Jury Duty

[Darth K'Trava]

Maybe we citizens should volunteer for jury duty on our own term, like making an appointment.

Then again, someone could call for an appearance of impropriety on your part, like say you're eager to serve on a jury to convict some jerk named Eric Rudolph.

Who acted like a jerk, according to the local paper, when he was sentenced....

If it pays more than my regular job, then I might do it....

 

[Darth K'Trava]

How does this jury thing work? Who decide / "assign" you to a specific case? Is it random or do they (whoever they are) actually go trough possible candidates? If yes, how can they know you are suited for the task and not the other guy? Do you have to attend?

Thanks!

/ Curiously confused Pswede

From what little I know. They choose people at random from a "pool" in a certain area. You then go in and they (the lawyers) quiz you about certain things. If you don't meet the criteria of the juror they want, then they dismiss you and you go home. If you get picked, you have to sit on a trial and listen to all the testimony and evidence and then decide if the defendant is guilty or innocent of the crime(s) being charged against them.

 

[Templetroll]

When I lived in Key West I had jury duty. Things went well and it was a fascinating change from jury duty in Philadelphia. In Key West they ask if you have a conviction - if it was for a drug offense, say, and the case was not about drugs... you were good. (based on others situations, not my own! )

One person stated that he didn't feel the US judicial system was proper, or legal or just in any way, shape or form. He felt it was absolutely untrustworthy. The judge told him that was fine, he was still suitable to sit on a jury, and it was up to a lawyer to decide that he was not to be selected for a jury. "You do your duty, as a citizen, by being available for voir dire."

Our case was a bar brawl on Duval. around 70+ bars in a 1 mile street, whodathunkit? The defense attorney started by admitting that the guy had indeed punched the fellow he was arrested and charged with hitting. The thing he went for was that the jury didn't have to decide according to the law, we could decide by "...what was right." his view of what was right was that the guy the defendant hit was a ladies man, danced with about 11 different women in the time of an hour or so and one woman he danced with was the defendent's girlfriend! so it was a defense of " the guy had it coming."

Well, we went into the jury room, first thing choose a foreman. everyone looks around at each other, one guy points at me and says, "I think he should be the foreman, he wore a tie." That was accepted by acclamation. I asked if anyone had any questions or should we just vote. A vote was also done, out loud because everyone was certain the verdict was guilty.

I went and knocked on the door to bring the bailiff to open it; he asked what we needed. I told him we reached a verdict. His jaw dropped. He glanced over his shoulder and whispered, "Could you just wait a few minutes? so the guy doesn't get embarrassed by it getting done so quickly." I asked him if we could suggest that he sue his defense attorney... The bailiff almost lost it but said no pretty emphatically.

We waited about 5 minutes, knocked again, came out and gave the verdict.

The jury duty I had in NC was a drug case and they plea bargained the second morning due, I think, to the way the jury was seriously paying attention to the testimony; the lawyer must have figured it was lost.

 

[sniffles]

I've been summoned for jury duty several times and found it both boring and interesting. Here they used to summon you for an entire week and you had to come and sit in the jury assembly room every day until they told you to go, whether you were called for a jury or not. Now they just summon you for one day, but you still have to stay all day. Luckily my employer is very conscientious about allowing time for jury duty and we are payed for our time off.

Last time I was summoned I was actually chosen for a jury. We heard some testimony and then a recess was called. While we waited to go back to the courtroom the judge came and told us the defendant had decided to settle. So we never rendered a verdict. It was interesting anyway, though. I didn't have much tolerance for the defense attorney because she kept saying "drinked" (it was a drunk driving case); apparently they don't teach proper English in law school. It was also amusing to watch the judge apparently falling asleep.

But the most fun part of all was when we were called for selection and I discovered that the older lady sitting right next to me was Ursula K. LeGuin!!!

 

[tarchon]

How does this jury thing work? Who decide / "assign" you to a specific case? Is it random or do they (whoever they are) actually go trough possible candidates? If yes, how can they know you are suited for the task and not the other guy? Do you have to attend?

You have to attend if called - it's a fairly serious offense if you don't. The precise method of selection varies with the particular jurisdiction (court authority); usually it's random selection from voter registration or automobile registration lists. A certain pool of prospective jurors is selected and the judge usually does a preliminary screening - they generally kick off lawyers among others. Many people try to weasel out of jury duty at this point, but most judges will go to great lengths to justify keeping you on, and any excuses are examined very, very carefully. The only thing I saw that worked was one Vietnamese guy who pretended not to speak English, and they just sent him back to the jury room to sit for another couple days (he was pretty lucky not to get cited for contempt of court by the judge). Then the attorneys for each side get to use a certain number of what are called "preemptory" challenges, in which they can reject a certain juror for no particular reason, although there are certain exceptions to this. Once they use up the preemptory challenges, they can have people rejected for cause, which would generally be some sort of bias or conflict of interest, though generally the judge has already rejected jurors with obvious cases of that, like if you're related to one party or the other, or you happen to have some special knowledge of the case.
Many times, the trial doesn't even take place, and most trials don't last more than a few days, but occasionally someone (like me) gets on a case where the opposing parties have lots of money to spend on lawyers or the case is particularly complex, and those can drag on for weeks or months. In the worst case, the jurors aren't actually allowed to return home during the trial and are sequestered in a hotel somewhere to avoid bias - this is usually done in high-profile cases like the Jackson trial.

Sometimes it's a pretty minor inconvenience, but putting someone in a courtroom 35 hours a week for 4 weeks is a pretty major life disturbance. You can't legally be fired for serving on a jury, but if you have a high-responsibility job it can be a bit sticky.

 

[sniffles]

How does this jury thing work? Who decide / "assign" you to a specific case? Is it random or do they (whoever they are) actually go trough possible candidates? If yes, how can they know you are suited for the task and not the other guy? Do you have to attend?

Thanks!

/ Curiously confused Pswede

So what do they do in Psweden?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Grr.

I was on jury duty earlier this year.

Witnesses saw guy A kneeling on the chest of guy B. Guy B was having a seizure, guy A was punching him in the face.

Guy A defended himself. His defence was "I didn't punch him".

We had a hung jury.

Some of the other jurors had the Grand Theory, y'see. "Well, maybe as he was falling down, guy B grabbed at guy A, and maybe guy A lost his balance and fell on top of guy B, and thought he was beng attacked, and so he was punching him in self defence!"

We were baffled by this. "The witnesses didn't say anything about guy B grabbing guy A. Guy B didn't say anything about guy B grabbing guy A. Guy A didn't say anything about guy b grabbing guy A - in fact, Guy A said that he 'gently lowered guy B to the ground' when guy B started to fall. The Defence didn't raise the issue of self defence at all - he said 'I didn't hit him', and we have witnesses who say otherwise!"

"Yeah, but how do we know for sure? We can't, so that's reasonable doubt!"

I think the worst part about it was the defendant smirking at us and giving a covert thumbs-up as the foreman told the judge we were unable to reach a verdict.

-Hyp.

 

[jcfiala]

I was in for Jury Duty once. Sat in a room, reading books, until I got called onto a jury. I wasn't kept on the Jury, though, so I wandered off for lunch.

One of my co-workers was called the same day, and he had a three day case that he apparently enjoyed having.

I wouldn't mind another chance for Jury Duty again - I think it's an interesting change of pace from daily life, and an interesting glimpse into the legal system.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I apparently got a summons once in college. Dad mentioned it in a phone call, and that he'd already let them know I was about 1000 miles away at the time.

I haven't been summoned since, even here in Arlington, and I'm still bewildered about that. I'd kinda like to do it, at least once, just to see what it's like. Of course, I'd have to bring several books and my GBA. With my luck, I'd probably get on a 12-week media circus trial of some sort, though.

Last time I was summoned I was actually chosen for a jury. We heard some testimony and then a recess was called. While we waited to go back to the courtroom the judge came and told us the defendant had decided to settle.

A friend of mine is a public defender back in Kentucky. She had one client who wanted to go to trial, until, once the jury was selected, he saw the composition of the jury that'd just been seated. He turned to my friend and asked if the plea was still on the table.

Brad

 

[VirgilCaine]

Jury privilege is the cornerstone of republican government. Remember, not only is the defendant on trial, the law is too.

It's a peculiarity of the English justice system. Most republican governments have nothing like it. I'd have to say that the idea of the law being on trial is diametrically opposed to the whole concept too. Juries are about finding fact, not determining the validity of the law. The judge interprets the law and gives you questions of fact which you have to answer. Even though juries do sometimes make findings based on whether they think a law is "right" or "fair," that's not what they're supposed to do and it's certainly not what they're instructed to do.

You mean it's a peculiarity of the American justice system?

As for not being what juries are "instructed" to do, duh, anything that could get a law off the books is bad for government power--why would jurors be told they could do it?