To continue this conversation I began about being "open" (and all full of love) after being in a supportive group experience and then being stunned by the stark cold-water-splash-in-the-face of ordinary life----as in being chosen to be on a jury for a trial of two people who, as it turns out, were convicted of intending to sell crystal methamphetamine in our small town. . .

How strange to notice the judge in the case seemed bored and a little irritated, and definitely prejudicial toward the defense attorneys, and then to learn afterward from the prosecuting attorney that the judge's son has had some drug problems and believes that drug abuse should be addressed primarily through social institutions rather than legal ones.

We were all asked----before being chosen as jurors----to put aside such "beliefs" and to be impartial, judging the case before us merely on the evidence shown. The prosecuting attorney was excruciatingly thorough in laying out the evidence: the one-ounce baggie of crystal meth, the five digital scales, the many tiny empty baggies (some of which had drug residue in them), the tiny spoon, the large sums of cash. . .

The defense attorney had little to go on and attempted to draw our sympathy (which he did, but it seemed "irrelevant" in the face of the facts) toward the woman defendant, who---he said---has multiple sclerosis, and she was merely "self-medicating," not selling the stuff. Oh. And what about all those digital scales? The baggies?

Yes. She and her lover were declared guilty of intending to sell this drug. It seemed rather evident, but at one point in our deliberations, I thought that it was possible that it'd be a hung jury, amazingly enough.

And what has continued to disturb me are the various tales associated with this entire trial----not just finding out about the judge's "history," but also listening to the prosecuting attorney's take on how jurors are chosen. (I spoke with the fellow afterward, mainly because he's staying in our neighbor's spare apartment and it was convenient for me to do so, which assuaged my curiosity with little effort on my part, I admit.) That is, young people are avoided (they may sympathize with the defendants), as are people who appear "too smart" (that really made me feel good, since I was chosen!) like college teachers (Hah, I thought; I've taught college classes!). They also avoid therapists (though one did make it in our group, and we deemed him the leader, which came close to being a mistake because he was so intent on being "fair" that he drew out conversations that were entirely beside the point and ended up confusing matters rather than clarifying them).

This is how our system of justice works, and it's not nearly as impartial as we might like to think. The prosecuting attorney talked also of juries with "CSI" people on them, implying that it's almost impossible to get a verdict from them. He also asked whether I'd noticed certain of his and the defense attorney's "techniques," which were, essentially, ways of manipulating the "facts" to portray the story in the way they wished it to appear.

How often does this happen in the media (see my friend's post) and in our own lives----when people are quick to judge based on partial truths? And wouldn't it be awful to be on trial and at the mercy of all of these factors? In my own life, I try to withhold judgment, to have issues resonate in my heart and mind against my experience, knowledge, and feelings to determine truth. But of course there is no one truth except, paradoxically, that we are all one.