Jury Duty....

[Utah Bob #35998]

I find it interesting that many folks espouse a year or more of mandatory military service yet seem to balk at jury duty.

[JudgeBagodonuts]

I always seem to be "excused" from jury duty. Call in after 6pm and I'm told not to appear.

 

My wife has been less lucky. She's been called twice. Each time she enters a courtroom, they'll ask her if she can be impartial. Here is her answer:

"When I was a prosecuting attorney, I had a win rate of more than 99%. I've come to think of everyone who is accused as guilty, and that's why I don't do criminal work at all now. "

It usually takes about a second for the defense to use a strike to prevent her from being on that jury, or the judge excusing her for not being able to be an impartial juror. She's never been asked a second question.

 

In my county, payment is $9 per day. They'll give you free parking at the courthouse. But, unless you're on a jury, there is no free lunch. They might get less people trying to get out of it if the payment was, at least, minimum wage.

 

JB

[J-BAR #18287]

I actually enjoyed my one experience as a juror.

 

Here's a dumb question...now that I am retired I have more free time. Can a person volunteer to be included in a jury pool, or do you just have to wait your turn to be randomly called?

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Jury duty is exactly that... a "Duty."

 

When my Boy Scouts are working on their Citizenship merit badges I make darned sure that it's well discussed and that they understand it.

[Utah Bob #35998]

I actually enjoyed my one experience as a juror.

 

Here's a dumb question...now that I am retired I have more free time. Can a person volunteer to be included in a jury pool, or do you just have to wait your turn to be randomly called?

In some jurisdictions you may volunteer.

[Yellowhouse Sam # 25171]

Jury duty is exactly that... a "Duty."

 

When my Boy Scouts are working on their Citizenship merit badges I make darned sure that it's well discussed and that they understand it.

In a nutshell! Its not a way to make money or to compensate for lost wages! Its civic duty.

[Utah Bob #35998]

In a nutshell! Its not a way to make money or to compensate for lost wages! Its civic duty.

And sometimes performance of a duty involves some sacrifice.

[Subdeacon Joe]

My only real objection to jury duty is, as illustrated in my earlier post, the huge amounts of time I've seen wasted.

[ShadowCatcher]

And sometimes performance of a duty involves some sacrifice.

Thank you Utah, and Hardpan and Yellowhouse, and others for pointing out something very important. We have a very unique

legal system in this country, and one I far prefer over any other I've read of or lived under. Like so many of our unique

constitutionally recognized rights, our due process and trial by jury are profound in the history of the world.

 

That any Americans would look upon this as any less important then how they look upon voting is a sad thing. To devalue a

duty to our fellow citizens, and to ourselves, because we are inconvenienced by sitting in a court, or having to take days off of

work once every decade or so, is a measure of how shallow some of us are, and how casually we take our rights as citizens.

 

If jury duty is too high a price to pay for the legal freedoms we have, what other prices are too high for you to pay?

Never mind, that was rhetorical.

 

I volunteered when called, I go to jury duty when called, I stand in line to vote because I love feeling like I am participating in

the American dream, and I do whatever else I can to pay back this wonderful land that has given me so much.

 

But then (and it may be corny to say it out loud anymore), I love my country . . . .

 

Shadow Catcher

[Michigan Slim]

I am a property owner, licensed driver, and registered voter. My name is in the system. I have never been called for duty. One of my employees has been called four times in the last 6 years....... I don't get it.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

Loophole

What does someone weighing 450 lb's. have to do with whether they are a good jury member or not?

 

Me, when I got a notice in the mail I threw it away. Can't prove I got it, or the dog ate it. Besides I'm white, well educated, upper middle class conservative and would never get selected. Lawyers want juror's who can be "influenced".

Ike

 

Ike:

 

I'm no twig, and I wasn't suggesting that the lady's size alone made her unfit for jury service.....although I would consider, in a trial likely to last 3-4 weeks, whether someone of that magnitude would be comfortable, and therefore undistracted, in the jury box. Nothing worse than a juror who can't wait to get out of her chair and go elsewhere.

 

I disagree with your suggestion about what lawyers want. I usually want well educated people, and by that I mean experienced in the world, or in a trade, or in a profession - from farmers to engineers to subway train operators. There are a lot of variables depending upon the case, but primarily I want a juror who will reserve judgment until all of the evidence is in, who can recognize a liar when he hears one, and who has a fairly logical approach to resolving complex problems. You may be right that my opponent wants emotional reactors, willing to give away huge sums of money in sympathy for injuries....but we are both in the courtroom, and we each get a bit of what we want.

 

LL

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]

Been on quite a few and been excused from some more. All have been low level / misdemeanor trials. Way too many stories to tell.

 

One good one was a DUI that the first vote was 11 - 1. I was the one. When I expalined why, 9 of the other jurors said that was why they voted the way they did. They did not understand the judge's instructions. Second vote 11 - 1 again. The holdout would not listen to, what I felt was a scientific, rational reason (I am an engineer) and held out for another day or so until enough justification was provided to convince him otherwise.

 

Another DUI, the accused, when asked a question, would not quit talking even though his lawyer kept signaling him to be quiet. After a very quick verdict, the lawyer approached the jurors standing outside and stated "I didn't stand a chance, did I?" and we all said NO!

 

I did learn that there is a valid defense for a BAC greater than allowable and DUI though, at least in CA.

[Subdeacon Joe]

One of the trials I was a juror for was interesting. DUI case in Chico, CA. Defendant was a little slip of girl, 19 or 20, maybe 105 pounds. We all figured she was guilty as hell, but the expert witness for the State kept insisting that a 170 pound man with her BAL would be passed out.

 

Given the "expert" testimony we had to assume that something was wrong with his testing methods and he got a false result. Kicked her loose because, according to him, there was no way she could have been awake and driving.

[Smuteye John SASS#24774]

Been called twice. First time I ended up on a Grand Jury. Ended up lasting a whole week. Second time, I sat in the jury room for 3 days. Got selected for a jury pool once during that time. DUI case. When the defendant's attorney asked for a show of hands if we thought that there was no excuse for driving drunk, I raised my hand and ended up being in the first group struck from the jury pool. (It was the truth, too. I figure if you're gonna drive, don't drink. If you're gonna drink, then you need to be someplace that you can stay long enough to sober up. That's what has worked for me for the last 25 years.)

 

I don't dodge jury duty. If they call, I show up. I figure I have an obligation to participate in the process. If I don't, then I figure it's just like voting. If you don't vote, then don't complain about the results. You had your chance to stand up and be counted and express your opinion and you chose not to do it. I figure if you dodge jury duty, then you just lost your right to complain about the criminal justice and civil court systems in much the same way.

[Smoken D]

 

Ike:

 

I disagree with your suggestion about what lawyers want. I usually want well educated people, and by that I mean experienced in the world, or in a trade, or in a profession - from farmers to engineers to subway train operators. There are a lot of variables depending upon the case, but primarily I want a juror who will reserve judgment until all of the evidence is in, who can recognize a liar when he hears one, and who has a fairly logical approach to resolving complex problems. You may be right that my opponent wants emotional reactors, willing to give away huge sums of money in sympathy for injuries....but we are both in the courtroom, and we each get a bit of what we want.

 

LL

 

That is the problem with being a cop or retired cop. If you see that the prosecutor screwed up you will know it and depending on the case may not overlook it. And if the defense is lying or making up stories other than what the case is about, I'll see that. So, a lot of cops don't get selected. I was selected for grand jury once, as I appeared to testify as the detective in a case I gave my letter to the prosecutor who just smiled and said how she wished I could serve especially with all the cases I brought to the grand jury. Testified at least twice a week and on several cases each time. Once I brought 10 cases for the grand jury

 

One of the trials I was a juror for was interesting. DUI case in Chico, CA. Defendant was a little slip of girl, 19 or 20, maybe 105 pounds. We all figured she was guilty as hell, but the expert witness for the State kept insisting that a 170 pound man with her BAL would be passed out.

 

Given the "expert" testimony we had to assume that something was wrong with his testing methods and he got a false result. Kicked her loose because, according to him, there was no way she could have been awake and driving.

 

 

 

Very good point!

[Ramblin Gambler]

One of the trials I was a juror for was interesting. DUI case in Chico, CA. Defendant was a little slip of girl, 19 or 20, maybe 105 pounds. We all figured she was guilty as hell, but the expert witness for the State kept insisting that a 170 pound man with her BAL would be passed out.

 

That doesn't make any sense. I don't know if I just don't understand BAL as well as I think I do, if you're relaying the argument wrong, or if that expert witness just boof woofed all of you. BAL is a percentage. Her body weight just meant that fewer drinks would be needed to achieve a certain BAL. The fact that some random person would have been passed out at the same level only means that some people hold their liquor better than others (which is true). heck, I can drink a bottle of tequila and still be able to walk up the stairs to bed. That 170 lb man probably would be dead from alcohol poisoning.

 

Last time I was called for Jury Duty, I'm pretty sure I was struck by the defense attorney, and he screwed up if it was him. Based on what the lawyers were telling us in the question period, it sounded like this kid got busted for having a little marijuana, and I guess the defense attorney didn't realize how much I disagree with the drug laws. They didn't even ask me a question, but there was a lady about 2 seats away who got to stay even though she told them she worked in the DA's office for 35 years and didn't know if she could be impartial in a drug case, but would try. It was because she was one of only 2 women with a low enough number to make it.

 

Next time I get called, I need to come up with some strategies to get picked. Any of you lawyers got any tips for me? One thing I know I need to work on is not crossing my arms. I know it's traditionally seen as a sign of not paying attention or not being receptive, but for me it's just a comfortable arm position because my arms are kind of short. I'm also thinking of wearing a wig in hopes that the defense attorney will think I'm an ugly woman. Should I lie when they ask questions and say what I think they wanna hear? Maybe I should just not ever raise my hand when they ask us group questions.

[Subdeacon Joe]

That doesn't make any sense. I don't know if I just don't understand BAL as well as I think I do, if you're relaying the argument wrong, or if that expert witness just boof woofed all of you. BAL is a percentage. Her body weight just meant that fewer drinks would be needed to achieve a certain BAL. The fact that some random person would have been passed out at the same level only means that some people hold their liquor better than others (which is true). heck, I can drink a bottle of tequila and still be able to walk up the stairs to bed. That 170 lb man probably would be dead from alcohol poisoning.

 

 

 

Oh, he was adamant that anyone with her BAL would be unconscious. Couldn't budge him from that comment with a bayonet. So, since the "expert" for the State was saying that she would have been passed out, but yet there she was stopped for DUI, and we were instructed to go by ONLY what was presented in the trial, we had to conclude that the testing was wrong. We knew better, but between the expert and the judge, we felt we didn't have a choice.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Oh, he was adamant that anyone with her BAL would be unconscious. Couldn't budge him from that comment with a bayonet. So, since the "expert" for the State was saying that she would have been passed out, but yet there she was stopped for DUI, and we were instructed to go by ONLY what was presented in the trial, we had to conclude that the testing was wrong. We knew better, but between the expert and the judge, we felt we didn't have a choice.

Yup. I've found that in the real world most juries take their duty seriously and try to do the best job they can to ensure a correct and legal verdict. You have to go with the evidence. The juries who get it wrong get the headlines. This leads a lot of people to the wrong conclusion that our system doesn't work. It actually works quite well.

A lot better than Congress!

[JudgeBagodonuts]

Next time I get called, I need to come up with some strategies to get picked. Any of you lawyers got any tips for me? One thing I know I need to work on is not crossing my arms. I know it's traditionally seen as a sign of not paying attention or not being receptive, but for me it's just a comfortable arm position because my arms are kind of short. I'm also thinking of wearing a wig in hopes that the defense attorney will think I'm an ugly woman. Should I lie when they ask questions and say what I think they wanna hear? Maybe I should just not ever raise my hand when they ask us group questions.

 

Unless your court has a restriction, wear jeans and golf style shirt. The mix tells the lawyers that you're middle of the road. People who are up-tight conservatives wear dress shirts. People at the other end of the spectrum show up wearing T shirts with slogans on them. Defense attorneys in drug cases look for T shirts. Prosecutors are looking for dress shirts. Both strike each others first choices. People considered middle of the road are more likely to be chosen.

 

Put your hands on the arms of the chair, or your knees. Lean forward slightly. It's a sign that you're actively engaged in the process. Both sides want people who take an interest.

 

When someone is asking a question, look at them, not at the ceiling, the pretty court reporter, the legs of the prosecuting attorney, or the person being asked the question. When I say look at them, I mean look, but don't stare. Being interested in the person speaking is a sign you're engaged in the process. Looking elsewhere says you have other things on your mind and don't care about the case. Both sides LOVE people who show an active interest.

 

Answer questions put to you honestly, but without going into great detail. "Do you have guns?" "Yes" is your answer. "What kind of guns?" "I have guns for target shooting and hunting." is your answer. If you start rattling off a list of the 24 guns in your safe along with the scopes and types of ammo they use, you'll get struck by both sides because you're considered a person who is too detail oriented. People obsessed with details derail juries, extend deliberations, and cause hung juries.

 

Don't give answers you think they want to hear if they are a lie. Do give answers that express a middle of the road viewpoint. "Could you give a death penalty verdict?" "Yes, in the proper case." Unsaid is: if Hitler were on the stand, but not in this particular case because it involves what have been a terrible accident. "Do you believe police officers more than non-police officers?" "I judge credibility based upon the person speaking." Unsaid is: my brother-in-law, the ex police chief, used to brag that he put bad guys away by planting stuff in their cars. I'm not inclined to blindly believe anyone.

 

In civil cases, you might be asked if you use a particular product. If you do, say so. But, do not express an extreme judgement on the product, even if asked. For example, "Have you ever cut grass with a gas powered mower?" "Yes" is your answer (remember, short answers). That may lead to the next question "Have you ever had grass jam in it?" "Yes" is your short answer. "How do you unclog it?" "I bounce the lawnmower up and down to dislodge it and keep going." is one good answer. "I reverse direction" is another good answer. "I turn off the mower, move it around until I see the clump fall out." is another good answer. A bad answer would be "I turn it off, turn it over, and use a stick to clean it out, because only an idiot would put their hand anywhere near that blade, even when its off." Expressing a viewpoint that is extreme or judgmental in any way will get you booted.

[Subdeacon Joe]

Yup. I've found that in the real world most juries take their duty seriously and try to do the best job they can to ensure a correct and legal verdict. You have to go with the evidence. The juries who get it wrong get the headlines. This leads a lot of people to the wrong conclusion that our system doesn't work. It actually works quite well.

A lot better than Congress!

 

Congress works?

 

OK, 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, 3 weeks a month, and 6 months a year.

 

 

[Ramblin Gambler]

 

Oh, he was adamant that anyone with her BAL would be unconscious. Couldn't budge him from that comment with a bayonet. So, since the "expert" for the State was saying that she would have been passed out, but yet there she was stopped for DUI, and we were instructed to go by ONLY what was presented in the trial, we had to conclude that the testing was wrong. We knew better, but between the expert and the judge, we felt we didn't have a choice.

so what I'm hearing is, if I'm going to drive drunk in cali, I need to get ludicrously drunk so my lawyer can make the claim that I should have been passed out or dead.

 

Time to build up some alcohol resistance. Oh, can you recall what her BAL was?

 

 

And thank you judge bagodonuts for the tips. I'll save them and reread the next time I get called.

[Subdeacon Joe]

so what I'm hearing is, if I'm going to drive drunk in cali, I need to get ludicrously drunk so my lawyer can make the claim that I should have been passed out or dead.

 

Time to build up some alcohol resistance. Oh, can you recall what her BAL was?

 

 

And thank you judge bagodonuts for the tips. I'll save them and reread the next time I get called.

 

 

Don't recall what it was. I do know that none of us were really surprised.

[Utah Bob #35998]

so what I'm hearing is, if I'm going to drive drunk in cali, I need to get ludicrously drunk so my lawyer can make the claim that I should have been passed out or dead.

 

Time to build up some alcohol resistance. Oh, can you recall what her BAL was?

 

It has nothing to do with California. The same argument could have been made anywhere.

It wasn't her lawyer. It was an expert witness for the state. oops....Looks like somebody in the prosecutor's office wasn't on the ball.

[Subdeacon Joe]

It has nothing to do with California. The same argument could have been made anywhere.

It wasn't her lawyer. It was an expert witness for the state. oops....Looks like somebody in the prosecutor's office wasn't on the ball.

 

I think the point RG was making was that if his BAL is high enough that an expert would say he should have been passed out, his own lawyer could use that to argue the test gave a false reading. An argument that was NOT advanced by her lawyer, by the way.

[Guest Grass Range #51406]

I 'm with Badger Mountains Charlie's response