This is Hilarious from our friend at Viva El Birds:

http://vivaelbirdos.com/story/2007/6/14/81448/1658

QUOTE

i swear (i am under a juror's oath, after all) the blog played at least an indirect role in dragging me into this mess --- er, i mean qualifying me for this civic duty. during voir dire, i stated that i make my living as a writer; the prosecuting attorney asked me what type of writing i do, and i gave him a quick description of my client base and said, "that's most of it" or something like that. "most of it," he says; "what's the rest of it?" "i also write a blog."

      Q: a blog? [raised eyebrow] about what?
      A: the st louis cardinals baseball team.
      Q: oh. [pause] how do you feel about mark mcgwire being kept out of the hall of fame?
      A: well, i'm not all that interested in the hall. but i do think he cheated with steroids.

i'm not making this up, now; this exchange really took place. (and i'd like to know how the court reporter rendered "mark mcgwire" on that freaky keypad of his.) i think my answer left the prosecutor saying to himself, hell yeah, i'll take this guy on my jury; he's ready to convict the hometown sports hero on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. then the defense attorney gets up there and says:

      Q: mr borowsky, how you can you be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that mcgwire used steroids?
      A: i'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
      Q: but you said that you think he cheated with steroids.
      A: that's right --- i do think he cheated. but mcgwire's not on trial, so the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard doesn't really apply.
      Q: i see. so if you were judging him in a court of law, you'd apply a more rigorous standard of proof before you'd convict him --- is that correct?
      A: yes sir.

so now this guy wants me too; he's telling himself, borowsky will give a guy his day in court, even a guy who might look kinda guilty. but the defense attorney's not quite finished:

      Q: in the interest of full disclosure, i should tell you that i grew up on chicago's north side. [pause] knowing that, do you think you can give my client a fair trial?

all sorts of possible answers raced through my head: ask me on september 30, i'll let you know then. or: your client, yes. but if it were you on trial, probably not. or: that depends; what position does your client play? any one of those flippant answers might have gotten me off the hook; they don't usually like smartasses on juries, do they? but i didn't have the nerve, so rather than give the defense a reason to boot me off the panel i just mumbled some generic affirmative answer. score that one an error; neither side struck me, and as a result i have to shower and wear shoes for the rest of the week.

justice sucks.