Courtroom Door in the State of Nevada

Reflecting on a recent 3-day experience and how I was involuntarily called back into a world I left decades ago. Thought I’d be released the first day, surprised I wasn’t released the next day; on the 3rd day, I was one of the last Prospective Jurors to be excused.

Reflecting also on the HIPAA Privacy Rule, and how it protects certain health information (individually identifiable health information that relates to an individual's past, present or future physical or mental health or condition) and how during those three days I heard the full first and last names of community members and insights about their jobs, and much, much, more.

Ninety Prospective Jurors were provided a brief overview of the alleged violent crime against a very young child, the defense position is that their client is Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. The Government asked Prospective Jurors during the selection phase, which was all audibly recorded and transcribed, have you (or a close friend/family member) ever been a victim of a serious crime, and, were you or is a family member now or in the past in Law Enforcement?

As a Prospective Juror in the middle of the Panel, I had an opportunity to jot down on a legal pad an overview of four memorable incidents that I vividly recalled when I was the victim of a serious crime while working as a Police Officer in Oakland and how my Beat Partner was murdered by a shotgun blast a foot away while we were on a call together. Shared these four incidents, I had moist eyes and had to take a few pauses when I shared that last event.

There were other incidents that I thought about later, my broken hand while fighting with a violent family on a porch, multiple hornet stings in my head while trying to secure a violent suspect while brawling on an elevated deck immediately above a large angry nest, the suspect who broke my radio over my head in an alley that caused facial lacerations, etc.

While I was recalling suspect’s names, dates and incident details, from the memory reels that haven’t played for many years, I listened to fellow Prospective Jurors share their names repeatedly (as directed by the Court) and then describe in graphic details serious crimes that resulted in physical and mental trauma they or a family member/close friend experienced.

Prospective Jurors shared life stories about having a mentally unstable son who has ongoing violent outbursts, being a rape victim as a youth, having a parent murdered by their other parent and step-parent, having a young friend stabbed to death by a serial killer, numerous incestuous repetitive molestations (one Prospective Juror had never previously shared she was sexually abused by an uncle, she felt compelled to share in court), another shared she was the victim of domestic violence and fled one night (she changed her name and moved out of State to escape). Another shared how her ex-husband shot at her one day while in their home. Several shared their life-threatening medical diagnoses (e.g. renal failure and more) and some disclosed how they’re caring for elderly ill parents. Several shared insights into their mentally ill family members, utilization (and abuse) of prescription medications, etc.

The Government mentioned the crime scene photos entered into evidence would be very graphic. Several Prospective Jurors were released after they were visibly overwhelmed by memories and emotions while sharing their traumatic event(s) and their sobbing required moving to the next Prospective Juror (and then circling back later to continue the questioning).

Some shared they would be unable to make logical decisions as they explained how this alleged violent crime against a child was so unsettling and so memory-provoking due to their personal trauma, they couldn’t be fair and impartial. They were dismissed, while most of our eyes stared straight ahead or down and not directly at those telling their stories, when these courageous Prospective Jurors were dismissed, there was a collective acknowledgment in the room that it was the right call, and we were thankful they could leave.

We were asked a lot of questions about personal experiences with mental illness (raise your hand if you/family member have been diagnosed), one Prospective Juror shared how her mom tried to commit suicide multiple times, many shared stories of generations of their family members with anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and more.

I was asked to share my experiences while in Law Enforcement when I personally signed a legal document that mandated the person who was a danger to themself, or others, be admitted into a County Hospital for a 72-hour mandatory evaluation. (I recalled during the questioning, but didn't share, almost shooting a teen who was having a mental health episode while advancing toward me armed with a knife in the family's main narrow and not too long hallway. His father tackled him at the very last moment and literally saved his young life.) I shared a few stories that I remembered about those who I encountered who had severe mental distress.

I was asked, how is our mental health system in Nevada? Are you aware it's ranked toward the bottom in the US? Does the government offer sufficient services to treat mental health disorders? Did you see a revolving door in Oakland after someone was released from the mental health evaluation? Is the system biased? As I was compelled to share my current role that I worked in the insurance industry, I was even asked, what’s the solution here in Nevada to treat mental illness? Etc. My response, it's the government's responsibility to help those with a mental illness who can't help themselves, elicited a positive affirmation from one attorney.

One question to the whole Panel, (similar to) have you ever had a goal and while you tried really hard you couldn't obtain it? Who'd like to answer? If you didn't raise a hand, they'd call on several Prospective Jurors to get the dialogue moving. This opened the door to what felt like a group therapy session about goals, personal struggles with finances, drugs, job changes, transportation, trauma, living environment and, bottom-line, we arrived at "motivation."

One question, well, there was a question at some point, but it was really more of a very long statement by one attorney during the voir dire, about mental illness and how sometimes medications don't work, they need to be adjusted in strength, the actual Rx may need to be changed, some patients forget to take their medications, or they self-medicate, does everyone agree it's not an exact science? Who views Psychology and Psychiatry as a soft science?

Unlike on TV court drama's where's there's often considerable loud and frequent bursts of "Objection" voiced by both parties, both counsels were never (not once) advised by the Judge to retract or reframe a line of intrusive questioning.

As I reflect on HIPPA and the protections it provides, as well as Employee Rules of Conduct, I can’t imagine a Human Resource Director or Benefit Counselor standing up during an Open Enrollment meeting with thirty employees and asking each person to provide their full name, and then asking, have you been the victim of a serious crime? If the answer is yes, then probing to find out exactly what type of crime? If it was sexual assault, who perpetrated it? How old were you? Was the suspect arrested? Further, who’s been diagnosed with a mental illness, raise your hand? If yes, are you being treated? Who has a family member with a mental illness, raise your hand? Has anyone been charged with a serious crime, raise your hand? What were you arrested for? And then more probing…

Further, I was surprised (since it was my first time sitting on the hard wood bench as a Prospective Juror) that this is the “best” method our system provides to select a jury of peers because of the deeply personal interrogations about mental and physical health conditions in front of (NON-anonymous) fellow community members. They provided stick-on-your-shirt badge numbers; I don't understand why they repeatedly asked for our full names before we started answering the inquiries and repeated them again when they took roll.

My hope is that this probing didn’t generate additional traumatic stress reactions in the Summoned participants due to the event(s) flashback(s). Event(s) -- plural, it was surprising how many Prospective Jurors shared multiple personal stories of criminal events that caused physical and mental trauma. As the gal seated next to me was released, I mentioned I prayed for her last night because of the trauma she experienced and was re-living.

While tissues were readily available for the many tears during the hours of questioning, I found it unsettling that those who had severe emotional experiences weren’t (visibly) provided with any resource card to call for support when they were dismissed after they were compelled to graphically relive their traumatic event(s) in public. A few of us expressed empathy as we exited the building for those dismissed earlier as it was a very emotional inquisition for 40+ people over two days.

While the Judge, Marshall's, Defense Team and Prosecutors were highly professional, participating in this experience prompts me to ask, how can those who are compelled to share these very personal events be provided with privacy and potentially support after they're released (including the fifteen Summoned community members who were not released and are the seated Jurors, as they're required to view the bloody evidence and hear even more crime scene graphic details)?

Respectfully,

The postings on this site/app are my personal opinions and are not the position of Aon plc, or its subsidiaries, clients, partners, or suppliers.