The Cranky Old Guy Goes to Court

Kenneth J. Owen
615 John Muir Drive, #D708
San Francisco, CA 94132
Email: kowen98@yahoo.com


Dear Mayor Breed:

My name is Kenneth J. Owen. I am a 65 year old San Francisco native currently living near Lake Merced.

In 2020 I retired from my 30 year career in Silicon Valley as a Business Process Analyst (BPA). My expertise was used to observe various departments within a company, learn their systems and processes, interview the players for their roles, responsibilities, information flow and dependencies, then map out the process (as-is) and make recommendations to management on how to improve any deficiencies (to-be).

I have recently participated in the Jury Selection Process for San Francisco Superior Court, and have included the notes of my experiences and recommendations for process improvement below for your review. As is with most people who are summoned to report, my experience with the process left many things to be desired.


Jury Selection Process
March 7 - 28, 2023

Time Spent
March 07: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 3rd floor, juror orientation, completed questionnaire.
March 16: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, not called.
March 17: No court session.
March 20: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, not called.
March 21: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, not called.
March 22: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, not called.
March 23: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, not called.
March 24: No court session.
March 27: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, called in afternoon session.
March 28: Appeared at 850 Bryant, 2nd floor department 28 for juror interviews, interviewed and dismissed in afternoon session.

Judge Alexandra R. Gordon
The judge was professional, personable, accommodating, and clearly explained answers to any questions.

Interview Process
(Note: all numbers are estimates)

Although the Judge was very clear in her instructions about the length of lunch and session break times, the court was late returning for the start of every session by an average of 10-15 minutes. It appeared that the officers of the court returned at the time requested, but the court then held business behind close doors until they were the ready to call in prospective jurors, further strengthening a negative message as to how the court did not value the time of the potential jurors.

Roll call was done by the court clerk each morning by a call-and-answer method which sometimes took 15 minutes or longer. There were confusing moments during each roll call with many attendance issues needing to be resolved each day. One day 6 people showed up in court and were told that they had been excused via phone and email messages sent the previous day; one session started with a juror being on the day’s roll call but also on the judge’s list as previously excused. The first session roll call (Day 1, 3rd floor orientation) was done by scanning QR codes placed on the notice sent to all prospective jurors. It is unclear why this method is not used for roll call throughout the Juror Selection Process.

The first day of interviews had so many potential jurors scheduled that a group of approximately 30 jurors had to wait in the hallway outside the courtroom when the gallery was at capacity and, as a result, would not hear any of the judges instructions.A group of 20 jurors from the Monday session were dismissed and told to return on Thursday with no reason given for their two-day exemption. Some of those jurors were called for interviews that Thursday ahead of jurors who had been in court all week.

The pacing of the interviews was such that only 12 jurors were interviewed each day, yet the court called a full gallery of potential jurors for each session (aprox. 75-100 people). 

It quickly became clear that most potential jurors were not aware that they would be required to answer questions from counsel in front of such a large audience of their peers, adding to their uneasiness in public speaking. The Judge did offer private counsel for any potential juror who felt uncomfortable delivering private information or concerns.

In doing their due diligence in giving equal time and questions to all potential jurors, counsel for the defendants and prosecution seemed to belabor the interviews of the good citizens whose native language was not English, thereby forcing them to endure their public embarrassment while struggling with the language and basic concepts outlined in the questions.

Recommendations
Though I realize the officers of the court did not design the process they are chartered with facilitating, Judge Gordon, who thanked the prospective jurors each day for their continued patience, would not have to start each day’s session with an apology for the length of the proceedings if the selection process had been designed with any thought of minimizing the impact on the prospective jurors.

Every system and process needs a goal to help measure its success, and I humbly suggest these two goals as a place to start:

Jury Duty Selection Process: Goals and Expectations

For The Defendants: To identify and select citizens best capable of performing an unbiased and fair review of verbal testimony and physical evidence in rendering a verdict in their case.

For The Prospective Jurors: To allow citizens to serve their civic duty by participating in a judicial process that allows for maximum expediency while ensuring minimal disruption to their daily responsibilities with limited impact on their family, community, and place and means of employment.

In Summary
Any sense of civic pride I had about participating in the Jury Selection Process was quickly squashed by the second day of sitting in a crowded courtroom, adding no value to the proceedings, while putting all my business and personal responsibilities on hold. Since I am now semi-retired, I had to bear all costs for my attendance. I had no way to expect how long the juror selection process would be, and as a result, I mis-scheduled and was unable to attend many important business and social events. Though the judge did give an estimate of the trial length (2.5 - 3 months), experiencing the inefficiencies of the Jury Selection Process would leave no one with confidence in the court’s ability to estimate the length of the trial.

As crime in our city continues to worsen and people feel more threatened about their safety and despondent about their lack of power to enlist change, we can no longer afford to disenfranchise citizens by expecting them to participate in an extremely inefficient process that is destroying the very sense of civic duty we seek in prospective jurors. Though I have no background in criminal justice systems, it is readily apparent that the Jury Selection Process as used by the San Francisco Superior Court, with its impact on all those who are asked to participate, either directly or peripherally, is exacerbating this very problem.

It is with all due respect that I submit these notes on my experience, and would gladly accept any offer to discuss these issues and concerns in further detail.


Respectfully,



Kenneth J. Owen

cc: District Attorney Brooke Jenkins
cc: Judge Alexandra R. Gordon
cc: Patricia Guerrero, Chief Justice of California Judicial Branch
cc: Mark Culkins, Interim Court Executive Officer, San Francisco Superior Court
cc: Anne-Christine Massullo, Presiding Judge, San Francisco Superior Court
cc: Millicent Tidwell, Acting Administrative Director, Judicial Council of California
cc: Robert Oyung, Acting Chief Deputy Director, Judicial Council of California
cc: John Wordlaw, Chief Administrative Officer, Judicial Council of California

cc: Supervisor Connie Chan
cc: Supervisor Matt Dorsey
cc: Supervisor Joel Engardio
cc: Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
cc: Supervisor Myrna Melgar
cc: Supervisor Aaron Peskin
cc: Supervisor Dean Preston
cc: Supervisor Hillary Ronen
cc: Supervisor Ahsha Safai
cc: Supervisor Catherine Stefani
cc: Supervisor Shamann Walton