Philosopher Quizzed For Cop-Case Jury

A Yale PhD student was asked on the witness stand if he could take a firm and fair stand in a trial of cop against cops.

“What is … ​‘fair’?” the graduate student responded to attorneys as jury selection kicked off in a case that will test whether top cops can be held accountable for seeking to retaliate against alleged whistleblowers.

“Not to be pedantic,” continued Andrew, who researches 19th- and 20th-century literature, queer cinema, histories of sexuality, pornographic studies, critical theory and philosophy. He asked not to be identified by his last name. 

The sixth-floor courtroom, concerned with binaries like right and wrong and biased and unbiased, was just a ​“bizarre environment,” he deduced.

Andrew was one of 25 potential jurors selected for schooling in Jury Duty 101 Tuesday, as attorneys began questioning local residents about their beliefs and biases in deciding whom to accept or reject to render a verdict in a police misconduct turned free speech retaliation case.

The pending trial centers around a lawsuit filed in 2021 against the town of Stratford by Anthony Zona, who served for 24 years in the New Haven Police Department before joining the Stratford force a decade back. In the suit, Zona claimed his bosses retaliated against him because of a rumor that Zona had disclosed information about perpetrators of cellblock abuse to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

The FBI requested evidence from the department after a suspect that Zona had arrested for potential involvement in a shooting was later found so badly injured in his jail cell that he was placed in a hospital’s intensive care unit. According to Zona, a group of cops who had reportedly gone to that cell to confront the suspect about covering his room’s video camera later accused Zona of telling on them to the bureau.

Four months after that incident, in July of 2021, the department sought to suspend Zona for 15 days without pay for an alleged act of rudeness to his superior, which Zona claimed was excessive punishment in response to the belief that he had acted against his colleagues.

Zona has maintained that anyone who might have reported such behavior should be protected by the First Amendment and the state’s Police Accountability Act.

On Tuesday, Zona, represented by New Haven civil rights attorney John R. Williams, filed into the 235 Church Street state courthouse alongside Stratford Police Chief Joseph McNeil and Berchem Moses law firm partners Bryan LeClerc and Ray Rigat.

Then commenced a long day of questioning potential jurors about their jobs, personal lives, favorite TV shows and thoughts on cops, while educating them about the rules and realities of serving on a jury.

The plaintiff and defendant each had the opportunity to reject up to five jurors each — as they ostensibly set out to select an audience that would be maximally sensitive to their respective sides.

Some individuals were easily axed on the spot.

“I don’t like cops. Especially Stratford cops. I’ve been arrested twice and they treated me badly – they smashed my glasses!” one man declared when asked about his relationship with the police. ​“I’ve been in prison several times, unfortunately. Just being in this court is driving me crazy. And it’s my birthday!” 

All attorneys agreed immediately: Set the cop-hater free and let him enjoy his special day.

“I wanted him on the jury!” Chief McNeil lamented jokingly as the man rushed out the door. 

When Yale grad student Andrew reached the hot seat for questioning, the Q&A took a turn towards philosophical colloquium. 

“How do you feel about serving on a jury?” Williams asked Andrew. 

“I mean, I don’t know. I guess I’d rather not. I’d rather use my time for other things. Also, I don’t like all of this,” Andrew replied.

“We’re aware it’s a burden. It’s kind of like paying your taxes,” the 82-year-old lawyer said. Or like dealing with the draft, he added, for those on the older side. ​“You kinda just gotta suck it up.”

Andrew noted how the court showed him and his peers a brief video about the importance of an objective jury. What a ​“paradox,” he said, given that every individual hosts unconscious biases.

Might Andrew have any biases that would affect his ability to weigh in fairly for a court case? Williams followed up.

“Frankly, I don’t believe bias and prejudice can be bracketed out in full,” Andrew said. It’s not as though jurors are simply ​“blank slates,” he said. 

So, Williams said, ​“what’s on your slate?”

“Education. Opinions. Politics. History,” Andrew responded.

Well, Williams said, in this case ​“we’ve got a bunch of white males on both sides. And they’re all cops.” There may, at least, be the disparate dynamic of employee versus employer.

Yes, Andrew said. ​“There’s bias there too.”

“You’re smart,” Williams observed. ​“You remind me of my grandson.”

So, Williams wrapped up, would cops against cops pose an issue of bias for Andrew?

“I guess not,” Andrew said.

The labor dynamic? Not really.

What about free speech?

“I guess I have complicated feelings about free speech — the concept gets bandied about,” Andrew said. 

“It’s an issue on most campuses these days,” William acknowledged. He offered more context: ​“The issue here is an alleged perception that Tony here is a whistleblower. Any issues with that?” 

“No, I don’t think so,” Andrew slowly concluded.

Then attorney Rigat stood up.

“Now, I’m intrigued,” he said.

What topics and questions is Andrew investigating while at Yale? Who are his favorite authors? Rigat wanted to know. 

“This could get complicated,” Andrew said, taking a moment to consider how to describe a final paper he’s been working towards writing.

The underlying question he’s examining, he said, is ​“what kinds of political experiences are available to different people at different moments in time.”

He’s been reading 18th century novels recently, he added, like Samuel Richardson’s Pamela. Everyone ​“hates” that book, he said, but he enjoyed it, even though it’s ​“quite a claustrophobic story.” 

So, Rigat continued, ​“is the concept of implicit bias something you’ve studied in school?” 

Not from a psychological perspective, Andrew said. ​“I just don’t think it’s the obligation of the scholar to remove bias. Maybe that’s just my field.” 

“I think I understand that,” Rigat said. ​“What do you think are some of your implicit biases?”

“I don’t know. I guess the kind of biases that come with leftist politics.”

So, Rigat said, briefly explaining how lawsuits and trials come about and play out, might making ​“fair” judgements about the parties be on the table for Andrew? 

“What does that mean?” Andrew wondered aloud. ​“What is fair?”

“I grade my students’ papers and I try to be fair,” he continued. But his students, on the other hand, retort that his opinion is simply ​“subjective.”

If placed on a jury of six people with differing perspectives, could Andrew determine and articulate a decision of guilty or not guilty regardless of his peers’ decisions?

“I can express my opinions — if I want to,” Andrew replied.

Rigat and LeClerc opted for the privacy of the hallway to discuss Andrew’s statements while Andrew was sent to a deliberation room.

“I want him,” Williams mouthed to Zona.

LeClerc returned and asked Williams for his take.

“I accept” the juror, he said.

“We will exercise a challenge,” LeClerc declared. 

In other words, the colloquium had ended, and the student would not continue to the trial. Andrew could pass over jury duty and work on his term paper instead.

By the end of the day, eight individuals, including two alternates, were selected to make up the jury. Berchem Moses challenged four candidates otherwise accepted by Williams. 

The trial is scheduled to begin on Jan. 30.