Gaming and Jury Duty Discrimination?

[Asmor]

Looks like one to add to The List.

"Look, all I'm saying is, you can tell someone's guilty just by lookin' at 'em."

"[Insert defendant's last name here], eh? One o' them [insert nationality here]s mugged my mother last year."

"Cool, I can't wait to serve on the jury! Ooh, I can DM for the other jurors while we're sequestered!"

 

[freyar]

Had jury once, when I lived in California. Due to travel, I postponed my jury date by 3 months or so and wondered if it would affect me in the jury pool. Yup. I was called for the first trial and was the 2nd person called from the pool in that trial to serve on the jury. It was a day and a half auto liability trial, no big deal, so the lawyers weren't too picky. All of us had to fill out a 3 or 4 page survey of questions, but it didn't seem like they paid much attention to that, or our occupations or really anything. All they cared about was if we'd been in an accident with an injury or not.

 

[ephemeron]

I feel kind of left out whenever people tell jury-duty stories. I've only been called up for jury duty twice so far, and both times, it was for county courts in counties I hadn't lived in in over a year. I'd updated my voting regstration and in one case even gotten a driver's license from a different state, but somehow I'd stayed on the list of potential jurors in the counties I'd moved out of.

 

[The Lemon Merchant]

I have never served jury duty, though I would have enjoyed the opportunity. The one time I actually had the chance I was excused because the $15/day in the height of the agriculture season (at the time I was in Irrigation Operations for an Irrigation District) was just impossible to live with. Y'see, the cheap *&%$(%*^ on the district board didn't think employees should be compensated for jury duty and if they wanted to get a paycheck, they had to use vacation time. Fortunately for my finances I was excused, but I am annoyed that finances made it impossible for me to do my civic duty.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Engineers tend to be way too analytical and pay attention to the evidence, rather than emotional pleas. They actually pay attention to the days and days of physical evidence and trivial stuff like DNA.

Then it makes very little sense for "nobody" to want engineers. In the vast majority of jury trials, one side is going to have the advantage of facts and evidence. (There's even an aphorism on it: "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law.") If engineers are "analytical and pay attention to the evidence," why wouldn't the side with those advantages want engineers?

My guess, as a lawyer, is that nobody wants engineers because the law often doesn't make apparent sense, and most engineers that I know are driven crazy by things that they don't understand. (Similarly, I'm driven crazy by the things engineers do understand.) Although the official role of juries is "fact-finder," not "law-applier," jury nullification, because the members don't agree with the law, happens pretty frequently.

All that's if it's true that "nobody wants engineers." I've been at my firm for eight years, and I've never heard that.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Just don't mention that part when being interviewed, Judges really hate jurors who believe in Jury Nullification.

Not to mention that jury nullification is actually illegal.

It is incorrect that you should vote to acquit if you disagree with the law. (And, again, it is illegal to do so, though nearly impossible to prove.) Juries are fact-finders. Judges interpret the law (and even they don't change a law that is, itself, legal). Legislators change the law.

If you disagree with a law, you should petition your law-makers.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

It is said that the OJ jury was compiled of people who had no higher than an 8th grade science background. In a case that depended on an understanding of forensic science, that might explain the outcome.

While it's true that the O. J. Simpson jurors were largely uneducated, believe me, the prosecution is very adept at explaining scientific evidence to the uneducated. (It's even easier now, since the advent of C.S.I..

The Simpson outcome was probably more a matter of punishing law enforcement, who not only massively bungled the case, they were caught being actively racist. California juries -- who are usually unpredictable -- will slam law enforcement for stuff like that. (The LAPD has yet to recover from the Simpson case. And as long as they keep getting caught on video beating someone every few months, they never will.)

 

[mmu1]

Not to mention that jury nullification is actually illegal.

It is incorrect that you should vote to acquit if you disagree with the law. (And, again, it is illegal to do so, though nearly impossible to prove.) Juries are fact-finders. Judges interpret the law (and even they don't change a law that is, itself, legal). Legislators change the law.

If you disagree with a law, you should petition your law-makers.

They also ask you point-blank during jury selection whether there's anything that you feel will prevent you from simply ruling on the case according to the law that is on the books...

So getting on that particular moral high horse means you have to lie repeatedly - not just during the initial questioning, but also after you have been sworn in as a juror.

And it's not like, once you're on a jury, your appointment is set in stone - misconduct will get you kicked off and replaced with an alternate.

 

[Bloosquig]

I've only been called once to jury duty but it was in an old county I no longer lived in so I was excused. Oh well maybe next time I can bust out the super nerdy stuff and see if I get picked or not.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Not to mention that jury nullification is actually illegal.

It is incorrect that you should vote to acquit if you disagree with the law. (And, again, it is illegal to do so, though nearly impossible to prove.) Juries are fact-finders. Judges interpret the law (and even they don't change a law that is, itself, legal). Legislators change the law.

If you disagree with a law, you should petition your law-makers.

Wholly incorrect. Juries are not just fact-finders. They are not there to rubber stamp the legislative act under which a criminal prosecution is sought.

I did not say vote to acquit if you disagree with the law. That would be inappropriate. I said vote to acquit if the act of the legislature under which criminal prosecution is sought is unjust, which is a much higher standard than mere disagreement.

If it is unjust, it is not a law, so the defendant is not guilty of a criminal offense, regardless of the facts. The prosecution carries not only the burden of proof on the facts, but on whether the act itself is just.

This is a core protection of justice in our system of law, inherited from England.

Secondly, it is not illegal to vote your conscious as a member of a jury. No juror may be criminally prosecuted for his vote. And if he is . . . his jury should vote to acquit him.

There are three votes citizens have over what constitutes the law:

1. Voting for elected representatives
2. Voting as a member of a grand jury
3. Voting as a member of jury in a criminal trial

It is when a citizen is a member of a jury that he has the most power to protect liberty and justice. All it takes is one juror to keep an unjust act of a regime from exercising tyranny on a defendant.

Wikipedia has an excellent overview of the concept. Here is an excerpt:

First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".State Of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1,4 (1794)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification