By ELLIOT GURIAN

Ed Green is fulfilling one of his civic responsibilities this week. He will be serving jury duty in Pike County. After over 47 years they finally caught up to him. It's not as though he was trying to avoid them. He was simply never called until now.

When he lived in New York City, he was aware that potential jurors were taken from motor vehicle and voter registration records. He is not sure how they do it in Pennsylvania. In any case, he was called for the first time.

He has appeared in court before. A few times as an expert witness, once to argue a NYC parking ticket and once as a guy who really wasn't the responsible party in that auto accident where the other guy cut in front of him and he clipped the other guy's rear bumper with his front one despite his best effort to avoid contact, I swear Your Honor.

Ed actually would like to serve on a jury. He isn't like those who ignore summonses or think of them as an invitation that you may decline. But, as is the American tradition, he did try to get out of it. He told me, "Anyone not smart enough to get out of jury duty deserves the couple of bucks they pay you."

What was Ed's excuse? He pleaded that he is the sole owner of a business that needs him. (Or so he would like to think.) And, as it turns out, this week is a very busy week for him with an important deadline on the 15th. The powers that be did not buy that one. What do they care if he has to go into the office each evening after serving and burn the midnight oil? He almost hopes he dozes off during a case and someone asks him why he can't stay awake.

He had some other ideas for ways to avoid service. Perhaps he could have worn a t-shirt that said "Fry The Bum." Or, maybe he could have sat in the corner just mumbling to himself.

He and I were speculating on the kinds of cases he could be asked to help decide. We thought that drunk driving is a good possibility. Ed never drinks. Never ever. And he is somewhat intolerant of people who drink enough to impair their faculties. Heaven help the drunk who needs Ed's help. He probably won't get it.

Other prospects include drug possession and selling as well as domestic abuse. Here are two other offenses that Ed has little tolerance for. He has never taken any non-prescription drugs and has never hit another person in anger. (Those occasional swats to his kids' behinds were not in anger. They were done to teach them important lessons.)

Make no mistake, Ed believes in our judicial system. Having your fate decided by a jury of your peers is a basic yet remarkable concept. Those who came up with it had the right idea. But, who exactly are our peers? Ed foresees his guilt or innocence being decided someday by a drunk who just beat his wife.

How does one go into a case with a truly open mind? Are we really expected to check our past knowledge and experiences at the door? I don't think it works that way. Our prejudices, based on what we learned as children and adults, are always with us. However, what we need to do when deciding a case is to force all of that to the background. Then we can look at the facts as they are presented and decide. I believe that intelligence and the ability to think (no, they are not the same things) are the qualities most needed by a juror.

Do jurors have to be geniuses? Of course not. That is a very good thing according to Ed. He doesn't have much confidence in the intelligence of the average person. He heard about someone who asked his town to remove a particular Deer Crossing sign from near his house. When asked why he said, "Too many deer were being hit by cars and I don't want them to cross there anymore."

Then there is the Taco Bell clerk who, when asked for a taco with minimal lettuce, replied, "Sorry, we only have iceberg." Ed Green himself once handed a Kennedy half-dollar to a cashier at the Grand Union as part of his payment for a purchase. The woman, apparently in her 30's or 40's asked, holding up the coin, "How much is this worth?"

As far as the ability to think is concerned, Ed is not very confident in what he will find in his fellow jurors. He looks at the way society gets its news these days. Sound bites and MTV do not make for deep thinkers. And look at the ever-present political polls. They seem to favor the candidate who appears most frequently on television. They seesaw back and forth every day. It is not possible that the candidates actually do or say things to cause this. The culprits have to be pictures in the news or a couple of words they've heard.

Ed will do what most every juror does - he will listen to the facts, listen to the judge's instructions and render a reasonable verdict based on the evidence. I know he will, but don't ask me why.