[gunsmith]

I was called to jury duty and it turned out
to be a concealed carry gun case.
The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions
that could affect your decision"?
I told her that the young man in question was absolutlely
not guilty of any crime whatsoever,that everyone has the right to carry a gun.
She said "you mean the contitution,the 2nd amendment?"
I said yes,The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
She tried to get me to be "impartial" as the law in SF,CA says
it's against the law to carry a loaded concealed gun in your car.
I said "it was against the law for Rosa Parks to sit in front
of the bus it doesn't make it right" ,that everyone has the right to carry a gun.
So she said "your excused"
As I got up I said real loud "Everyone has the right to carry a gun!
She responded with an equally loud "you are excused!"
:evil:
Should I have kept my mouth shut and pressed for a not guilty?
I need to work really,I kinda feel I at least planted a seed of reasonable doubt in the jury pool.

[Marko Kloos]

Next time, keep your mouth shut in front of the judge, and use the ancient and time-honored American right of jury nullification.

[Mark Tyson]

I'm sorry but you did the wrong thing by speaking out. You should have kept quiet. This guy could get screwed by the jury because of you. This was your big chance to stop the government's infringement on our RKBA and you blew it because you wanted to talk.

Again, I am sorry if I sound harsh. I am not trying to insult you personally, but I think you screwed the pooch big time here and an innocent, decent person may end up paying the price just because you couldn't keep your mouth shut.

[Lone_Gunman]

If I was the guy on trial, I would rather you just kept quiet, remained openly impartial, and then helped me out in the jury room.

[cordex]

Aye.
From my only experience as a juror ...
If you want to serve, be utterly silent during the questioning process. If they have any specific questions for you, or you speak up, you're gone. At least that was how the case I was involved in went.
If you don't want to serve, bring a coil of rope and approach all the other potentials and court officers with "Where's yo' hangin' rope, boy?" regardless of age and gender.

For what it's worth, I was selected. Close-lipped Cordex, they calls me.

I say play it quiet until you're selected, especially in a case regarding unjust laws.

[Skunkabilly]

I would have been a little more..ahem...tactful (after all, that could have been Jim March they're gonna try fryin' :p ), but before I opened this thread, I was going to say I would have taken it as a compliment, same as if they would have kicked me off 30 years ago because I also believe that Blacks have a right to vote.

[Standing Wolf]

The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?

You answered the question truthfully. No one need ever be ashamed of telling the truth.

I'm sure I'd have wanted to sit there and keep my mouth shut, hoping for an opportunity to strike a blow at a law that's in clear, witting, wanton violation of the Second Amendment, but I think honesty could have compelled me to state my strong opinion.

[cordex]

The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?
...
but I think honesty could have compelled me to state my strong opinion.
Would "I feel very strongly in the rule of law and that justice be done" suffice for your overt strong opinion? It is (I hope) entirely accurate, is it not?

[AZRickD]

I understand your need to educate the masses. One doesn't get an opportunity like that to educate the 40 or so captive jury poolers very often. I'm sure it was fun.

However, the effect of that speech is difficult to measure, while your lone vote to acquit is substantive as it would have resulted in a hung jury, and you might have been able to sway one or two others to your side during deliberations.

You will note that the statist judge was unimpressed.

Rick

[WAGCEVP]

The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions



Personally, My answer woulda been no, your're more helpful to the accused on the jury.... I have to work too , but in this case ( i've never been that fortunate to get a "pro gun " case) I would loved to be on the jury......:evil: :evil:

[MPFreeman]

The judge really asked if anyone actually thinks the Constitution of the USA is still the law of the land. The judge asked if anyone thinks freedom is good. The judge asked if all present are sheep.

I really understand your motivation. Oh how I do, but nexttime, when I'm the dude on trial. Stay quiet and do the right thing.

[jsalcedo]

Gunsmith,

I think you played the cards well. You were able to get the point across
whether you got picked or not.

As for strong opinions, its all in the definition. Present the facts then
I'll see how strong my opinion is.

I would probably be extremely unpopular as a juror and anyone in there for a victimless crime would be acquitted or there would be no consensus.

[Blain]

Next time, keep your mouth shut in front of the judge, and use the ancient and time-honored American right of jury nullification.
I'm sorry but you did the wrong thing by speaking out. You should have kept quiet. This guy could get screwed by the jury because of you. This was your big chance to stop the government's infringement on our RKBA and you blew it because you wanted to talk.

[spacemanspiff]

i wonder if the judge would have excused a juror for saying 'i hate guns! no one should carry!'

[Devonai]

"I am completely capable of maintaining an open mind in this matter and will judge the case solely on the law and the materials presented during the trial."

That's what I would say. Then if selected I would inform the other members of the jury about nullification. Then I would expect a little "talking to" by the judge, but it's a little too late to excuse me at that point.

In all likelihood, I would be the odd man out, cause a hung jury, and the DA would simply ask for a new trial.

[4v50 Gary]

I'd have kept my mouth shut. Now, if they asked me if I owned guns or how many I owned or what organizations I belonged to, :o. Afterwards, I'd be excused faster than you can chase a flim flam man out of town.

BTW, one time I sat in a jury box reading "Hitler's U-Boats" during the selection process. It wasn't pro-Nazi trash but it probably helped get me excused. :)

[jimpeel]

The laws against carry imply a motive for abberant behavior. They exist as a prior restraint.

If you had stuck around, you might have found out, through witnesses, that the guy was on his way to harm another individual. Would you still claim the broad brush right?

Conversely, if you had stuck around, you might have found that the guy was simply fearful of criminal acts being perpetrated against him. Now he may end up in jail for the crime of fear.

In the first instance, you might have found him guilty. In the second, innocent. Now you'll never know.

This is the type of dream case we all, here, wish we could get assigned.

Something you wrote that makes me curious. You said, in the last line of the thread leader:I need to work really,I kinda feel I at least planted a seed of reasonable doubt in the jury pool.
Also, you stated:The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?
It sounds like you didn't exactly sit there with your hands folded in your lap.

Did you use your "strongly felt" RKBA stance to force the judge to dismiss you because you need to work; to the detriment of the accused? If so, you should be ashamed. If I am misreading the statement, my apologies.

[Sarge]

can get you held in contempt, or cause a mistrial ruling when the truth eventually comes out. I perfectly understand what some of you are saying regarding jury nullification, and I don't disagree. I'm simply saying that such actions are not to be taken lightly, or without due consideration for the potential consequences.

Life ain't hardly ever fair, is it?

[KC]

"The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?"

If you had lied, then you could be held in contempt, as Sarge said, or perhapse perjury. Regardless, a new trial would likely have been ordered, with the same results as you speaking your mind in the first place.

FWIW, most judges won't dismiss a potential juror in a DUI case if they have themselves had a DUI, have/had alcholism or other substance issue, at least in my limited education.

TANJIT

[.45&TKD]

While in a jury pool, we were asked under oath, if any one belonged to the NRA. It was for some kind of assault case. Being under oath I felt I had to admit that I did belong to the NRA and was promptly excused.

Could I have done differently without getting in trouble?

[C.R.Sam]

Do you have strong.........? Asking for relative judgement call.

Are you a member of......? Asking for specific, yes or no truthfully applicable.

From what I have observed, the jury empaneled seems to be selected for mediocracracy, dumbness even. That way minimum threat to either side and possibly maleable by the better orator.

I will do my best, or dumbest, to get on the jury; short of perjury.

Sam

[gunsmith]

knows what an incredible gun nut I am.
not the gun itself,just the rights associated with ownership.
I also believe in God as in "so help me God" oath I
swore in court.
When they take that part out I will feel free to lie.
Also knowing SF like I do,(witness's die here on a regular basis)
This guy was busted in my neighborhood and showed up in court
with baggy pants (screams gangbanger in CA)
It later occured to me that it's better being recognized as the guy that stood up for him rather then the guy in the jury that convicted him.
Also of note they listed ten witness's as cops,they don't send ten cops anywhere in SF unless it's a big deal.
When I carry illegaly I wear my seatbelt,obey every law, avoid confrontation
and swear words...In SF you gotta be FUBAR to get stopped by the police and searched.so it is my opinion that theres more then meets the eye here.
...I feel I told the judge the truth,I really am not partial at all,I would vote not guilty no matter what because I feel very strongly about gun ownership.
I feel real bad about not taking the case though...I hate San Francisco sometimes:(

[Devonai]

I admire your willingness to go to jail to protect your life, but you most certainly will should you have to. If I couldn't get a permit to carry I would either sue or leave that municipality as soon as was financially pheasable. Yes, all states should be like Alaska and Vermont, but until they are you'd better be willing to get used to bars and a roommate named "Smiley." Not to mention gang bangers, rapists, and murderers who are there for a good reason.

It's different for me, I'm only 90 miles from Vermont. But if it came down to that, I'd be off for the Green Mountain state ten times over before I risked carrying illegally, no matter how careful I thought I was being.

[Khornet]

If so, I think they'll verify that jurors aren't asked whether the accused was right or wrong. They are presented with the laws governing the specific case, then they observe the prosecution and the defense trying to prove/disprove that the accused acted in violation of said laws. Then they deliberate, and reach a verdict, viz., that the accused did or did not violate the law.

They are NEVER asked to determine whether the guy deserves to be punished, whether the law is just or not, etc, etc.

Therefore, the judge was asking whether any prospective jurors were a) so strongly pro-RKBA and infused with (justified) hatred of restrictions on it that they would ignore the law and acquit, or b) such rabid gun-haters that they would ignore the law and try to jail someone for using a gun legally.

Yes, there is jury nullification. But the judge was merely asking whether there was anyone who was incapable of doing what the jury is called to do. An honest and honorable answer was given to the question, which was essentially "Can you bring yourself to enforce laws which you believe to be wrong?". End of story.

[Devonai]

End of story.

Every time someone says this to me, they are wrong. Unless you're closing the thread, it hardly is the end of the story. Funny how that works.

By your own definition, when does jury nullification become an option, then?

[Kendra Pacelli]

I have very stong opionions, no matter what the subject is, so, I probably would have done the same thing, then kicked myself in the butt afterwards. You stated you opinion and you felt it was right, so be it. Maybe by speaking out the way you did in front of the other potential jurers, you may have helped in the long run.


just my two cents

[Sean Smith]

It was a subjective question. There is no way they can prove what your "feelings" are ex post facto and hold you in contempt. Shut up and get on the jury next time. ;)

[HankB]

The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"? Hmmm . . . interesting. I've sat through voir dire several times in couple of states, and have never had the judge ask anything - all the questioning was by the lawyers. The closest I ever came to questioning by a judge was when the bailiff asked if anyone thought they needed to be excused. Maybe its the nature of the cases (traffic offenses, civil lawsuits) I've been called for, but with my limited court experience it sounds fishy for a supposedly impartial judge to be doing this. I would've shut up, listened to the case, applied the law - including the 2nd Amendment - and decided accordingly. While in a jury pool, we were asked under oath, if any one belonged to the NRA. It was for some kind of assault case. Being under oath I felt I had to admit that I did belong to the NRA and was promptly excused. IIRC, some years back, there was a story in the NRA magazine about this very thing - NRA members were routinely being kicked out of jury pools where the case involved guns in any way. Short version: A Federal judge ruled that unless the case directly involved the NRA, excluding someone solely because they belonged to the NRA was illegal.

[Wiley]

In Georgia ‘jury nullification’ is constitutionally protected:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION I. RIGHTS OF PERSONS

Paragraph XI. Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors.
(a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and THE JURY SHALL BE THE JUDGES OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS. [emphasis mine: Wiley]

Additionaly:

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

------------

So in your case, gunsmith, if you could have judged the facts and law without bias towards the defendant you would have been able, in good conscience, to serve.

[FPrice]

"The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?"

Did the judge want namby-pamby passive jurors who would be swayed by the lawyers?

Was there anyone on the jury who stood up and said"Yes! I don't think that ANYONE should have a gun and and that this person is GUILTY!"?

I disagree with those who applaud you for telling the truth. I think that you fell into an anti-gun trap that the judge set to weed out any vocal pro-gun people and stack the jury with anti-gun folks. *

We ALL have strong opinions, it just depends upon what subject. I think that you should have kept your mouth shut and helped provide a more balanced jury. Who knows, when the facts were made clear you just might have voted for a conviction based upon the circumstances.

* I am sure that there may be lawyers present who will disagree and say that the judge wanted to get rid of all jurors who were strongly pro- or anti-gun and try for a neutral jury. However, I do not think that any anti-gun people would try to self-eliminate themselves for the sake of a fair trial.

[Zip06]

When asked that question for jury selection I replied that I felt I could have made a fair and impartial decision based on the facts of the case. That answer prompted the defense lawyer to ask what my job was. When I replied I was in law enforcement I was excused.

[dance varmint]

Regardless of the issue, you told the court that your mind was made up on the verdict in advance; that should get any juror excused. Maybe they normally ask this BS question to eliminate people on the opposite side, who have already decided the defendant was guilty. But this speech was more than enough to get you excused. I would have remained silent.

[brownie0486]

Gunsmith: You state

"I really am not partial at all,I would vote not guilty no matter what because I feel very strongly about gun ownership."

Sounds like a case of being partial to me. Voting not guilty knowing he was?, because it involved a gun, you let him off if he is guilty?

Now thats partial isn't it?

Brownie

[Idaho]

Sometimes the lawyers ask the questions in voir dire, sometimes the judge, sometimes the judge asks questions the lawyers write, sometimes you fill out a questionaire rather than answer verbal questions. It depends on the court and the jurisdiction.

I think the points have been well made that the "do you have a strong opinion" language is highly subjective, and I would recommend interpreting it to not apply in a case like this. I also agree that it would be unwise to lie about factual questions such as membership in a particular organization.

Jury nullification is legal everywhere (in the U.S), though not all places have it in the constitution like Georgia. Jury's are almost always directed to decide only on the facts, not on the law, but there is clear law that a juror can't get in trouble for whatever his or her conclusion is. Don't expect to be told that as a juror, though - there are cases where lawyers are specifically forbidden to instruct jurors about jury nullification.

I think it is somewhere between sad and tragic that, with so many people avoiding jury duty (deciding their personal life is more important than the justice system) and lawyers often looking for the lowest common denominator, juries are seldom representative of one's peers.

I would love to sit on a jury like this - heck, I would love to sit on almost any jury - but so far the one time I have been called for jury duty they booted me for being a lawyer. No, we wouldn't want to have someone that knew the law on the jury, would we....

[Carnitas]

You should have kept you mouth shut. Being able to read and understand an ammendment to the constitution is not an opinion. An opinion is your slant on somthing that is open for debate.

[answerguy]

I told her that the young man in question was absolutlely
not guilty of any crime whatsoever,that everyone has the right to carry a gun.
She said "you mean the contitution,the 2nd amendment?"
I said yes,The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
She tried to get me to be "impartial" as the law in SF,CA says
it's against the law to carry a loaded concealed gun in your car.
I said "it was against the law for Rosa Parks to sit in front
of the bus it doesn't make it right" ,that everyone has the right to carry a gun.
So she said "your excused"
As I got up I said real loud "Everyone has the right to carry a gun!
She responded with an equally loud "you are excused!"

The only way you could have made your point better is if you continued screaming "Everyone has the right to carry a gun!" as the bailiff dragged you out of the court room. Then all those other jurors could have seen what reasonable people that gunowners are. At least that's where this looked like it was heading.

[Buckskinner]

It takes cojones to yell out in a court and 50 folks! And while I understand the point that we as gunowners don't want to appear unreasonable, my guess is that you were not alone in that room with respect to your RKBA beliefs. You wanted "to plant a seed", and that is good. But you also might think this guy is a "gangbanger", and having known two people senselessly murdered by "gangbangers" (Oakland is really not that nice of a place..) in the last 10 years, I will take the questionable path of stating not everyone should benefit from the RKBA seed you want to nurture into the strong tree of liberty. Criminals or those with criminal intent should be profiled and removed from society. That is why you were on the jury, to determine if this person committed a crime. The gun ownership question put to you should have been taken under consideration with the rest of the story...

You may have leapt before you looked, but I like the message you sent!

[rock jock]

Everyone has opinions. You could have made yourself an important part of jury deliberations by presenting a reasoned and logical argument in favor aof carrying and thus possibly forced a NG verdict. As it is, you made sure that no RKBA opinion would be represented and reinforced the steoeotype of American gunowners.

[Quartus]

Thanks for helping to reinforce the stereotype of gun owners being ignorant loudmouths. You really helped the cause there.


:rolleyes:

[Deepdiver]

Next time, keep your mouth shut in front of the judge, and use the ancient and time-honored American right of jury nullification

I second this advice. By speaking up, you fell into their trap, and allowed them to "stack the jury" in line with their unconstitutional laws. I probably would have done the same thing, though, as I am not known for my political correctness:D

[Drjones]

I'll jump in and tell you that you screwed up royally.

Not a flame, but you really messed up.

Did you really do the right thing by speaking up then, or would you have done more good by staying on the jury and nullifying the whole thing?

Perhaps the case could have set a new precedent for jury nullification?

I would be positively DROOLING if I sat on a firearm-related case.

Sorry man...go do this for a while: :banghead:


:)

[Drjones]

Could someone please explain exactly how jury nullification works?

I think I know, but want to be clear.

:)

[Carnitas]

Check out http://www.fija.org/

[Quartus]

Don't follow that link. Don't read any literature on the subject. NEVER!





Why?



So if you are asked by a lawyer or judge, you can truthfully answer, "No, I've never read anything like that."

All you need to know on the subject is this:


Do what's right, not what they tell you.

[Double Naught Spy]

gunsmith, I think you have rationalized your experience into thinking that you and the 2nd Amendment were somehow challenged and that you were dismissed for your gun beliefs and that this has martyred you. While it sounds cool in a sort of martyr type of situation, it really isn't. In your story, you play the martyr who spoke up against the evil government systen relevent to the 2nd Amendment when you grandstanded in court and was dismissed (slain from the battle), hence becoming the martyr.

You were dismissed from the jury pool not because of your belief in the 2nd amendment, but because you demonstrated a very definite bias relevant to the case. Heck, you directly told the judge that the charged person was not guilty of a crime before you actually heard any of the evidence for the case.

Nope, you were not dismissed because of your 2nd Amendment views. The dismissal was not one of beliefs, but one of action. You were dismissed because you possessed a definite bias in regard to the topic of the case, definitively demonstrated your bias, and because you demonstrated an inability to reach a decision based on the evidence and arguments to be presented in court as you had already arrived at and had announced the verdict you believed correct.

Had the topic of the case been something like murder, the jurors would be asked if they had ever known anyone personally that was murdered. It would be assumed that said the jurors would not be appropriate because the emotional ties to the murdered person(s) they knew and would no doubt influence their decisions in a murder case. Had the case been a rape case, the jurors would be asked if any had been raped or personally knew a person who had been raped. They would not be dismissed because of their views or personal beliefs, but because of their biases pertaining to the topic.

C.R.Sam has it right. He would try to do what he could to get selected short of perjuring himself. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be on a jury, but you have to be impartial.

[Byron Quick]

My view on the Second amendment is not an opinion...given my understanding of the definition of opinion. Therefore I could truthfully answer no to the question.

Oh, yeah. If the accused is a bad guy on his way to do harm...then charge him with the specific crime he committed. Concealed carry doesn't make the cut.

[KarlG]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The judge asked "does anyone have stong opinions that could affect your decision"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having strong opinions is something you would know up front. If those opinions would impact your decision could not be determined by a reasonable person prior to hearing the facts of the case.

[jimpeel]

You stated "I need to work really, I kinda feel I at least planted a seed of reasonable doubt in the jury pool."

I'm from CA originally and I have a working understanding of the system there. Most people try to get out of jury duty because they end up stuck in one for weeks at a time at $5.00 / day and $.25 / mile one way. This is why the juries fill up with housewives, welfare mothers, and those who don't have the wherewithall to beg off. Is it any wonder that we get the types of decisions we get out of CA?

I got a jury notice at one point and responded on the enclosed form that I was the sole source of income for my family, and it would cause an undue hardship; but that I would be more than willing to do duty in night court or whatever. I was excused on that basis. They no longer have night court in CA, however.

My wife ended up on a murder case in Santa Ana, CA and was the holdout that caused the case to be decided as a manslaughter case rather than second degree murder. When they went into the deliberation room the vote was 11-1 on the first vote 11-2 on the second, etc. The attitude was "Let's hang him and get home for lunch" when they went in.

The difference between the lesser charge and the more severe charge rested in the hands of a single juror who was willing to analyze the case and make the proper decision. Later, as they always do, the defense and prosecution attorneys contacted all of the jurors, including my wife. The prosecution attorney told her he thought she would be sympathetic to his case. The defense attorney told her that he wanted to exclude her.

This trial was the second one. The other ended in a hung jury.

Just shows ta go ya what a single poker-faced juror can do.

[Guntalk]

It's my understanding that even if you get on the jury, if you then try to "educate" the jury on nullification, you can be held in contempt, or at least removed from the jury.

Just keep your mouth shut about nullification, listen to the facts (the guy might have been a nasty criminal who should be put away), and then try to be persuasive in the jury room.

You can always vote opposite the evidence, and when asked why, just say, "I don't think he's guilty."

Nothing more.

I have been removed from the jury pool twice. Once because I answered that I actually knew something about where hashish comes from (from reading, folks!), and another time when I answered the judge that I would not necessarily follow the law if the law was wrong.

It was not a firearms case.

I did become jury foreman on another case (why do they keep calling ME?). During the trial, the judge was reading an article I wrote for Sports Afield magazine. Really.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I have a strong belief in the importance of upholding the law."

Let him draw his own conclusions, you don't have to add that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the highest law of the land.

[jimpeel]

It's my understanding that even if you get on the jury, if you then try to "educate" the jury on nullification, you can be held in contempt, or at least removed from the jury.Not quite. The courts have held that any reasonable person may use prior knowledge to make their decision and that prior knowledge includes jury nullification.

The judge in any case will state as truth that which is not because they don't want you to use your prior knowledge. They want you to decide the case strictly on the evidence that is presented -- but then suppress evidence that is germane to the case.

[sm]

I just returned from an out of state trial.
A few years ago I was doing a LOT of jury duty.

I just answered honestly the questions asked-didn't volunteer anything.
I have been asked various questions...the gamut from guns to heart surgeries ( my dad has had two surgeries due to rheumatic heart fever) ...I always responded that I could be fair and honest. Even the time I had to admit I knew the defense attorney ...from the skeet field and a tournament...no problem...ended up as foreman-again. Some attorneys really liked me for their juries...for some reason...