The summons

So I've received a jury summons. I go in tomorrow. I've received one before, but as I was in school in Texas, I was unable to return to my county in CO and so was able to apply for "postponement."

Anyway, I'm sort of excited as I've never done this before, and I've heard that initially it's sort of boring and so you should bring a book. So I'll get paid for leisure reading, which is nice. But more more interesting to you, fanbase (or so I think) are the 12 Angry Men-like fantasies in which I have indulged over the past couple of days. I could be the juror who stands up for truth and justice! The one who holds out against the other eleven, because guilt must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"!

Or, conversely, I could be the juror who says "Heck, yes, the defendant is guilty, you bunch of idiots!" Only I wouldn't actually say that, because I don't tend toward angry. I'm really more passive-agressive. I seethe in silence.

And really, I think it's fairly uncommon now for juries to be made up solely of men or solely of women, so we'd need a new title. Assuming that the other eleven jurors have my same emotion, it'd have to be something like 12 Silently Seething Persons, which admittedly doesn't have the same punch as 12 Angry Men.

I must now jump back momentarily to getting paid to read bit. The law dictates that my workplace must pay for the first three days of jury service, but after that, I'm eligible for for recompense from the state, which is a whopping $50/day. My employee manual indicates that they will not pay for jury service beyond the three days required by law, which some employers do. I can't pay my bills on $50/day. So while I am looking forward to the experience, I don't want it to last beyond three days. I don't think murder trials are resolved in three days, ever.

Or maybe the O.J. Simpson trial has tainted my perception. Eh.

But nevertheless, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable in applying the death sentence, anyway, which could disqualify me in a murder case. So, with those constraints--the passive-agressiveness, the coed aspect, the necessity of an "easy" case that can be resolved in three days--the synopsis of 12 Silently Seething Persons will go something like this:

Using grunts and the body language of crossed arms, one juror attempts to convince the rest of the jury that further discussion is necessary in the case of a man accused of bicycle theft.

A scene in part:

JUROR 1 gathers up and flips through the votes.

JUROR 1: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, same . . . same . . .

JUROR 1 flips through several votes.

JUROR 1: Well, it looks like we're unanimous--

JUROR 1 pauses, frowns, then looks at rest of jury.

JUROR 1: Okay, who's the one who put in the "not guilty" vote?

AMANDA crosses arms over chest.

JUROR 8: Oh, come on! I have to get home. I'm have chili in my slow cooker, and I know I can't count on my husband to take care of it. Speak up!

AMANDA slowly raises hand while staring at the table. Her other arm remains crossed against her chest.

JUROR 12 huffs.

JUROR 12: Well, do you mind telling us why you think the defendant is not guilty?

AMANDA grunts.

Yup. I already smell my Oscar for Best Screenplay Ripped Off Another Screenplay That Was Based on a Regular Play. If only I had a mantel to put it on.