Jury Duty Question

PPC1052 said:
I don't do criminal work, so I may be mistaken, but I don't believe a grand jury necessarily meets every day like you would if you are on a trial jury. I think you are just on call for when you are wanted. So I would not anticipate that you are necessarily there for 6 weeks straight.
Click to expand...
My boss got grand jury duty in NJ. If I recall he did every Wednesday for weeks (the GJ may have met other days with a different panel).
 
wanttaja said:
Called for jury duty twice in 36 years.

First case was one of those "Can you be impartial even if you don't agree with the law" cases: Charge was "Delivering a substance in lieu of a controlled substance," e.g., guy tried to sell fake dope to an undercover cop. Turned into a "Twelve Angry Men" case. One juror honestly felt the Government hadn't proved its case, another had a law degree and insisted the evidence was inadmissable (during selection, we were only asked if we had been admitted to the bar, and this guy apparently hadn't).
Click to expand...
Interesting but not all that surprising. The reason the prosecutor kept me on in the case I mentioned earlier was because of something very similar to that.
 
midlifeflyer said:
wanttaja said:
...another had a law degree and insisted the evidence was inadmissable (during selection, we were only asked if we had been admitted to the bar, and this guy apparently hadn't).
Click to expand...
Interesting but not all that surprising. The reason the prosecutor kept me on in the case I mentioned earlier was because of something very similar to that.
Click to expand...

Well, at least your prosecutor knew about it. The one in my case didn't... he called me after the case to get some insight into what had happened during deliberations, and was very surprised when I told him. "Didn't I ask everyone whether they'd been admitted to the bar....?" Had to point out that he hadn't asked about whether anyone had a law degree...

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Well, at least your prosecutor knew about it. The one in my case didn't... he called me after the case to get some insight into what had happened during deliberations, and was very surprised when I told him. "Didn't I ask everyone whether they'd been admitted to the bar....?" Had to point out that he hadn't asked about whether anyone had a law degree...
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it was legal for lawyers to ask jurors these sorts of questions after a case. It would be good insight for them to do better in future cases. Did they ask if it was ok for him to contact you?
 
If you must answer an uncomfortable question, try to answer it in the way that will be most uncomfortable for the lawyer too. Yes, they are people inside too, but if they're going to ask personal questions, they deserve to get very, very personal answers.
 
wanttaja said:
Well, at least your prosecutor knew about it. The one in my case didn't... he called me after the case to get some insight into what had happened during deliberations, and was very surprised when I told him. "Didn't I ask everyone whether they'd been admitted to the bar....?" Had to point out that he hadn't asked about whether anyone had a law degree...

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Well, he didn't "know" what would happen in the jury room. There was a subject that had been excluded by the judge before the trial started (a motion in limine for the aficionados). But it was a subject that most people would find interesting. As it turned out a juror asked about it during the trial - in Colorado, jurors are permitted, with controls, to ask questions of witnesses. The prosecutor was worried the jury would speculate on the answer and read me as someone who would try to convince them not to speculate on the evidence that wasn't there.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I didn't realize it was legal for lawyers to ask jurors these sorts of questions after a case. It would be good insight for them to do better in future cases. Did they ask if it was ok for him to contact you?
Click to expand...
It's done in some places by some judges. In the trial where I was a juror, for example, the judge invited the jury members to come back into the jury room to meet with him and the two lawyers. Completely optional but more than half of us stayed.

There are things limiting a lawyer's ability to interview jurors one-on-one. Worries about intimidation, etc. But the strictness of the rules varies.
 
luvflyin said:
It would probably lead to everyone going home and them having to start over with a new jury pool.
Click to expand...

God forbid we put intelligent and informed people on a jury lol
 
I was jury foreman on a B&E and assault case a few years ago. During juror questioning, the defense attorney asked me a question of the form, "If the law is that such and such,...."

I replied, somewhat skeptically, "Are you telling me that is, in fact, the law?"

The lawyer had barely opened his mouth when the judge spoke up and said, "No, he most certainly is not. Telling you what the law says is my job, and that's why he's going to withdraw his question and get off this line of questioning."

I thought that was going to get me dismissed, but nope, I was in. Not too bad; only lasted a day and was an interesting experience.

At the time, jury summons went to registered voters only. That's since been changed to draw from the driver's license list, but the jury I was on turned out to be 100% white college-educated professionals. I'm sure the defense attorney would have preferred otherwise, but most of the jury pool looked that way.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's done in some places by some judges. In the trial where I was a juror, for example, the judge invited the jury members to come back into the jury room to meet with him and the two lawyers. Completely optional but more than half of us stayed.

There are things limiting a lawyer's ability to interview jurors one-on-one. Worries about intimidation, etc. But the strictness of the rules varies.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks. It makes sense. If I were a lawyer (especially the one on the losing side) I'd want to know from the jury's perspective what I could've done better.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Seems during the selection phase there are always these questions that both legal teams ask you to kind of feel you out and see if you'll be for them or against them.
My question is do I have to actually answer them ? How about I say something like "Your honor I would like to decline to answer that question for reasons of personal privacy, I will however be happy to serve as a juror".

I mean it's not like I'm an actual sworn witness or even part of the trial yet at that phase. Why should I be forced to tell a room full of strangers my life's story ? Worse - why should I have to sit thru theirs ?!!!
Click to expand...

The judge will ask you if your comfortable in speaking with them in chambers regarding your concern. From there they'll decide weather or not your fit, and if so will bring the lawyers to hear your tale...

We have a friend the was court reporter for the county and her husband a EMT... I keep telling them they should write a book or a movie script on some of the stories they have.. as he says.. well the first question I ask in that situation is can tell you tell how ya get here?
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
I didn't realize it was legal for lawyers to ask jurors these sorts of questions after a case. It would be good insight for them to do better in future cases. Did they ask if it was ok for him to contact you?
Click to expand...
Once the jury has been dismissed, I don't suppose there are any legal issues with it. The guy *did* ask whether I minded answering questions.

After we were dismissed, I saw our two holdout jurors talking with the defense counsel. This was in the hallway outside the court, so I figure it wouldn't have been as public if there were any restrictions on it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
midlifeflyer said:
I usually had pretty intelligent jurors.
Click to expand...

But not thinkers, I mean when's the last time you've heard about a unconstitutional victimless trial (drugs, guns, etc) getting nullified?

Seems to me they really want people who can think, but not further than a few feet, otherwise we wouldn't be in some of the trouble we are in as a nation, we wouldn't have some of the BS laws we have if people just refused to find people guilty of these "crimes" and the government wouldnt think they could get away with some of the crap they get away with.
 
midlifeflyer said:
True. They rarely allow criminals to serve as jurors.
Click to expand...


Thank you, you just gave me my next out... 'well your honor, truly this is not a jury of the defendant's peers, we're not criminals like them."

How fast do you think I will be dismissed?
 
My last Harris County jury duty adventure:
Judge (who is retired but substituting while other judge is out) talks to the potential jurors for over 2 hours. Yes, over 2 hours about his retirement, golf and TV and a bunch of other nonsense. This is his idea of an ice breaker. The idiots sitting around me are eating this up like it's summer camp. I'm taking a hit because I'm paid hourly and missing work. Prosecution does their ice breaker, 15 minutes. Defense apparently wants to try the case in voir dior so we sit there for another hour listening to him tell his life story/Sunday Johnny Cochran sermon.

Lunch.

Come back and they start asking questions. Periodically I hear the judge yelling at courtroom staff very impatiently and rudely. Prosecution done. Defense starts asking questions. Apparently these jurors have to follow their answer with their life story. The lady in front of me, which apparently this is the most important thing to ever happen to her, has to comment on EVERY freaking thing said.

One lady asks "what if something is said, how do you take it back?". Judge instructs that "it's the law, you must disregard". She says she cant. Judge gets irate and ask EACH FREAKING PERSON in panel if they can "follow the law and disregard". He gets to me and I say "No". He blows up and says "you should've told me this earlier". I say "you didn't ask". He flies off the handle and I laugh at him. The lady in front of me looks at me and laughs saying "oh you're really not getting picked now". GOOD, you idiot!

Never again will I waste my time with that garbage.

I went back and looked at the court docs. My name was scratched off by the defense. Funny. The kid was convicted of murder.
 
James331 said:
But not thinkers, I mean when's the last time you've heard about a unconstitutional victimless trial (drugs, guns, etc) getting nullified?

Seems to me they really want people who can think, but not further than a few feet, otherwise we wouldn't be in some of the trouble we are in as a nation, we wouldn't have some of the BS laws we have if people just refused to find people guilty of these "crimes" and the government wouldnt think they could get away with some of the crap they get away with.
Click to expand...
I understand your point about jury nullification and its value, but your idea of a BS law just might be someone else's idea of a wise one. We like to think of jury nullification as a positive but thought history there are probably as many examples most folks would consider pretty bad as examples the same folks would think of as being good.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Thank you, you just gave me my next out... 'well your honor, truly this is not a jury of the defendant's peers, we're not criminals like them."

How fast do you think I will be dismissed?
Click to expand...
I love the folks who come up with great ways to get out of jury duty, as though they wouldn't be rejected by just being themselves :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
I understand your point about jury nullification and its value, but your idea of a BS law just might be someone else's idea of a wise one. We like to think of jury nullification as a positive but thought history there are probably as many examples most folks would consider pretty bad as examples the same folks would think of as being good.
Click to expand...

So let the people decide.
 
James331 said:
So let the people decide.
Click to expand...

Yes, but on a jury it can be just one person deciding.

For example, a jury may unanimously convict someone of a capital crime, but then during the sentencing phase it only takes one juror who disagrees with the death penalty law to prevent it from being imposed.
 
James331 said:
So let the people decide.
Click to expand...
They do. That's what jury nullification is. And when it is applicable, at least one lawyer is pushing hard for a nullification jury.

We will have to disagree that the people deciding is always a good thing or what this country is supposed to or should stand for.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They do. That's what jury nullification is. And when it is applicable, at least one lawyer is pushing hard for a nullification jury.

We will have to disagree that the people deciding is always a good thing or what this country is supposed to or should stand for.
Click to expand...

And yet even mentioning the word will get you off jury duty, and people handing out flyers about it infront of courts have landed them in cuffs.

The system can't pull the crap they pull of people in jury's were informed of their power and their options to stop out of control government.
 
I would be very afraid if my future depended on 12 people that do not know how to get out of jury duty.
 
Called three times, only seated once and after the assault and robbery trial started, one of the jurors recognized the victim from work (didn't know his name or saw him in the courtroom before the trial started). Judge declared a mistrial because no alternates were seated so we all went home. I checked later and the accused plea bargained out of another trial.

Cheers
 
luvflyin said:
Are you kidding? A hung jury is as good as aquital
Click to expand...
And are YOU kidding? A jury of PoOA members would render you guilty... The 3 weeks you'd have to wait to hear the verdict would be due to the argument in the jurors room about HOW you were guilty.

Two jurors would start arguing with each other over what inconsequential tangential thing they both have passing knowledge of.

mscard would be looking at boobs on his phone.

Eman would be sulking in the corner because the judge told him to stop cursing loud enough to be heard in the courtroom next door.

Anarchy, I tells ya.
 
ircphoenix said:
And are YOU kidding? A jury of PoOA members would render you guilty... The 3 weeks you'd have to wait to hear the verdict would be due to the argument in the jurors room about HOW you were guilty.

Two jurors would start arguing with each other over what inconsequential tangential thing they both have passing knowledge of.
Click to expand...

That would be Tom and Glenn?

Cheers
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I didn't realize it was legal for lawyers to ask jurors these sorts of questions after a case. It would be good insight for them to do better in future cases. Did they ask if it was ok for him to contact you?
Click to expand...

First and last time I served, I wanted to call the judge afterwards and ask a bunch of questions to be clear on procedures.

3 week trial for heroin trafficking. One of the jurors refused to believe the police could tell the truth, so we all went home after 3 days of deliberation and not being able to make a ruling.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
I got dibs on foreman
Click to expand...

Actually, the one time I served on a jury I was elected foreman. But,

The first time was in Colorado decades ago. We sat in the jury room and groups of potential jurors were called to various trials. It was a short week (holiday) and when they called my group they excused us all. The defendant had plea bargained to a lessor charge.

The second time was in California, again a number of decades ago. DUI case. The defense attorney was trying the case during jury selection. "The prosecution is going to say that my client was in a part of town that I know none of you would frequent. Can you put that aside and..." They empaneled a jury before they drew my name out of the hat (yes, that's how they did it in Santa Clara County). In the meantime, I was thinking like an engineer and flow charted it quite simply. 1 - at the time of the incident, was the defendant in command of a motor vehicle? If yes, next question. If no, he's innocent, let's go home. 2 - at the time of the incident, was the defendant over the blood alcohol limit? If no, he's innocent, let's go home. If yes, he's guilty, throw the book at him and let's go home. What's all the rest of this nonsense?

The third time as also in California. The first 12 names drawn from the hat wound up being the jury. I was the first. None of us were excused. Once empaneled the judge, or one of the lawyers (I don't remember which) looked at the other two and said, "Do you realize what we just did?" Sounded like they have never empaneled a jury without excusing someone. Anyway, it was a simple eviction for non-payment of rent. A day and a half of testimony. Everyone on the plaintiff's side told the same story. Nobody on the defendant's side told the same story, and the defendant contradicted himself. We retired to deliberate. I was elected foreman. We spent more time eating the donuts the judge left for us in the jury room that we did deliberating. It was open and shut. Boot them out.

The last time was a number of years ago here in Olympia. The judge came to us after we were called into his chambers and apologized for wasting our time. The defendant, once he realized the system was serious about prosecuting him, pled to a lesser charge. The judge indicated that this isn't uncommon. We were dismissed and I went back to work.

The key takeaway I have from these experiences, limited as they are, is that the system is pretty fair. At least, it is where I've lived. It would be difficult to stack a jury and the jurors I've observed seem fairly intelligent. Others may have different experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top