When summoned for jury service, jurors appear for the length of one trial or one day. The majority of jurors complete their service in one day.At this particular visit to the Orange County Courthouse, I was selected for jury duty. In order to report for jury duty, potential jurors such as me had to arrive at the courthouse for check-in at 8:00 am. At that time all jurors are screened via metal detectors and asked to proceed to the jury assembly room. Upon entering the jury assembly room, the juror check-in process was occurring. Later on all the potential jurors for the day had been seated, and welcomed. A clerk of the court explained in detail and gave a briefing on what the day would consist of. In Orange County, jurors are assigned a number of which, when a judge is ready to hear a case on the docket and a jury is needed he would at that time request for a jury pool, he will then alert the clerk to pick a pool of numbers-which is done through a lottery system. A lottery of numbers (12) is selected. Those twelve individuals are then walked up to the courtroom for that particular judge, were further jury selection will take place. Going forward, my juror number was selected in the lottery pool, and was then taken to the courtroom. It was then at that time the pool of potential jurors were seated according to our numbers, and given a set of instructions from the judge. As a brief, he touched bases on the case which was at hand-DUI and what the pool of jurors could expect from the voir dire process. It was at that time was the judge, the defendant, the State of Florida, and counsel was introduced. At that time both the State and the defendant’s legal counsel briefed the pool on the DUI case and began asking the potential jurors questions in regards to the case. This purpose is to pick the best candidates to sit on the jury in order to offer the defendant a fair trial. As a result some of the questions asked were as follows: By show of hands, who have been issued a written citation by the local law enforcement? Have anyone ever filed a lawsuit? Are there any teachers, doctors, or lawyers in the potential jury pool?, How do you feel about those who drive under the influence?. It was then brought to the jury pool’s attention that when selecting potential jurors that counsel pays close attention to a person’s body language, the tone of their voice, and the way in which the questions are being answered. After being questioned for about 45 minutes to an hour, the judge had dismissed the potential jury pool to step outside of the courtroom, while the counsel had discussed their recommendations on who should sit on the jury. Once being called back into the courtroom, seven people were asked to sit the jury. The judge picked one as an alternate in case one of the six jurors had an unforeseen emergency and wouldn’t be able to sit the trial. At the beginning of the trial, we the jury heard opening statements. During the opening statements the defendant’s counsel and the State proved to the jury the type of evidence it had against Williams. Thereafter the state called its first witness the patrol deputy. The state of Florida presented circumstantial evidence of the mounted dash cam video in the DUI patrol car. The video in part displays Williams’ vehicle being apprehended and the subject pulling over. After pulling Williams over the Orange County deputy asked her a series of questions and asked her to consent to a variety of sobriety exercises. The circumstantial evidence showed Williams have difficulty with some of the exercises and having difficulty performing them due the instructions not being clear. The video then goes on to show Williams being arrested and led to the patrol car. The State of Florida asked the patrol deputy to explain in detail how he pulled over Williams and what was his reasoning for doing so. The State of Florida, then called up its expert witness in the case, which consisted of two DUI technicians who observed Williams at the center for a period of twenty minutes after performing the breath analyzer testing. Both witnesses explain that for the period of twenty minutes the defendant was asleep, however once brought into the center for observation the defendant did appear to have glassy/see through eyes, and her breath reeked of alcohol. It is important to note, before either of the witnesses was allowed to give there testimonies, they were introduced by the state asking their names and what was their profession. It was also asked how long had they been a DUI technician and how long the deputy had been a patrol deputy on the DUI unit. After the witnesses gave their account the defense counsel was allowed to do a cross examination of the state’s witnesses. At this particular point in the trial the defendant’s attorney was allowed to question both the patrol deputy and the DUI technicians in order to further prove to the jury that the defendant was not drunk on the night of the incident. The defendant’s counsel asked for the video to be replayed and stopped the video at various points to show inconsistences with the state’s case. Shortly, thereafter the state decided to rest its case after the three witnesses was interviewed and allowed to give their account of what transpired the night of the arrest. The defendants counsel then presented its evidence showing that while some of the exercises rendered where not performed correctly it did not in fact show that Williams was impaired. Lastly, it was noted that while being observed for the twenty minutes, Williams did blow into the breath analyzer, but did not produce a reading over the legal limit. It was then at that time Williams then went to sleep for the remainder of the twenty minutes of observation time. In the closing arguments, the state and Williams’s attorney gave key facts towards the evidence as to why the defendant should be found guilty and why the case should be dismissed. At that moment, the case was handed over to the jury. The judge then gave specific instructions and defined key terms in order to bring back a verdict that was fair and concise. The judge read the jury the jury instructions that are specific to the DUI case. These are the guidelines that we the jury had use to determine their verdict. After which were given the case and set forth to deliberate- which we deliberated for approximately 30 minutes; then returning with a not guilty verdict. The reasons for which the verdict was return as such, was due to inconsistences in the arresting officer’s testimony, the video which displayed Williams doing the field sobriety exercises and the testimony from the DUI technicians. As a conclusion, I learned a great deal of information in this process and even got to take place in the behind the scenes of a jury selection for a trial. While the day was quite long, and the trial lasting outside of normal business hours, I was delighted to be able to serve on such a case. Being able to adequately work through a DUI case and look at all the circumstantial evidence presented and being able to pick through the State’s objective and the defendant’s objective the case was able to be resolved in the proper manner.