Jury Duty??

[redarmy11]

He was the self-appointed foreman for both of the juries I was on and was well-supported by his adoring lady fans, so that, if you disagreed with them about anything, you were effectively pissing in the wind.

Justice done and seen to be done by some self-regarding cunt of a businessman and a gaggle of bloodthirsty housewives who struggled to distinguish the entire thing from a fucking TV soap opera most of the time.

I'm sorry, does that sound a little patronising? I don't think my faith in the British public has ever been so low.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

My dad got summoned a few yrs ago. At the time my mother had cancer and was in really bad shape. He was driving her everyday to the hospital and waiting with her for hours. Anyway he explained this to them and they didn't really care. They actually said that he would have to find someone else to take her. He finally went to our Doctor and explained it.......she wrote up that he is really hard of hearing and that he wasn't in good shape he was 80 at the time. They finally let it go. I think they are PRICKS!! thats why I am so pissed off about the whole idea. Cause I have a feeling I am going to get FUCKED!!

this alone justifies robbing a bank and shooting 6 members of the police force.

peace.

 

[madanthonywayne]

SHIT I just thought of something.......maybe if I just show up with pink hair
I won't even have to say a thing.........

You're on the wrong path. They want wierdos. They are more likely to let the criminal off. If you want to get out of jury duty, wear a suit. Lawyers hate intellegent jurors. OJ could never have gotton off the any of his jurors had an IQ over 40.

In Indiana, the pay is $15 per day. I was on a jury back in college. We convicted a guy for DUI. The judge told us at the end of the trial we wouldn't have to worry about jury duty again for the rest of the year.

So finals week, my senior year of college, comes and they call me again. I was already admitted to Optometry School but had to complete all my courses or I couldn't start Optometry school. I told the jury duty guy he could do what he wanted, I was not going to not graduate for some stupid trial. Ultimately, they excused me.

Recently, I was called for jury duty again. Like you, I'm self employed and had a full schedule of patients the day I was supposed to be on jury duty. So I wore a suit and my Republican tie. I got off and was able to see my patients.

 

[nietzschefan]

this alone justifies robbing a bank and shooting 6 members of the police force.

peace.

The lure of the darkside is strong with you...i feel it's pull.

Posting for posterity and reference later:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/juryduty.asp

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/02/15/JuryTrial/

http://madtbone.tripod.com/jury_duty_2.htm (more "outs")

Suppose you slip up and get a summons. You still have 'outs':

# Physicians write countless excuse letters in behalf of patients. Suffering from stress? High blood pressure? There could be a PhD thesis in researching this avenue of escape.

# Be a crime news junkie. The trial will probably follow a preliminary hearing by a few months. If you're familiar with the defendant and have formed an opinion as to guilt you will get a chance to say so, and simply having an opinion will set you free without further ado.

# You could beseech your employer to write the sheriff, pleading your irreplaceable value. You may later re-use the letter on the boss in seeking a raise.

# Finally, if you do sit on a jury, most provinces give you the right to decline any other jury summons for the next three years.

 

[Xev]

You're on the wrong path. They want wierdos. They are more likely to let the criminal off.

Dunno.
My roomate and my dad are as straight-arrow looking as you get, maybe not uber-republican looking but about as far from weirdos as you get. Both got picked for jury duty - my roomate had to sit twice in one year.
I'm figuring anything drug related, I'd just come wearing my shirt with the chemical structure of ecstacy outlined in glitter. But then I'd want such a case, as you said - just to let the criminal off.

Originally Posted by EmptyForceOfChi
this alone justifies robbing a bank and shooting 6 members of the police force.

I am intrigued by your ideas, would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Tiassa]

I have a theory that I think is worth testing. In the first place, jury duty is generally excused if unusual hardship can be demonstrated. Maybe you can get out of it that way.

However, when I reported for jury duty in Snohomish County, Washington, I ended up in a pool for a bail-jumping trial. (That's right, we still call it "bail jumping" up here.) I noticed certain things about the judge and both attorneys:

Judge: The judge did not like the idea of letting anyone out of the pool for ideological reasons, even those who explicitly said they couldn't give the guy a fair trial. In one instance, a potential juror explained that since his son had nearly died of a cocaine addiction, he already felt hostility toward this man accused of jumping bail on a cocaine possession charge. Since the charge was bail-jumping, and not cocaine possession, the judge claimed he could not understand how the sentiments could get tied up with one another.

Defense: The defense attorney had the most straightforward approach. He wanted people on the jury who showed either an understanding of or interest in the law; these were the people he could play best to. Obviously, he wanted off the jury those who openly claimed they could not give his client a fair hearing, as well as those he perceived as being biased.

Prosecution: And this is the cherry. The prosecutor bent over backwards trying to keep people like the cocaine-bias guy in the pool. Obviously, his strategy there was simply to force the defense to burn its peremptory challenges. But it was amazing listening to the guy try to reinforce the judge's confusion or pretense thereof. To the other, though, the first people he struck peremptorily were those who voiced knowledge of or an opinion pertaining to the law. Simply mentioning the Constitution was enough to set off his alarm bells. In the end, the prosecutor wanted on the jury people with the least understanding of the law. That is, the prosecutor favored ignorance.​

I found this idea intriguing. It seems intuitive enough, but only if we presume the worst of prosecutors. What struck me was the idea that he did not have confidence that he could prove a simple bail-jumping case to a jury that had a clue about the law and Constitution. Maybe he's just playing the numbers, but doesn't it seem rather strange that ignorance seems to be to the prosecution's favor? Does this say anything about law and justice in the U.S.?

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

The prosecutor was only doing his job, trying to get a conviction. If he figures that the best way to do that is to stock the jury with as many ignorant people as he can, so be it. The defence attorney has the opposite job.

 

[madanthonywayne]

the first people he struck peremptorily were those who voiced knowledge of or an opinion pertaining to the law. Simply mentioning the Constitution was enough to set off his alarm bells. In the end, the prosecutor wanted on the jury people with the least understanding of the law. That is, the prosecutor favored ignorance.[/indent]

That's what I said. They want stupid people on juries. If you wear a suit. If you're a doctor or lawyer, you're as good as off.

Another thing you might work into the conversation is your knowledge of the concept of Jury Nullification. In the US system of justice, you are supposed to rule not only on the crime, but on the law. If you think a law is unjust, even if the defendent is clearly guilty, you can find him innocent.

The use of truth as a defense in libel/slander hearing dates back to just such a case. I think the guys name was Peter Zanger. Anyway, he was charged with sedition or slander and his defense was that everything he said was true. The law didn't care. In the eyes of the law he was still guilty, but the jury refused to convict.

Judges don't like the jury to know that they can rule however they like. So work that into your answers. They'll boot you right away.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert title here)

Madanthonywayne

Sorry, I missed it. To the other, I'll split the hair:

You're on the wrong path. They want wierdos. They are more likely to let the criminal off. If you want to get out of jury duty, wear a suit. Lawyers hate intellegent jurors. OJ could never have gotton off the any of his jurors had an IQ over 40.

Defense attorneys find value in the intelligent, although I won't rule out weirdos. (Smart, disaffected people are often a plus for the defense.) I'll also go so far as to say that, having had enough time on my hands to watch the OJ trial (it's not something to be proud of) I'd say the prosecution fell short on a few points. Bungling evidence as the police did only hurts the prosecution's case. The time frame with the ice cream was interesting and effective. Holding the prosecution to its obligation to prove the case is a cornerstone of American justice. Even I know the guy's guilty, but based on what I saw, I would have acquitted.

• • •​

James R

The prosecutor was only doing his job, trying to get a conviction. If he figures that the best way to do that is to stock the jury with as many ignorant people as he can, so be it. The defence attorney has the opposite job.

I'll split the hair on the defense attorney, since that's what got me booted. A defense attorney's job, in the end, is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial according to the law and Constitution. (You could see the tic in the prosecutor's jaw when I answered, and the defense attorney, gave a little nod that--at least on the West coast of the U.S.--is indicative of saying, "Goddamn it!" The prosecutor knew in that answer that I was gone, and the defense attorney knew he was going to lose a juror he wanted. People who mentioned the Constitution were struck peremptorily by the prosecutor; it was too much of a gamble for him.)

The thing with prosecutors is that in the US, they represent the people. Specifically, even though this was a Snohomish County Deputy District Attorney, his role is to represent the people of the State of Washington. In that context, he represented the state as dependent on ignorance in order to get convictions.

And this raises another question that struck me while settling my own legal issues with the state:

An event (suspected crime) occurs. What is the role of the authority?

(A) To investigate, determine what happened, and proceed from there.
(B) Find someone to prosecute.​

In principle, the answer is (A). In practice, it's (B).

In my case, the complaint is about the police. If I was the DA, and saw that police report, I would prosecute as well. But, really ... given what you've encountered in my political, ethical, and philosophical considerations, how likely is it that I really offered to waive my right to counsel? (Considering I specifically advised the officer of my objection to implied consent, I'd call that point of the report a lie. Nobody I know, including those who think I'm too hard on the police, is surprised. The general sentiment seems to be that it's not the job of the police to actually have a clue what happened, but rather to find someone for the DA to prosecute.)

Considering the issue of reality vs. convictions in terms of a DA, though, and while I don't disagree with your assessment, what does that say about the idea of justice?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Even I know the guy's guilty, but based on what I saw, I would have acquitted.

I'll confess I didn't watch the entire trial, just the highlights. But the dna evidence alone should have been enough to convict!

If everyone could afford a "dream team" of lawyers like OJ, no one would ever be convicted, by your standard.

 

[iceaura]

I was called for jury duty just after I had started a new job - a temp job.

But it was at the math department of the local university, and they told me I was safe - no math prof had ever been selected for a jury in my town. I would just have to show up in the morning, and I would be excused for the day as soon as the lawyers heard my job title.

They were right. I never missed a class, in two weeks of vulnerability. Both defense and offense attorneys struck me on sight.

The pay was IIRC fifteen dollars a day, and a free pass for the bus downtown. I bicycled, and sold the pass.

 

[shorty_37]

hmmmmmm lots of good ideas here.....I will have to keep you posted on what is going
on with this crap. I look the furthest thing from a weirdo that would take some work lol

 

[Orleander]

I got picked once, but it never went to trial . The guy made a deal and pled guilty.

Take it easy on the bigotry. They will throw contempt of court charges at you. That just happened to some smart ass (he wasn't really a bigot) and the judge was not happy. But that's here, not Canada.

 

[Avatar]

Jury is stupid, they do not know law and are easily swayed by lawyers though appeal to emotion etc.
Trials should be done by law professionals that can't be easily fooled and know all the principles of human rights, equity, etc.

 

[s0meguy]

Whatever the accused did I'd be in favor of giving him the lowest possible sentence... just for the heck of it

Too bad they don't have this civil duty jury stuff in my country

We just have a bunch of judges. Which I think is a much better system... "the people" are idiots

 

[Learned Hand]

That's what I said. They want stupid people on juries. If you wear a suit. If you're a doctor or lawyer, you're as good as off.

Another thing you might work into the conversation is your knowledge of the concept of Jury Nullification. In the US system of justice, you are supposed to rule not only on the crime, but on the law. If you think a law is unjust, even if the defendent is clearly guilty, you can find him innocent.

The use of truth as a defense in libel/slander hearing dates back to just such a case. I think the guys name was Peter Zanger. Anyway, he was charged with sedition or slander and his defense was that everything he said was true. The law didn't care. In the eyes of the law he was still guilty, but the jury refused to convict.

Judges don't like the jury to know that they can rule however they like. So work that into your answers. They'll boot you right away.

As for stupid people on juries, I'd agree only to the extent they are poor and are sitting on a personal injury case. You always want working class folk on those juries, as they know the value of loss of income due to layoffs, etc., and how it feels to not be able to feed or provide as you need to for your family. On business, malpractice, and some product liability cases, it's good to have some middle or upper middle class influence on people. I woulodn't want to waste 5-10K on an expert demonstration of an undercarriage product liability case if they can't understand the concept. As an advocate, you just have to be sure they have an open mind. Of course, the working class is necessary for input into damages (e.g. the value of a loss of an arm, leg, lost wages, etc.).

Truth is an absolute defense in libel/slander cases, as truth completely abrogates that which is slanderous to begin with. The jury cannot ignore the law for a defamation case. Mistrial and/or an appeal would be the end result. As for deciding both the facts and the law, it depends on the state and its constitution, and it only applies to criminal matters. Here locally, the jury can determine that the law is inappropriate under the circumstances and facts of the case, so long as it is criminal in nature. However, case law suggests that attorneys may not instruct the criminal jury that it can be the maker of law for a particular case as well. Go figure.

 

[Orleander]

this alone justifies robbing a bank and shooting 6 members of the police force.

peace.

what does the police force have to do with juror selection? Cops don't have a thing to do with it.

 

[James R]

Jury is stupid, they do not know law and are easily swayed by lawyers though appeal to emotion etc.

A jury is not there to decide on matters of law. The role of the jury is to decide the facts. Therefore, their lack of knowledge of the law is irrelevant.

 

[Bells]

A jury is not there to decide on matters of law. The role of the jury is to decide the facts. Therefore, their lack of knowledge of the law is irrelevant.

Prosecutors prefer to have jury members who know nothing of the law so that they can approach the case with a clear mind, instead of one bogged down with legalities.

Hence why the prosecution will usually want to stack the jury with people who are ignorant of the law. After all, if an individual knows the law in any form of detail, they might start to question the issues of the case, instead of simply deciding on the facts (pertaining to the laws in question) they are given during the trial.

It is not trying to put stupid people in the jury box. It is trying to put people who will not sit there and ponder the constitution and how it pertains to that particular case during the trial, instead of simply looking at the facts and the laws in question and deciding if the accused has broken that particular law.. which is in effect all that a jury should do.

 

[superstring01]

Just saw your last post. If you're self employed and irreplaceable in your workplace, you can probably be excused from jury duty. At least, it would be an excuse in Australia...

It is also the case here. Most employers continue the wage in absense, while a person is on Jury duty. Mine does at a rate of 100%. The only stipulation is that I have to give my employer the government money I get from sitting on jury duty (except the cost of gas).

Juries a funny business, and I'm thinking they are pretty exclusive to Anglo-Saxon nations. I know France and Spain don't use them. Any non-English-diasporatic nations out there that use them?

~String