon was a knife. The claim was that the defendant broke into the victim's apartment at 3AM, put a knife to her throat, made her take off her pants and underwear, and raped her. Afterwards, he made her turn on her back and tried to tie her up. She fought back, grabbing the knife by the blade, and got the knife from him. Her daughter and nieces, sleeping in the other room, were awakened by her screams. They tried to get in the bedroom, but he'd locked it from the inside. He jumped out the bedroom window to escape (second story), and the police came.

None of them spoke English -- not the defendant, or any of the first three people who testified, who were the daughter (20), the niece (16), and the victim (40).