Jury Duty

midlifeflyer said:
Sorry, but I gotta tell this story. When I was actively praciin criminal law, I got alled for jury duty.

i suspect not being selected foreman is common when lawyers and judges end up on juries.
Click to expand...
I would imagine that they would not want to be foreman even if it were offered, in order to avoid any appearance of undue influence.
 
Palmpilot said:
I would imagine that they would not want to be foreman even if it were offered, in order to avoid any appearance of undue influence.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean. Undue influence for someone to challenge the verdict, probably not. If one of the lawyers was worried about that, they would have used a peremptory (free) challenge to get rid of the judge/lawyer altogether. (In my case, when we had that post-trial group discussion, my question to both lawyers was, "what were you thinking?")

Based on that one experience as a juror, I think it's more about the dynamics of the jury itself - not appearing to the other jurors to be in a position of authority with the ability to guide the discussion.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Depends what you mean. Undue influence for someone to challenge the verdict, probably not. If one of the lawyers was worried about that, they would have used a peremptory (free) challenge to get rid of the judge/lawyer altogether. (In my case, when we had that post-trial group discussion, my question to both lawyers was, "what were you thinking?")

Based on that one experience as a juror, I think it's more about the dynamics of the jury itself - not appearing to the other jurors to be in a position of authority with the ability to guide the discussion.
Click to expand...
I think the latter is more along the lines of what I was thinking of.
 
I start checking in in 2 weeks...........

At least my company pays for it if i have to attend a trial. Never have been called for a trial though in my 40 years of eligibility. This may the one.
 
steingar said:
I have been called exactly once. It was for a medical malpractice suit, apparently the widow was accusing the doc of missing the spot. I told the judge I was a lung cancer researcher and an arrogant sob, all true in fact. He sent me home.
Click to expand...

I would not give up the opportunity to rightfully defend an innocent person, such as it appears you are suggesting in this case - the system needs jurors like you. Too many knowledgeable people get ‘off’, leaving the jury with a bunch of mouth-breathers.
Or... imagine if you were one of the principals in a trial, wouldn’t you want ‘you’ (or someone similar) in that box?
 
First time I got called on a panel right before lunch. We were instructed to go to lunch and then come back to municipal court across town. Get there and they explain the case. An older male oral surgeon was accused of groping a younger female patient while sedated. It was clear the dentist was digging in his heals to save his reputation and taking it to trial. Equally sure that he had done something wrong was the victim and the city, as they had reduced the charge to the lowest possible misdemeanor assault to try to convict. They filled the jury before they got to me, so I was excused. Don’t know how it turned out.

Six months later wife comes home from dentist and says he tells her she needs to have her wisdom teeth pulled and he gave her a referral to an oral surgeon. I look at name. Same guy.

She did not report any impropriety.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would not give up the opportunity to rightfully defend an innocent person, such as it appears you are suggesting in this case - the system needs jurors like you. Too many knowledgeable people get ‘off’, leaving the jury with a bunch of mouth-breathers.
Or... imagine if you were one of the principals in a trial, wouldn’t you want ‘you’ (or someone similar) in that box?
Click to expand...
Most of the jurors in my cases have been intelligent. Some have been professionals. Some have even been generally knowledgeable about the subjects involved in the lawsuit, I always preferred it that way.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would not give up the opportunity to rightfully defend an innocent person, such as it appears you are suggesting in this case - the system needs jurors like you. Too many knowledgeable people get ‘off’, leaving the jury with a bunch of mouth-breathers.
Or... imagine if you were one of the principals in a trial, wouldn’t you want ‘you’ (or someone similar) in that box?
Click to expand...
The judge specifically asked if anyone had experience like mine, and did naught but tell the truth. To be honest, the way our jury system works I don't belong on a jury like that. They want folks who are tabula rasa, who will impartially weigh the evidence and impartially make a decision.

To be honest, in technical cases like aircraft accidents and malpractice suits this is a disaster. The jury listens to technical experts on one side and then the other, and decides who's right by who's got the bigger hair. Personally I think such cases should be decided by the experts, but that's just me.
 
steingar said:
The judge specifically asked if anyone had experience like mine, and did naught but tell the truth. To be honest, the way our jury system works I don't belong on a jury like that. They want folks who are tabula rasa, who will impartially weigh the evidence and impartially make a decision.

To be honest, in technical cases like aircraft accidents and malpractice suits this is a disaster. The jury listens to technical experts on one side and then the other, and decides who's right by who's got the bigger hair. Personally I think such cases should be decided by the experts, but that's just me.
Click to expand...
It's definitely not just you. and some states have gone part way in some cases. The one I am most familiar with is the Massachusetts medical malpractice tribunal. not because I practiced in that area (I didn't) but because it was big news when I was still in law school in 1976. The plaintiffs must present evidence of liability to a tribunal consulting of a judge, an attorney, and a provider in that field of medicine. A decision is made whether there is enough to go forward, not a huge hurdle but one nevertheless. If the tribunal says no, the case can still go forward if the plaintiff post a bind to cover costs. It really not that large but the goal is probably more of a wake-up call than an attempt to prevent people from getting to court. These cases are expensive to prosecute so a panel of experts in law and medicine has some impact. The Mass Medical Society estimates about 16% of the cases are culled out by the process.
 
I got called for jury duty about 30 years ago (not the only time) and the first 12 names pulled out of the hat were empaneled as the jury. They didn't excuse any of us (I was the first one drawn). Once we had been sworn in one of the lawyers (might have been the judge) looked at the other two and said, "Do you realize what we just did?"

It was a simple eviction for non-payment of rent. We sat through a day and a half of the defendant's witnesses contradicting each other (heck, the defendant contradicted himself) and everybody on the plaintiff's side telling the same story. I was elected foreman and we spent more time in the jury room eating the donuts left for us by the judge that we did deliberating the case. Who were you going to believe? We found for the plaintiff, 100%.
 
Was called a long time ago on a capital punishment case. Was let off due to having some very expensive pre-paid non-refundable airline tickets to a vacation destination. Judge didn’t have to do it, but the pool was still massive after being about 300 on day one.

Talking to the judge was round three. Day one was a massive questionnaire about mostly what you thought of the death penalty. Day two was a video about court procedures and evidence and such and more questions asking if you could stick to the evidence, etc.

Guy was convicted and sentenced to death. Last I checked he was trying various things to get off death row, including suing his attorneys who did appear to maybe not have represented him well.

Meanwhile. He had shot two college kids point blank daytime as an execution because they were about to testify against him for drug stuff and another killing. Bad dude.

Was enlightening — at least as far as jury selection for that sort of trial.
 
I've been called for jury duty three times. I've never even made it to the courthouse. I was released on the "call the night before" process.
Margy just got her summons for our local court.
 
Just tell them you are logical, objective and have integrity. Or tell them you are a college Professor. You will be excused, gar-on-teed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top