An audience of 12 (plus one alternate)

As a "writer for the ear" I found jury duty last week fascinating for its revelation of the judicial process where the spoken word is crucial.

I was empanelled in a criminal trial (breaking and entering) in which both prosecuting and defense attorneys used some familiar techniques in presenting their arguments.

The lead attorney for the state sought to identify with her audience, adopting a chatty style during the voir dire and leaning on the side rail of the jury box in questioning witnesses, just like a friendly neighbor.

On the other hand, counsel for the defense employed a more formal manner in addressing the court and that included his body language. Every time he rose to address the judge, a witness or the jury, he quite deliberately closed the top and middle buttons of his suit coat. I'm sure this had less to do with covering up his slight paunch than with telling us, "This is a serious matter. I respect the process and especially you the jurors."

The closing arguments displayed other oratorical principles, such as the State's effort to "tie the knot." In the voir dire the lead attorney had defined "beyond reasonable doubt" by adapting the story of the missing cookies and the child with chocolate on his face. Now her colleague ended with, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, clearly the defendant has chocolate on his face."

Even the defense attorney had to smile. Then he rose and buttoned one last time for his summation, following the dictum, "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law." The State's case rested largely on the log generated by a law enforcement GPA device hidden on the defendant's car that placed him at the scene of the crime. Counsel briefly challenged the evidence - "It may tell us where he was but not what he was doing" - but obviously sought more ammunition. So he looked gravely at each juror and asked in an ominous tone, "How do you feel about the government's ability to track your every move?"

The argument was obviously extraneous and the judge said afterward that had it been raised during the trial he would have ordered it stricken. But it was a nice try and now it was the prosecution's turn to smile.

Then the jury retired and before long delivered the verdict: guilty.