Jury Duty

[Cool Dood]

Leonidas, thanks for the serious reply. It'll take me a little while to get back to you, so I just wanted to post to let you know that I am working on a response.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I don't think you can judge everyone by their appearance. Every person in the jury with me on the murder trial was intelligent and very diligent in their duties.

Well, I'd have to say I find that surprising.

JG

 

[Patrick]

Well, I'd have to say I find that surprising.

JG

Why? Have you been on a jury that was not that way?

 

[Corporateburnout]

I usually get summoned every three years or so. My panel was cancelled a couple of times when I called the night before. I appeared once with another gentleman only to find out they forgot to notify us of the cancellation...... I appeared a few of times but was not picked after a few hours. I served on two 6 juror panels in a DUI case and a child molestation case both were one day trials. we acquitted the accused in the DUI case but convicted in the second case.

By the way all members of the jury in both cases were diligent and thorough.

I have to say that I enjoyed the experience when I served and I wouldn't mind serving again if called.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Why? Have you been on a jury that was not that way?

Nope! Hopeless polemist and misanthrope.

JG

 

[Coach]

I've been called twice. Got picked the first time. About a 1 day assault trial, very junior DA. We acquitted, and would have been out for 5 minutes if I hadn't stalled us a little bit. It just didn't seem right to be done that fast.

Second time, I lasted long enough to hear some of the questions they were asking potential jurors. "If a person had a previous back injury, and then was drinking beer and fell off a hot tub at a friend's house, would you assume any back problems were because of the first injury?" That trial sounded like fun, but I didn't get picked.

Coach

 

[razztazz]

Is there any evidence that the rumour is true: They don't want educated people or people who think too much on juries?

 

[Gumby]

Is there any evidence that the rumour is true: They don't want educated people or people who think too much on juries?

I have picked juries in civil trials and I certainly would not want it that way. Since I generally represented large corporate defendants being sued by individuals or smaller companies, I wanted jurors who would use logic and reason, rather than emotion, to arrive at their decision. I wanted a juror who would not say, even subconciously, "well, he is injured and the big corporation can afford to pay, so I'll find for the plaintiff." Instead, I wanted someone who could listen carefully, process the information, obey the court's instructions and render a decision that was consonant with the facts and the law. I also wanted people who could make their own decisions and were not easily led. Finally, I preferred people who thought that life was something you do, not something that happens to you.

In my state, we have individual voir dire (the process by which potential jurors are questioned). That means just the lawyers and one potential juror at a time are in the courtroom. Usually the judge is absent unless there is a dispute. The lawyers can ask virtually any questions they want. One of the questions I usually asked people was if they had any bumper stickers on their cars and, if so, what do they say. I also asked people what were the most recent books they had read and what they thought about them. And I asked people what they felt had been the most important factors in getting them to where they were in life.

It was a very interesting process to participate in. Often, the people who on the surface looked to be good for your side (or bad) turned out to be just the opposite after you questioned them more extensively. Once, I was defending a lender against a mom and pop rental car company. The rental car company had defaulted on its loan and the lender declared a default and repossessed the cars. The rental car company alleged that the lender had agreed to work things out and that the repossession was wrongful. One of the potential jurors was a loan officer at a local bank, who I initially thought would be great for my side. However, when I asked him how he liked his job, he said "not so much anymore". I asked why and he said that the bank had just been taken over by a larger out of state bank. Under the previous ownership, he had much more flexibility to work out problem loans with troubled borrowers, but the new owners were taking a much harder line and going to foreclosure almost immediately. He was greatly upset by this development. He could have been faking just to get out of jury duty, but, if so, he was a great actor, because it surely did not seem like it. Fortunately, the other lawyer realized I could probably get him out for cause if we bothered to call the judge back in the room and agreed to let him out, so I was not forced to use one of my limited peremptory challenges, but I would have if necessary.

 

[TromboneAl]

I get called once per year. There are 128,000 people in this county. Let's say there are 60,000 eligible for jury duty. I can't believe they go through 1000 jurors per week. Can someone explain why I get called every year?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I get called once per year. There are 128,000 people in this county. Let's say there are 60,000 eligible for jury duty. I can't believe they go through 1000 jurors per week. Can someone explain why I get called every year?

Nope, but I do know your complaint is quite common.

JG

 

[donheff]

I get called once per year. There are 128,000 people in this county. Let's say there are 60,000 eligible for jury duty. I can't believe they go through 1000 jurors per week. Can someone explain why I get called every year?

1000/wk is just 200/day. A jury pool is big (at least in DC). 200 jurers would only cover about three panels.

 

[Nords]

Can someone explain why I get called every year?

You must be taking up the slack for me. I haven't been called since 2003...

 

[AltaRed]

I have never been called in almost 40 years of adult life. Maybe I do not exist?

 

[mathjak107]

Problem i have with jury duty is everyone in that court room is making big bucks except the most important people, the jurors.

getting a lousy 40 bucks a day on a case that lasts more than a few days is a real hardship for most people.

most companies dont pay for jury duty service, including my own.

i think most people would find jury duty interesting ,they just cant afford to do it.

 

[Corporateburnout]

I get called once per year. There are 128,000 people in this county. Let's say there are 60,000 eligible for jury duty. I can't believe they go through 1000 jurors per week. Can someone explain why I get called every year?

Every state has a different Jury duty system. Where I live you can only be called once every three years even if your panel is cancelled. This of course does not apply to fedreal courts.

I have been one of the lucky ones who gets summoned every three years. I am due to get a summons soon it has been 2 years and 8 months since I served.

 

[donheff]

I have never been called in almost 40 years of adult life. Maybe I do not exist?

Register to vote

 

[donheff]

Since I generally represented large corporate defendants being sued by individuals or smaller companies, I wanted jurors who would use logic and reason, rather than emotion, to arrive at their decision. I wanted a juror who would not say, even subconciously, "well, he is injured and the big corporation can afford to pay, so I'll find for the plaintiff."

I served on a jury in a DC PI case. A woman's apartment building was repairing the front steps, They had orange cones and rope up to direct you around the bad section and up the side. This woman elected to step over the rope and climb the busted stairs. She feel and injured her foot "aggravating an existing bunion." I kid, you not - that is how the plaintiff's lawyer presented her case. Before the company even started its defense I was twisting in my seat wanting to send this idiot woman to jail for wasting my time. Her lawyer must have sensed the loss because he let slip the word "insurance" and a mis-trial was declared.

The company's lawyers asked the jury to stay and talk to them about our thoughts. I was stunned to see that about half of the jurors were inclined to throw at least something the woman's way -- after all she did have an injury. I said I would have stayed until hell froze over before I would let her have a thin dime. Instead she should be forced to pay for the court's and the jurors' time.

It is unbelievable what a bunch of people will throw at a goofy psuedo victim.

 

[Baxter]

getting a lousy 40 bucks a day on a case that lasts more than a few days is a real hardship for most people.

I got called last week, and it's only $6/day here. That just about covers the gas to get there and back, to say nothing of lunch. If I had lost wages or had to hire day care for that I'd be even more insulted.

As it was, from the 90 of us that showed up, they were unable to make a single jury.

 

[lifeisgood]

I've only been called once in 27 years of adulthood, and DW never. We are always registered to vote, so go figure.

This reminds me of donating blood. I suspect maybe 5% of the population does 98% of the donating, another 15% have legitimate age/health exemptions, and the rest have some excuse not to.

 

[Khan]

I've been called 10 or so times over the last 28 years in this town, both for county and city.

Most times I called the day before and was told not to come in.

Several times I went to the courthouse and it was settled without a trial.

Once a case actually went to trial, but they had a full jury before they got to me.

City wouldn't be too bad, as they are only a mile and a half from my house; but county is 15 miles.

 

[REWahoo]

Register to vote

In this state there was a concern people were not registering to vote to avoid being called for jury duty. The state driver's license roll is now the source of jury notices.

I've only been called for duty three times in the last 35 years, and two of those were cancelled before I had to show up. The only time I actually had to go in I sat around all day but I wasn't selected...for a jury that is. I called home at lunch and DW told me we gotten a letter from the IRS saying they were auditing our tax return. No, I didn’t have a nice day...

 

[Dreamer]

I have never been called and I am 53 yrs old. My 28 year old son just received his notice for jury duty and it is his second time. I have always been registered to vote also.

 

[Michael Moore]

I was on a Superior Court trial that lasted 5 weeks, and I found it very informative.

I suspect most people think that that every bit of evidence is dragged out and thrown down in front of the jury, but it quickly becomes clear that a big part of what the judge does is "manage" the trial. Since they only have X amount of time for the trial (other people want to go to court too it seems ) it appears they get together and decide where to make the cut on evidence/witnesses, and anything that doesn't rise to that level never gets introduced in court.

The jury seemed to be pretty reasonable, and most people pulled their weight. I know that is not always the case, and my sweetheart was on one where there was a juror who started out with the "how much are we going to pay him?" line. "We haven't established that he has a valid claim. " "But he was hurt, he needs to get something" kind of deal.

The biggest lesson I took away was to do everything in my power to avoid ever being dragged into court. Five different eye-witnesses who were within 15 feet will give six different stories, and trying to decipher the testimony of dueling "board certified" medical experts gets pretty hard to do when they disagree on almost everything.

cheers,
Michael

 

[lets-retire]

I was on a Superior Court trial that lasted 5 weeks, and I found it very informative.

I suspect most people think that that every bit of evidence is dragged out and thrown down in front of the jury, but it quickly becomes clear that a big part of what the judge does is "manage" the trial. Since they only have X amount of time for the trial (other people want to go to court too it seems ) it appears they get together and decide where to make the cut on evidence/witnesses, and anything that doesn't rise to that level never gets introduced in court.

The jury seemed to be pretty reasonable, and most people pulled their weight. I know that is not always the case, and my sweetheart was on one where there was a juror who started out with the "how much are we going to pay him?" line. "We haven't established that he has a valid claim. " "But he was hurt, he needs to get something" kind of deal.

The biggest lesson I took away was to do everything in my power to avoid ever being dragged into court. Five different eye-witnesses who were within 15 feet will give six different stories, and trying to decipher the testimony of dueling "board certified" medical experts gets pretty hard to do when they disagree on almost everything.

cheers,
Michael

That's one of the reasons I quit as a police officer. I was tired of court being nothing more than a show with little emphasis placed on guilt or innocence.

 

[Michael Moore]

Guilt or innocence gets decided by the jury, doesn't it?

Each side is going to make the best presentation of their case that they can. The jury can ONLY go on what is put before them. If one side or the other has an idiot for legal counsel (and I recall several of the attorneys having their choke chains yanked pretty sharply by the judge when they got too rabid) they are possibly going to suffer for it.

But since trial by combat doesn't seem to be a 100% sure way of proving who is right, and dunking people in a pond doesn't seem too accurate either (she's a witch! No, she's a duck!) it looks like we are probably stuck with a system that is less than optimum but still better than the alternatives.

One of the jerk attorneys was high-dollar corporate counsel, so just having buckets of money to throw at the case doesn't make it a sure thing.

As a peace officer, were you more concerned that the guilty weren't being punished, based on the assumption that they wouldn't have been charged unless they were guilty?

That's not meant as a slam on peace officers - I've had several as neighbors and friends. But I think every group has a tendency to presume the other group memebers are more worthy of support than "outsiders". That's just human nature.

Are there bad people who are criminals? Are there also bad people who are in law enforcement? I think the answer to both is yes, though hopefully the number in law enforcement is a lot lower than in the criminal class.

But it seems like we don't have to go searching too hard to find proven cases of malfeasance/corruption in those that are being entrusted by the public to enforce and uphold the law as written. It is sad that ends up making John and Jane Public suspicious of the next cop that stops them, but the police force is made up of fallable humans, and many of them are under a lot higher level of stress that may prove the straw that breaks the back.

I'd much rather have the current court set up than a lynch mob. A "the peace officer is always right" rule would seem to be a recipe for disaster (and I think probably can be shown to not be realistic without too much googling).

It would be really cool if we could put everyone under a truth spell and they'd spill not only the truth as they saw it, but the actual "Truth". But that seems unlikely, and the "7 people saw something and there are 7 stories about it" is a pretty standard Psych 101 example of how different people perceive things differently. And when a trial comes along 3 years after something happens, and everyone is expected to have perfect recall of something that probably largely faded from memory within a couple of months, well . . . . .

cheers,
Michael