Jury Duty Question

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.

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.
Click to expand...
LOL. And there would be the precedents. In [POA'er] vs [POA'er] the Circuit Kangaroo Court upheld the District courts decision only to be overturned by the Supreme........blah blah
 
midlifeflyer said:
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
Click to expand...

Actually I have been very happy to serve and have done so on two, one DUI and another a law suite involving a utility company and a fire... they both settled before the case was handed to us... The DUI was interesting or should I say....

Lawyer... so what was your reason to execute the traffic stop the day you arrested the defendant

CHP... the defendant (insert last name) was doing 90 mph in 35 mile zone approaching a school zone.

Lawyer... and what lead you to suspect the defendant was under the influence

CHP.. when the defendant (insert last name) opened the window there was a strong smell of marijuana, there was also marijuana cigarette burning in the ashtray, there was an open can of beer in the driver's lap as well the other two occupants had open containers.... it was at that time....

Judge... it is 11:00 AM what do you say we recess for lunch, and can I see consul in chambers

But there was one excuse I heard that had more rolling on the floor...

One gent was happy to serve but he had a little issue that needed to be addressed... he told the court he had a flatulence problem and this may interfere as he would have to excuse himself on a regular basis.. AAMOF, I got the feeling he was very proud of this.. When asked how he dealt with this at work, he reported that he had an office out by the loading dock where it wouldn't bother anyone.. Just about everyone in the courtroom judge include was doing their best to keep a straight face... Poor guy was just being himself:p
 
Ghery said:
2 - at the time of the incident, was the defendant over the blood alcohol limit?
If no, he's innocent, let's go home.
Click to expand...
If that's representative of engineer thinking (which being an engineer, I doubt), then you're the reason we shouldn't have engineers on juries. You're not supposed to prejudge the case like this, especially without any idea of what the law actually is. .08 is the per se point where you are presumed intoxicated without the state needing to present other evidence to support it. It is not the point where if you are under you are presumed sober and innocent of the offense.
 
Ventucky Red said:
Actually I have been very happy to serve and have done so on two, one DUI and another a law suite involving a utility company and a fire... they both settled before the case was handed to us... The DUI was interesting or should I say....

Lawyer... so what was your reason to execute the traffic stop the day you arrested the defendant

CHP... the defendant (insert last name) was doing 90 mph in 35 mile zone approaching a school zone.

Lawyer... and what lead you to suspect the defendant was under the influence

CHP.. when the defendant (insert last name) opened the window there was a strong smell of marijuana, there was also marijuana cigarette burning in the ashtray, there was an open can of beer in the driver's lap as well the other two occupants had open containers.... it was at that time....

Judge... it is 11:00 AM what do you say we recess for lunch, and can I see consul in chambers
Click to expand...
It reminds me of another real "devastating" cross-exam. It was an alcohol DUI and the cross examination followed all the rules of a good one. The lawyer got the deputy to admit all the things he did wrong. Unfortunately, it soon became apparent to the lawyer it was way too easy. The admissions were given freely, with a, "yes, i could have done better" attitude with no hostility. The lawyer felt a gnawing in the pit of his stomach and realized he was faced with a completely honest police witness. Everyone else in the courtroom, particular the jury, knew it also. So when the deputy testified the driver was so drunk, he got out of his car, got down on the ground, hugged the deputy around the knees, and started crying, every knew it was the absolute truth.
 
Everskyward said:
The one time I had to show up was for a domestic violence murder, where the husband shot the wife in front of their kids. He was claiming that because he was drunk, he wasn't responsible.
Click to expand...

I was picked to be on the jury for a reverse case. The man was drunk and was beaten to death with a stick by his girlfriend, who was mad at him for always going out and getting drunk. He had defensive wounds on his arms, bruises on his face and the killing blow was to the back of the head after he had fallen between the bed and the wall. Fascinating case, the trial lasted only two days but the process of reviewing the evidence was interesting. The woman claimed self defense, that he had tried to strangle her but there was no physical evidence of that and no prior police reports against him. We deliberated only an hour or so and found her guilty of murder 2nd. We were dismissed and invited to stay in the public area and hear the sentencing.

It was only then that we found out she had a prior conviction of throwing a flammable liquid on someone and setting them alight. She had served prison time for that crime, and all that information was not admissible to us during the trial.
 
Rushie said:
I was picked to be on the jury for a reverse case. The man was drunk and was beaten to death with a stick by his girlfriend, who was mad at him for always going out and getting drunk. He had defensive wounds on his arms, bruises on his face and the killing blow was to the back of the head after he had fallen between the bed and the wall. Fascinating case, the trial lasted only two days but the process of reviewing the evidence was interesting. The woman claimed self defense, that he had tried to strangle her but there was no physical evidence of that and no prior police reports against him. We deliberated only an hour or so and found her guilty of murder 2nd. We were dismissed and invited to stay in the public area and hear the sentencing.

It was only then that we found out she had a prior conviction of throwing a flammable liquid on someone and setting them alight. She had served prison time for that crime, and all that information was not admissible to us during the trial.
Click to expand...

Because, under the law, you were only trying her for the offense committed. Had the jury been privy to the information you got after the trial during or prior to the trial a conviction would have been a near certainty based on previous convictions/actions. The fact she had a record a mile long would not have been admissible. You were tasked with judging that one and only situation. In some cases where it is blatantly obvious the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow, that burden of proof can be a pain. No one ever said the letter of the law is fair.
 
Norman said:
Because, under the law, you were only trying her for the offense committed. Had the jury been privy to the information you got after the trial during or prior to the trial a conviction would have been a near certainty based on previous convictions/actions. The fact she had a record a mile long would not have been admissible. You were tasked with judging that one and only situation. In some cases where it is blatantly obvious the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow, that burden of proof can be a pain. No one ever said the letter of the law is fair.
Click to expand...
People, particularly our Founding Fathers, said exactly that. Well not exactly, they talked about "beyond a reasonable doubt" not a "shadow of a doubt." But it was considered that "fairness" means the government doesn't get to imprison people based on maybes or probabilities or suspicions, but on convincing proof.

What you think of as a pain others think of as a necessity. Interesting avatar in the context of the comment. He worked, albeit as a partially unwilling participant, in a system that thought such things were a pain.
 
Last edited:
Fair does not exist. It is a made up concept. What is fair to you, is not necessarily fair to me. Justice is what we seek, not fairness.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Fair does not exist. It is a made up concept. What is fair to you, is not necessarily fair to me. Justice is what we seek, not fairness.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we seek justice, wouldn't we be terrified?

Do we hope for fairness to mitigate the justice we deserve since we don't know how to get the grace we so desperately need?
 
Norman said:
Because, under the law, you were only trying her for the offense committed. Had the jury been privy to the information you got after the trial during or prior to the trial a conviction would have been a near certainty based on previous convictions/actions. The fact she had a record a mile long would not have been admissible. You were tasked with judging that one and only situation. In some cases where it is blatantly obvious the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow, that burden of proof can be a pain. No one ever said the letter of the law is fair.
Click to expand...

I understand why they do it that way. Sometimes I wonder if it's really how we should do it. Life experience has taught me (and I bet scientific studies would back it up) that the best predictor of human behavior is that human's past behavior. In cases when you're really on the fence, it seems knowing such a history should be taken into account. But I understand we don't do it that way.
 
Rushie said:
I understand why they do it that way. Sometimes I wonder if it's really how we should do it. Life experience has taught me (and I bet scientific studies would back it up) that the best predictor of human behavior is that human's past behavior. In cases when you're really on the fence, it seems knowing such a history should be taken into account. But I understand we don't do it that way.
Click to expand...

That's what many people say about teachers. The best indicator of a good teacher is past evidence of good teaching.
 
flyingron said:
If that's representative of engineer thinking (which being an engineer, I doubt), then you're the reason we shouldn't have engineers on juries. You're not supposed to prejudge the case like this, especially without any idea of what the law actually is. .08 is the per se point where you are presumed intoxicated without the state needing to present other evidence to support it. It is not the point where if you are under you are presumed sober and innocent of the offense.
Click to expand...

I was sitting in the prospective juror pool, thinking this to myself. Where was there a problem with the logic I was following? If he wasn't under the influence, he's innocent, let's go home. If it was under the influence, throw the book at him. I don't have a lot of use for people who drive drunk. My problem was with the defense lawyer trying the case during jury selection.
 
Because you set it to yourself with a preconceived and incorrect notion over what the definition of DUI was before you heard the evidence and the explanation as to how it did or did not fit the alleged law charged.
 
You know he did it, the cops know he did it, the prosecutor knows he did it, but is he guilty of violating the law as written/as charged?
 
Being a lawyer tends to suppress the desire to have me on a jury. . . .

I got chosen once - the defense lawyer and I had a been on a civil case once - he knew I was competent - he also knew my political bent. The prosecutor was ok with a lawyer cause it was a somewhat legally complex case and he thought I would explain it all to the jury. I did - and after that we hung. Once people understood the case - well - you were either in favor of what the guy did or not - the law had nothing to do with it.

Being on a jury is both a privilege and the most annoying thing you'll ever do. But I will say one thing - 12 [or 6 if its civil] get it right every single time. Being a lawyer myself and having tried cases to juries - you're just telling a story - nice and simply and your closing is about human nature - because even when dealing with corporations you are dealing with people. Lawyers forget that sometimes -
 
comanchepilot said:
Being a lawyer tends to suppress the desire to have me on a jury. . . .

I got chosen once - the defense lawyer and I had a been on a civil case once - he knew I was competent - he also knew my political bent. The prosecutor was ok with a lawyer cause it was a somewhat legally complex case and he thought I would explain it all to the jury. I did - and after that we hung. Once people understood the case - well - you were either in favor of what the guy did or not - the law had nothing to do with it.

Being on a jury is both a privilege and the most annoying thing you'll ever do. But I will say one thing - 12 [or 6 if its civil] get it right every single time. Being a lawyer myself and having tried cases to juries - you're just telling a story - nice and simply and your closing is about human nature - because even when dealing with corporations you are dealing with people. Lawyers forget that sometimes -
Click to expand...
Did the prosecutor ask if you knew and/or had ever worked with the defender?
 
At mine (it was a civil case) we were asked if we had ever run out of gas in our car. I raised my hand. He asked how I got gas. I said I got a discarded windshield wiper fluid bottle out of the garbage and used it. He was ecstactic. Turned out the case involved a paint store that sold plastic compound and had poured it from the labeled container into a smaller unlabeled bottle and sold it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was suing for health problems related to using the plastic. Dunno how the case turned out, I didn't make the cut...

Shows you how the lawyers begin trying the case during jury selection though.
 
I'm still bummed about the case where I was called. The judge came out to all the potential jurors and said the trial was being postponed and sent us home. "The defense attorney called in sick. This guy is a Marine with lots of combat experience and I've known him for a long time. If he says he's too sick to come in, then he must be REALLY bad." Since we showed up, we had met our jury duty requirement. Then he said, "It's too bad. This is going to be an interesting case." I would have liked to have seen how that one came out.
 
All these piddly jury stories.

You could always be called to serve on this Grand Jury, and end up threatened with prosecution for doing your duty and exposing the government's environmental atrocities.

Anyone who grew up here watched all of this happen live, and local. We all know what Washington D.C. does when the Citizens of Colorado asked to investigate how you "lose" hundreds of pounds of plutonium into the environment, actually start finding out.


Nobody here who watched this go down, ever believes D.C. when they say they'll investigate themselves. Ever.

I've been inside the fence at the plant. The area I was in wasn't part of the "hot" area, but it was a run down, poorly maintained, crap hole of a facility then, and that was two decades ago. The nice security kids held mirrors under my car to make sure I wasn't packing out any plutonium, I guess. It was around the time this documentary was released. I was there to fix an equally run down, nearly unsupported, telecom system. The best money could buy back when it was purchased. PG&E didn't have any money to replace it.

Suburban Broomfield is nearly up to the fenceline now.

You can see Rocky Flats, standing on the ramp at BJC.

The wind only blows 100 MPH across the plant toward Denver twice a year, or so, for a week at a time. Annually. Like clockwork.

The people who know what's buried out there are dead or will soon be dying.

Just be glad if you never get called for this sort of Jury Duty.
 
denverpilot said:
All these piddly jury stories.

You could always be called to serve on this Grand Jury, and end up threatened with prosecution for doing your duty and exposing the government's environmental atrocities.

Anyone who grew up here watched all of this happen live, and local. We all know what Washington D.C. does when the Citizens of Colorado asked to investigate how you "lose" hundreds of pounds of plutonium into the environment, actually start finding out.


Nobody here who watched this go down, ever believes D.C. when they say they'll investigate themselves. Ever.

I've been inside the fence at the plant. The area I was in wasn't part of the "hot" area, but it was a run down, poorly maintained, crap hole of a facility then, and that was two decades ago. The nice security kids held mirrors under my car to make sure I wasn't packing out any plutonium, I guess. It was around the time this documentary was released. I was there to fix an equally run down, nearly unsupported, telecom system. The best money could buy back when it was purchased. PG&E didn't have any money to replace it.

Suburban Broomfield is nearly up to the fenceline now.

You can see Rocky Flats, standing on the ramp at BJC.

The wind only blows 100 MPH across the plant toward Denver twice a year, or so, for a week at a time. Annually. Like clockwork.

The people who know what's buried out there are dead or will soon be dying.

Just be glad if you never get called for this sort of Jury Duty.
Click to expand...
Those jurors were heroes.
 
comanchepilot said:
Being a lawyer tends to suppress the desire to have me on a jury...
Click to expand...
I've had jury duty several times in a few states over the years. The only time I was empaneled was for a DUI case that wasn't exactly a slam-dunk. Through group questioning we found that one of the group was both a retired prosecutor and a recovering alcoholic. He ended up being our foreman o_O

Nauga,
and his civic adventure
 
The murder case I was not selected for, one of the questions was, do you know anyone that was murdered. I raised my hand. The follow up question for me was, How did you feel about it?

Well, the one person I am thinking of, it was no loss to the world.

I still don't understand why this case I was not selected for was a murder case and not assault. The victim died from pneumonia 9 months after the assault. The result was the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (machete) and was sentenced to 20 years.
 
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...

I was at jury duty once and the judged asked all of to answer whether or not we'd ever had a contact with law enforcement, or something like that (this was about 10 years ago). When he got to one lady, she started crying, and then said she had been raped, and consequently had worked with law enforcement on her case. The judge stopped her right away, and apologized to her. He then told all of us if there was a personal issue we had with any of the questions and we didn't feel comfortable bringing up the answer in a large group, then we just needed to let him know, and the issue could be discussed in private, rather than in front of the whole court.
 
JimNtexas said:
I got called for a really nasty possible child abuse case. It turned out that the star witness was a four year old girl. During the voir dire the government lawyer asked everyone a leading question of the form 'You don't think kids lie, do you?'

I was astounded as he went around the room every potential juror answered variations of 'no, kids don't lie'.
I suppose these people never were, or had, kids. I raised 3 of the little basta ^H^H^H^H cute things and answered something along the lines of 'They will lie a lot, you have to teach them not to lie'. And at that time I didn't know he was talking about a four year old!

When the defense attorney's turn came his leading question was something like 'Would you agree it is wrong for someone to record a phone call without telling the other person?'

Again, the other jurors agreed with this silly question also. I answered 'No, I don't think it's wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's legal in Texas'.

I sat back and smugly thought to myself 'I've P.O.'d both lawyers, I'm going home!'. :)

Nope. I got picked! And it was a horrible 3 day experience. Nothing was clear cut, I hated the government lawyer because he liked to scream and wave his arms a lot, which didn't seem to me a rational way to help the jury figure out what really happened.

It was a tough, tough, call.
Click to expand...
You can't leave us hanging like that! Which way did the verdict go?
 
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...
I served on a grand jury in Pinal County Arizona. Our term if service was one day a week for four months. I believe other countries are different. It was actually a really amazing civic experience. All we heard was felony charges. Sometimes it was up to 30 cases a day. We heard every kind of felony imaginable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top