Justice Breyer showed up for jury duty.
Updated: 08:59 AM EST
Supreme Court Justice Shows Up for Jury Duty
By GINA HOLLAND, AP
Getty Images
Five of the nine justices pose in 2003. Breyer is seen standing on the right.
WASHINGTON (Jan. 5) - No one took any notice of the tall, slim man who appeared Tuesday for jury duty. Had he worn his black robe, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer no doubt would have drawn more attention.
Even Marlborough, Mass., District Court Judge Thomas Sullivan Jr. didn't recognize Breyer until he read the justice's name on a document listing potential jurors for cases he was hearing.
"When I looked at the slip I said, 'Oh, my God,"' Sullivan said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
Two cases were to be heard, one for drunken driving and another for assault. Enough jurors were picked for the assault case before Breyer's name was called, and the defense attorney in the drunken driving case excluded the justice from that jury.
According to Sullivan, the defense attorney said, "The last thing I need is two judges on the case."
Breyer, 66, said he felt it was important to do his civic duty and report to the courthouse, located about 30 miles west of Boston. He divides his time between Washington and Massachusetts.
"It proves that everyone can participate, and in a democracy that is important," Breyer said.
Sullivan was impressed.
"If anyone could have made a phone call and gotten out of it, he could have. He really wanted to sit on the case," Sullivan said. "That might put some other people to shame who were planning to try to get out of jury duty."
01-05-05 08:21 EST
shame on the defense lawyer, for dismissing the Justice. if I were the defendant, I would fire that lawyer.
a Justice on the jury is one of the best ways to win your case. simply because the DA and presiding judge in the case, will be like they are on trial too. any errors on their part no matter how slight, would weigh heavily in the jury room.
the Justice would be sure to bring up different things in consideration that most wouldn't even think of. and I highly doubt the jury would even consider flipping a coin to decide the verdict, like has been rumoured to happen.
from a defendant's point of view, a Justice on the jury would be the best way to ensure of a real fair trial.
what are yall's thoughts on this?
