Just got off of a Jury...

[ozwyn]

/rant on

In my opinion, Jury duty is to civil defense of our rights/society the best equivalent to military duty. Yes, its that important.

the job stinks, and its annoying, and damned important, if not critical in making this country stay as free as possible.

your voice counts more on a jury than it does among millions of voters.

doesn't matter if you one of many physical conditions that may prevent you from serving your country in uniform, at least in a jury you still serve.

the fact that many people seem to dodge jury duty or it gets overloaded with what may feel like people we don't respect makes it MORE important that people who believe in individual responsibility get into juries to add sanity and maybe justice to the legal system.

that's my .02

/rant off

 

[Marshall]

Why not have a system that uses professional juries? Both sides in the trial can use expert witnesses, so why not have experts in the jury box?

What a can of worms that would open.

Pretty soon each side knows what juror to buy and what juror can be bought. Jurors become bored, they heard the same case a hundred times and have no interest. I can think of many more reasons as well.

Under the same logic, why not have each side just submit a written case to a judge or judges and let them make the call?

 

[October]

Under the same logic, why not have each side just submit a written case to a judge or judges and let them make the call?

Thanks for mentioning that. Many cases are decided by judges. Whenever a judge decides to dismiss a case, it is the judge deciding it, not a jury.

Administrative law cases are often decided by a judge and not a jury. I'm sure with a little research, we would find that it isn't all that unusual to have cases decided by judges instead of a jury of your peers.

The advantage of having a jury, whether professional or amatuer, is that you divest control out of the hands of a single person.

 

[buzz_knox]

Thanks for mentioning that. Many cases are decided by judges. Whenever a judge decides to dismiss a case, it is the judge deciding it, not a jury.

Judges typically dismiss cases based on legal principles (i.e. as a matter of law, the case should not proceed) while juries decide cases by applying the facts to the law that the judge has determined applies to the case. In some cases, the judge can direct a verdict based on a finding that no reasonable jury could find differently under the facts. This developed as a safeguard against juries simply disregaring the facts and voting their prejudice.

 

[DogBonz]

No system is perfect

Lets not forget the opening line to the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It says "more perfect"... it does not say not perfect.

 

[mljdeckard]

The lawyers and witnesses are already compromised. You think the juries should be bought and paid for as well?

A jury of your "peers" means people like yourself. Having professionals in juries who are jaded to the process and anticipating outcomes would be a violation of due process.

 

[glummer]

"Expert" jurors would have to be selected by someone - who else but the government? So all trials would consist of a government judge, a government prosecutor, a government JURY, and maybe even a government employee as defense attorney. Oh, yeah. Let's all go there.

A jury of your peers is, I believe, not actually an American legal requirement. The phrase is from England - a noble could only be judged by other nobles. No commoners allowed. Here, we are all commoners.

 

[jnojr]

I agree with the "professional jurors" idea. Here's how I see it working:

You apply like for any other job. It pays a pretty reasonable salary... for the purposes of discussion, let's say $40K per year. There's a background investigation to see if you have any issues that could prevent you from being impartial in certain jurisdictions or types of cases. A "best effort" is made to see to it that jurors do not get access to uncensored news... anything that might be a crime they would wind up hearing, they don't even hear it happened at all if at all possible. They get instruction in basic concepts of the law, the Constitution, etc. Basically, people who aren't psychos or complete retards who are going to have some idea of what they're doing and as little bias as possible.

The biggest issue I see is with the whole "jury of your peers" thing, and the fact that attorneys do not want unbiased jurors... they just want them to be biased their way

 

[peteinct]

Duty to your society

Jury Duty is part of what you pay to live in a free society. Everyone should go. I only had to spend one day. The only thing I is that there should be less chances to remove people from a jury at the start. The lawyers should only be able to remove people for cause.

pete

 

[October]

A jury of your "peers" means people like yourself. Having professionals in juries who are jaded to the process and anticipating outcomes would be a violation of due process.

This is exactly my point. A jury of "my" peers would have to possess expertise in the same areas that I do in order to be like myself. If I get into trouble because a weapon of mine misfires, I'd prefer to have people on the jury that know the difference between a firing pin and a safety pin. Likewise, I'd expect doctors in malpractice suits would prefer to have people with medical knowledge on the jury. With today's juries, you have no assurance of that.

Just look at the threads posted on THR dealing with accidental/negligent discharges. Do people go to a random forum to confess and be judged? Or do they post here so they can be judged by people with some knowledge of the subject?

 

[Soybomb]

It was a facinating experience, but I was ultimatly disillusioned, as I believe a guy who was probably guilty got off because of a poor prosecution.

The goal isn't to make sure that all guilty men are punished but to be sure that no innocent men are. Thats a very admirable goal even if you don't always like the side effects.

 

[DogBonz]

huh?

The biggest issue I see is with the whole "jury of your peers" thing, and the fact that attorneys do not want unbiased jurors... they just want them to be biased their way

yea, but you lawyer gets just as many "rejects" as the prostitutor.

There would be many problems with "pro-jurors". First there is that annoying little thing called the constitution. In order for the pro’s to pass this test, each district would have to have its own group of jurors. That would be a monumentally expensive proposition.

Then you would have the issue of their “professionalism” getting in the way. A lot of laws use the “prudent man rule”. This is where a jury must decide if the person acted as any normal, rational individual in those circumstances would. A pro jury would probably restrict and narrow the scope of this common law practice, thus opening the possibility for more appeals for not getting a fair trial, and then even more criminals would go free.

Another reason; have you ever seen government workers “working” (and I use the term loosely)? Take the way that your average person slacks off at work and multiply that by about ten. I ask, is that who you would entrust your fate to?

Then there are about a hundred other reasons that this is not a good idea, but at least you are thinking.

 

[up_onus]

This may be "wrong" but i have heard a rumor that the average jury's education stands at about the 8th grade...
Kinda scary? I understand why people would want to serve on a jury, and why they would not, it takes all kinds to make the world go round...
different strokes for different folks?
anyway, i wish i had a chance to serve.... Im 30 and have yet to be called.
to those who are disillusioned about the legal system. NOTHING IS PERFECT.
or if your perfect....please tell us what would be perfect and try not to complain!

 

[hvengel]

Judges typically dismiss cases based on legal principles (i.e. as a matter of law, the case should not proceed) while juries decide cases by applying the facts to the law that the judge has determined applies to the case. In some cases, the judge can direct a verdict based on a finding that no reasonable jury could find differently under the facts. This developed as a safeguard against juries simply disregaring the facts and voting their prejudice.

A judge can only over rule a jury to change the verdict from guilty to innocent at least in criminal cases. If there is jury nullification in a case where it is clear that the defendant had in fact violated the letter of the law, IE. the jury ruled innocent, the judge can not say "But the facts are clear and there is no way a reasonable jury could have voted innocent so I will change the result to guilty". So juries are clearly allowed to vote "disregaring the facts and voting their prejudice" as long as they vote innocent and not guilty. In other words the system is setup in such a way that jury nullification only works to the advantage of the defendants.

 

[riverdog]

In other words the system is setup in such a way that jury nullification only works to the advantage of the defendants.

That's what I understand also.

I did Jury Duty one time and was dismissed Voir Dere. The defendent was active duty and I'm retired so I'm obviously biased

These days when the summons come, I let them know that no one pays me when I'm on jury duty. For those days I can't bill my client so I don't get paid. If it weren't for that money thing I'd do jury duty in a heartbeat. Somebody needs to find them guilty

BTW, cops cannot legally lie on the witness stand. According to cop shows like Law & Order they can lie during suspect/witness interrogations, but not on the stand.

 

[BGlaze250]

This is a bit off-topic, but...

When I go off to college, out-of-state, who I need to let anyone know, so I do not get called in my home state, and called in my college state?

 

[Davo]

The goal isn't to make sure that all guilty men are punished but to be sure that no innocent men are. Thats a very admirable goal even if you don't always like the side effects.

You said it Soybomb.
The prosecution did very little to rule out the other possible suspect who looked very similar (each eyewitness picked the wrong guy in the photo lineup initially)-so I could not say that the defendant did it. I had to vote not guilty as Id rather 100 guilty men go free then one man be wrongly convicted.
There was a Hispanic man on our jury that had a 3rd grade education. He said almost nothing during deliberations and I believe he would have voted either way depending on what the other jurors did. I kept thinking "These are my peers? THIS guy might judge me someday?"

 

[rogerjames]

I won't ever serve on a jury because I will never believe anything a cop says.

I was treating a patient today at her home. Her and her husband are both elderly and originally from Greece. The television was on at the home and showing the news clip of that guy on his back being restrained by 2 police officers while one of the cops repeatedly punches him in the face. The old greek guy told me that in greece they have a story/fable about the police. The story goes that a gentleman works successfully for many years in the business world and then suddenly quits his job and becomes a police officer. All of his friends and family are shocked and surprised and ask him why he switched. The man replies that in his old job he was always wrong and the customer was always right. In his new job, he is always right and the customer is always wrong.

 

[STW]

I've served on jury duty twice. Once in superior court with a two week trial where we ended up sequestered while we deliberated. In CA they transport juries in the same buses in which they transport criminals (not at the same time). It's pretty funny to watch people when you pull up at a restaurant for lunch with a couple of deputies fore and aft. (We got paid $5 a day plus 15 cents a mile one way. The defendent got life plus 33 years. I understand he should be eligible for parole after 30 years, in another 4 years or so)

The second time was federal court - 3 months and about 5 trials. One trial even involved illegal weapons. All in all it was an eye opening and enjoyable experience. Everyone was guilty and not real smart.

 

[BullfrogKen]

We ought to make efforts to fulfill that duty if called. If we want to help rid society of those that prey on us, good men and women need to sit on those juries.


I was called once a little over a year ago. At the time I was very ill, on a period of disability from work with Crohn's Disease. I told the clerk of the court to let me know if I was going to be called, so I could maximize my doseages of meds and steroids that week. She excused me over my desires to make the effort to be available and serve.

Its important. The system needs good people on it to make the determination of a man's innocence or guilt.

 

[FXR]

Add me to the list of THR members who've served on a jury. My term of service lasted 2 months (not continuous duty, just on-call as required).

Initially I was incensed over being yanked from my normal life and forced (under threat of arrest and prosecution) to sit in the room and listen and decide. By the end of the term I was over it and more tolerant of the system as it was, though I agree changes should be made in the specifics.

The most important lesson learned: the Judge and the police do not have the authority to decide a defendant is "guilty" -- only the jurors have that ability. The cops arrest you, but only a jury can legally and formally declare you as Guilty. (Presuming no plea bargains or other extenuating circumstances, etc).

Anyway, I did my best to be fair. It was an eye-opening experience.
K

 

[scurtis_34471]

Jury duty here is $40 a day. I mention this since I saw one post indicating pay as a reason to drop people from the pool.

$40/day is little consolation when you make $40/hour.

 

[The Guy]

I'm 32 and have never been called. I am a registered voter, so I'm on the list. If I was called, I would go happily and not try to get out of it. It is part of our duty as Americans to be active in as much of our system as possible. Just as i vote in primaries as well as the big 'uns, I feel that if I was called I should go and participate.

I am a college graduate (belive it or not ) and I think that the smart people (yes, myself incuded) need to be on jury as well as the people who "aren't smart enough to get out of it". God knows I want smart, free thinking people on any jury that I ever will have to go in front of.

I bet you would too.

 

[MechAg94]

I couldn't disagree with professional jurors more. What a disgusting thought. Are we that lazy and stupid as to completely turn over our justice system to govt workers? How pathetic our country has become. Makes me wonder if my kids will have a chance of living in the same free country I have.

We should hire professional voters as well. Since most people don't care about voting, it only makes sense right? Then all the professional voters would take the time to be informed and make good decisions right?



:banghead: :banghead:

 

[4sooth]

Jury duty

I have been called once---around ten years ago.

At the time I was a reserve officer with the local PD.Before jury selection the judges here offer the chance to explain why you should not have to serve.When i told the judge I was a police officer he showed surprise I was called for duty.But he decided that as long as I could be impartial I could still serve.

Sure enough ---- got called and during the voire dere I was asked if I knew the defendant,any of the prosecution team or the defense attorney.

"I am familiar with the defendant your honor".

How do you know the defendant?

"I was in the group of officers who arrested him"!

Embarrassed look from the judge who then dismissed me!!