Balancing What We Hear

Jury duty or jury service?  How do you react when you receive the summons to appear for one day, week, or month at your local courthouse?  My assumption is that we all respond differently when that notice arrives in the mail!

I was a juror for a 6-day trial scheduled over the past two weeks.  Once I accepted the reality of being selected for what started as a 3-week trial, I began rescheduling work and personal appointments, feeling the stress of balancing life in our busy world.

The judge and lawyers explained the importance of beginning with an unbiased jury: that is, a just decision could only be reached if our filters and prejudgements were questioned.

Balance: can I listen in a neutral manner?
(Photo credit: Life of the Law, May 9, 2013)

After hours of questions, dismissals, and more questions, the jury was selected and an oath was given to consider only the evidence (the facts) as presented.  In many ways over those 6 days it was difficult to only listen to the lawyers' questions and the witnesses' answers.  I had questions!  I wanted to offer my perspective!

But my job was to listen, take notes, consider only the facts as presented, and remain impartial.

Balance: how do I protect the fragile nature of Truth?

Each evening as I reflected on that day's experiences, I pondered the nature of our fragile relationships... especially as we respond to the discord in our world.  In many ways, I do not listen without prejudging what is being said or what I have seen.  I want to ask my questions or tell you my answers!  It is as if my reality might burst if I am not actively controlling the conversation.

By Day 5 the cases had been presented, and it was time for us to deliberate.  As we were locked in the jury room, I had to consider:

• What did I hear and think was important?
• Was I willing to consider that others might have heard testimony differently?
• Could I suspend my conclusions and stay open -- unbiased -- until we jointly reached a verdict?

Balance: do I speak without judgment...
as if I am talking about the weather?

The judge's instructions and the voting sheet guided us through the hours of seeking the truth.  We had eight questions to consider: eight answers that we had to agree upon.  It was a unique time: we respectfully listened, openly shared what we had heard, and considered that each person had a piece of the Truth.  We slowly came together.

Though we only needed a 9-3 vote for this civil trial, we had come to 12-0 verdicts on 7 of the 8 questions.  And the final question, the hardest, we reached a verdict of 11-1.

The judge noted after the verdicts were read, how we had experienced something very profound:  it is possible for twelve people to come together and neutrally talk through a technically, complex case, reaching answers that satisfied the admonition to seek Truth through a common understanding of the facts.

This is true dialogue:

• The suspension of conclusions and prejudgements;
• The willingness to come together to listen; and
•  The ability to speak neutrally about our own experiences, knowing that we individually do not have all of the facts.

 
Jury duty or jury service?  Instead of an Either-Or question, seeking only one answer, I would suggest that we consider a Both-And response:

It is our duty to serve one another.

May this week provide opportunities to suspend judgement, a willingness to listen, and the challenge to speak neutrally.

Larry Gardepie

Dialogue San Diego Consulting

(click on link for website)