Jury Duty

twocorgis

Venerated Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
13,923
Reaction score
6,519
Location
Lawn Guyland
Guild Total
18
Like voting, I view jury duty as a civic responsibility. I have a law enforcement background, so that gets me tossed from criminal trials summarily, but I always show up and am ready to do my part.
 

dreadnut

Gone But Not Forgotten
Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
16,082
Reaction score
6,442
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Guild Total
2
What's got to be maddening for everyone involved in bringing violent criminals to trial and incarceration is watching so many of them go free after serving minimal sentences comparative to their crimes.
 

5thumbs

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
1,556
Reaction score
914
Location
Norridge, Illinois
Guild Total
2
I've never had to actually sit on a jury, but have been involved in dozens of "voir dire" calls which cost me hundreds of dollars in lost time, gas, parking, etc. Annoying, yes. Expensive, yes.

Despite that, had I been selected for a jury, I would have done my very best to be an honest, objective peer. Were I the defendant I would wish for the same.

So I pretty much agree with Chaz. It ain't perfect, but it's a lot better than most.
 

FNG

Enlightened Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
5,961
Reaction score
1,516
Location
Planet Earth
Guild Total
596
I did it once, ended up as the jury foreman. The guy was a junkie, stole some guns, tried to sell them, even confessed to the detective. The first vore was me and another young girl, guilty, the rest not guilty since because no one actually saw him steal the guns there was reasonable doubt.

My argument was if someone stole your car, and was caught by the cops driving it, they were not guilty because no one saw them actually steal the car. Seriously?

Finally I said we will come back tomorrow since it was getting late to continue the discussion, and suddenly 12 guilty votes. Since the robbery was of guns, it became an armed robbery beef.

It was an interesting exercise, and I thought the lawyers for the defendant were so bad I almost laughed out loud a couple of times.

Everyone got home for dinner, well almost everyone, you're welcome.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,455
Reaction score
7,110
Location
Central Massachusetts
What's got to be maddening for everyone involved in bringing violent criminals to trial and incarceration is watching so many of them go free after serving minimal sentences comparative to their crimes.

Well, no question, dread. That said, sadly, this leads us into territory that's probably not acceptable for discussion on LTG.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
When I worked for the Federal Government, if we served on a Federal Jury we were compensated normally. It was as if we worked "normally" just doing something different at a different location.

Many other employers would pay your regular wages but expect you to to sign over whatever compensation you were given for jury duty.

Everybody else got $15/day for the first three days and more thereafter.

I was reading Killers of the Flower Moon by David Grann (true crime, non-fiction). The focus is on the murders of Native Americans in Oklahoma in the 1920's. The relevance to this thread is that (according to the book) the grand jury system was a product of a time when police and sheriff departments did not have the training or the personnel to investigate crimes. Detectives worked for private agencies. The grand jury was formed to investigate, gather evidence and recommend prosecution. Puts a perspective on the modern system, IMO.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,455
Reaction score
7,110
Location
Central Massachusetts
Fro, that is totally fascinating. I thought the grand jury thing was just taken from British procedure and I never considered why it was done. I'll have to read up on this. Between the motivation and Bill's earlier comments, I think I need to take a second look at this.
 

Bill Ashton

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
4,387
Reaction score
989
Location
North Central Massachusetts
Guild Total
4
Seems every jurisdiction has different rules of operation. We have a law enforcement officer that is the foreman of our jury! 80-90 people were summoned, 27 chosen after interview by presiding judge, 23 for the jury, four alternates. Before each case, the Assistant District Attorney names all the relevant people in the case, if you know someone you have a private conference. Several times members have sat out a particular case in the "jury room."

I once was selected for a jury in Superior Court, and turned out the case was fire-related (but not an arson case). As judge interviewed me, sort of looks over his glasses and says "You're kidding me..." when I say I'm a Deputy Fire Chief. He dismissed me before the defense counsel could get at me. It was a shame, as it could have been an interesting and educational case.
 

Brucebubs

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
1,550
Location
Eden, Australia
I've been called up 3 times.
Here in Australia they give you a check and your employer is obliged to make up the difference of what would be a normal day's pay - but in typical Aussie form most employers just pay you a normal day's wage and you pocket the check as well.

Got selected for a case - road accident - no injuries but litigant claiming for the stress and anxiety caused by the accident - his lawyer went on and on. Defending lawyer finally got to speak, "Did you pick up your work colleague XXX XXXX that morning?" - "No" - "Are you Sure?" - "Yes" - "Can you explain why XXX XXXX is claiming for injuries received in your vehicle in this incident?" .... - "Er .. no" - "Can you explain why your signature is on his claim form?" - silence - "That is your signature isn't it?" .... "Er ... yes".
His lawyer nearly fell off his chair.

Judge halted proceedings and sent us all to the little jury room.
They then sent us home, told us to come straight back to this room in the morning, not the larger jury pool room.

Judge addressed us in the morning outlining the case was dismissed and had moved into another phase now with fraud allegations pending.
The defendants were beaming.
We could return to the main pool room.

As we walked out I could see the 'fraudster' sitting with his head in his hands.
I thought about it later.
What was he hoping to achieve?
He now had ALL costs plus a fraud allegation to answer.
Idiot.
 
Last edited:

dapmdave

Enlightened Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,612
Reaction score
24
Since we are describing our experiences, I'll explain my "it sucks" comment.

Several years ago I spent a full week on a jury for a murder trial. It was ludicrous and it soured me on the process.

Then, just a few years ago, I was in the pool (75!) for a big tobacco trial. I was excused, and so was anyone else who had somehow accomplished the
impossible task of quitting tobacco.
 

Charlie Bernstein

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
1,169
Location
Augusta, Maine, USA
Case 1. Defendant: auto repair shop. Quoted the plaintiff $800. Told plaintiff they would call if higher. Never called. Hit the plaintiff with a $2600 invoice. Plaintiff stole car off the lot and never paid. Defendant refused to admit any wrong doing. So we found them guilty of fraud and ruled the plaintiff owed them zilch

Case 2. Defendant was a chef. Drove drunk into a tree after work. No one hurt. Probably get just a slap in the wrist and lesson learned until his perry mason lawyer inferred the fault actually laid at the feet of the restaurant for providing staff with a free cocktail at the end of their shift. The real criminal in the case, he said, was the restaurant. Didn’t matter that his client admitted to three drinks in a one hour period. Not to mention he told us the alcohol odor the police detected at the scene was spilled cooking wine. Didn’t matter he had changed his clothes before leaving.

Both cases could have decided less harshly, but when the jurors were treated like immature juveniles their fate was sealed

I rest my case
Hm. But then how could you "have found them easily not guilty"? They sound guilty as hell.
 

dbirchett

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
938
Reaction score
90
A Judge is addressing a panel of prospective jurors. He informs them that the trial is likely to be lengthy and asks if anyone would need to be excused due to work. One man raises his hand. The Judge asks him where he works and the man indicates that he is a junior executive at the bank across the street.

The Judge asks, "You mean that bank can't do without you for the six weeks we estimate this trial will take?"

The man responds, "No, your Honor. They can get along without me very well. I know that and I don't care if you know that. I just don't want them to figure it out."
 

Cougar

Enlightened Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
5,319
Reaction score
3,014
Location
North Idaho
Guild Total
5
...I am on my second month of Grand Jury duty.....

Good for you, Bill, and all the others who have answered the call for jury duty.

I worked on an interesting case involving a grand jury. A BYU professor was murdered. (The only murder case I was ever involved in!) His son and daughter in law walked in on the murderers. They were tied up, the murderers left, and son and wife got themselves untied and called the cops. The son had been moderately brain damaged from before, so he seemed a little "off." After a thorough investigation, the cops thought the son and his wife killed his father - for his money.

So they brought together a grand jury. Grand juries, remember, do NOT determine guilt or innocence - only probable cause whether to take the case forward before a regular jury. And grand juries are only presented with one side of the issue. There is no defense attorney arguing for the other side. Anyway, after comparing the reams of investigatory evidence to the grand jury testimonies of the police, we determined they basically LIED to the grand jury, the liars caused the couple to be jailed awaiting trial for murder. After several months, a tip led the police to the real killers, and the couple was released from jail. But 4-5 months in jail is a "damage," and we sued the police whose lies put them there.

Unfortunately, right as our case got going, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a different case saying that witnesses before a grand jury could not be sued civilly for giving incorrect or false testimony, which killed our case. They can be prosecuted for perjury, but not sued civilly for any damage their lies may have caused. Of course, though we urged the attorney general to prosecute, the liars were not prosecuted.....
 

Antney

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
510
Reaction score
176
I was “dismissed”. Selection was for 7 jurors. I was numero 6. Two day trial, the accused was a 60 year old Central American who did not speak English. The judge refused to excuse me based on my employment status (sole business owner...if I’m not there I lose money...she didn’t care.). She read and explained the charges to the jurors and asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand and she said “yes?” I asked the immigration status of the accused. She glared at me and said that wasn’t relevant. I politely said I think as jurors we are entitled to know if the accused has any outstanding charges or warrants against him (we’re not, I knew that but I asked anyway). She repeated it wasn’t relevant to the case. The defending attorney approached the bench, a few whispers were exchanged, and I was dismissed.
 

Bikerdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,504
Reaction score
37
Location
Wapakoneta, Ohio
I was “dismissed”. Selection was for 7 jurors. I was numero 6. Two day trial, the accused was a 60 year old Central American who did not speak English. The judge refused to excuse me based on my employment status (sole business owner...if I’m not there I lose money...she didn’t care.). She read and explained the charges to the jurors and asked if there were any questions. I raised my hand and she said “yes?” I asked the immigration status of the accused. She glared at me and said that wasn’t relevant. I politely said I think as jurors we are entitled to know if the accused has any outstanding charges or warrants against him (we’re not, I knew that but I asked anyway). She repeated it wasn’t relevant to the case. The defending attorney approached the bench, a few whispers were exchanged, and I was dismissed.

And that's just one way to get out of JD. Our "civic duty"? Only if we truly are a jury of their peers.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Y'know, no kidding, I kinda hope I get plenty of duty calls when I'm retired.
I'm pretty sure it would be interesting, and I'm beginning to suspect by that age one's canny enough to recognize BS no matter which side's putting it out there, if not both sides.
Betcha seniors're a whole lot more even-handed than anybody'd suspect!
 
Top