I don't mind jury duty, i just hate that they send me to a court house in downtown LA, when there's a court house here in Norwalk.
Have you ever been on a trial jury?
- Thread starter QCzar
- Start date
Out of interest - can you get excuse from a murder trial if you oppose capital punishment?
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the lawyer and the judge.
I was on a jury once, and it was one of the most interesting experiences of my life. It was a case in compton, about a dozen counts of assault with a deadly weapon on peace officers by a guy with two strikes already.
The Jury selection process was pretty interesting, it was a very obvious cat and mouse game between the jurors and the court. The Judge made it clear that he had no qualms with charging contempt if he thought someone was lying to get out of jury duty. One of the first jurors said the he had very negative feelings about police. The judge grilled him about it and basically picked him apart till he admitted that he really didn't have strong negative feelings about police. In the end everyone that got cut was either anti-police or a recent victim of a crime, but that left one ex-cop and a current parole officer on the jury.
Throughout the trial various family members of the defendant were there in the audience and it was kind of nerve-wracking because they were watching you, trying to see your reaction. You are sitting there to decide the fate of one of their loved ones, it was a humbling experience.
The case was about as open and close as you could get, there was even a couple of video's that neighborhood people took of the event and news chopper footage. His only defense was that he was just firing at a tree in his yard, rather than at the police. The guy went on the stand and pretty much hung himself with his own testimony when the prosecutor caught him in several contradictions. His biggest problem was that his current recollection of events didn't match the ones he submitted to court. His official plea was not guilty because of temporary mental issues, his excuse on the stand was that he didn't do the crime at all.
The crazy thing was that on the first secret vote of the jurors, three of them came back with not guilty on all counts! One of the juror's reasoning was that he wasn't there so he can't send a guy to jail for something he wasn't personally there to see. Another juror said it was because he himself has had bad days before and didn't think a guy should go to jail for having a bad day. The last person just didn't want to send a guy to jail for a long time for an incident where no one got hurt. This person had relatives that were unfairly treated by police she said, and didn't trust them. Two of the other jurors only went with guilty on the counts of the police officers that personally testified in the trial, saying if the other cops wanted to get justice they should have come to the trial. In the end the rest of us were able to explain that the defendant had admitted to the crime on the stand, and we got guilty on all counts. I stared at my hands the entire time the verdicts were read in the court room.
After the trial I ended up on the elevator with both the prosecuting and defending attorney, and they were both talking around about what a joke of a trial this was and how the guy was wasting everyone's time. I asked them what was going to happen to the guy, the prosecutor said he had already offered him a very good deal before the trial and he probably doubled his time in prison just to test out the jury system. The prosecutor said it was common for these types of people to push for a jury trial, just in the off chance that they win the lottery and get a sympathetic jury. He got 5 out of 12, but that wasn't enough.
While I was kind of shocked at the three people that voted not guilty, I actually came away feeling more secure about the justice system. You might end up with a handful of idiots at any given trial, but the odds of getting an entire jury filled with them is not very likely.
One other interesting tidbit was that I looked up the incident on the internet after the trial and it turned out the guy was a gang member, something that was never mentioned in the trial. I still wonder if that fact would have changed things at all, particularly if it would have made me more worried about the relatives he had in court with him.
Anyways, if you have the time I'd recommend it. It's just one of those life experiences that's well worth having.
The Jury selection process was pretty interesting, it was a very obvious cat and mouse game between the jurors and the court. The Judge made it clear that he had no qualms with charging contempt if he thought someone was lying to get out of jury duty. One of the first jurors said the he had very negative feelings about police. The judge grilled him about it and basically picked him apart till he admitted that he really didn't have strong negative feelings about police. In the end everyone that got cut was either anti-police or a recent victim of a crime, but that left one ex-cop and a current parole officer on the jury.
Throughout the trial various family members of the defendant were there in the audience and it was kind of nerve-wracking because they were watching you, trying to see your reaction. You are sitting there to decide the fate of one of their loved ones, it was a humbling experience.
The case was about as open and close as you could get, there was even a couple of video's that neighborhood people took of the event and news chopper footage. His only defense was that he was just firing at a tree in his yard, rather than at the police. The guy went on the stand and pretty much hung himself with his own testimony when the prosecutor caught him in several contradictions. His biggest problem was that his current recollection of events didn't match the ones he submitted to court. His official plea was not guilty because of temporary mental issues, his excuse on the stand was that he didn't do the crime at all.
The crazy thing was that on the first secret vote of the jurors, three of them came back with not guilty on all counts! One of the juror's reasoning was that he wasn't there so he can't send a guy to jail for something he wasn't personally there to see. Another juror said it was because he himself has had bad days before and didn't think a guy should go to jail for having a bad day. The last person just didn't want to send a guy to jail for a long time for an incident where no one got hurt. This person had relatives that were unfairly treated by police she said, and didn't trust them. Two of the other jurors only went with guilty on the counts of the police officers that personally testified in the trial, saying if the other cops wanted to get justice they should have come to the trial. In the end the rest of us were able to explain that the defendant had admitted to the crime on the stand, and we got guilty on all counts. I stared at my hands the entire time the verdicts were read in the court room.
After the trial I ended up on the elevator with both the prosecuting and defending attorney, and they were both talking around about what a joke of a trial this was and how the guy was wasting everyone's time. I asked them what was going to happen to the guy, the prosecutor said he had already offered him a very good deal before the trial and he probably doubled his time in prison just to test out the jury system. The prosecutor said it was common for these types of people to push for a jury trial, just in the off chance that they win the lottery and get a sympathetic jury. He got 5 out of 12, but that wasn't enough.
While I was kind of shocked at the three people that voted not guilty, I actually came away feeling more secure about the justice system. You might end up with a handful of idiots at any given trial, but the odds of getting an entire jury filled with them is not very likely.
One other interesting tidbit was that I looked up the incident on the internet after the trial and it turned out the guy was a gang member, something that was never mentioned in the trial. I still wonder if that fact would have changed things at all, particularly if it would have made me more worried about the relatives he had in court with him.
Anyways, if you have the time I'd recommend it. It's just one of those life experiences that's well worth having.
Not all murder trials involve the death penalty. For example, the prosecution didn't ask for the death penalty in the murder trial I was a juror for. I am not sure why. Anyway, we potential jurors weren't even asked how we felt about the death penalty because it simply wasn't pertinent.
The federal kingpin drug case I was on, was also very interesting, and we found the guy guilty but it took a while. After the verdict was read the judge came in and talked to us about the entire experience, he also brought up some additional damning evidence that was excluded, so we all felt much better about finding him guilty.
My dad was an alternate juror for the Ray Lee Stewart murder trial. It irked him to no end after the trial to learn of evidence that was *omitted*, which would have more thoroughly convinced the more jellyfish-spined of the jurors.
I was on the jury for a 2-part civil suit involving a personal injury. A new owner had just purchased this house. He called an exterminator over and while the exterminator was on the deck, a railing gave way and he fell 2 stories, leading to some lasting but not permanently debilitating injuries.
The first task was to determine whether the new or form owner was at fault. Since the new owner had an engineer's inspection report documenting the deck was unsafe and should not be occupied, we found him at fault.
The second task involved determining the monetary damages to be awarded to him.
It lasted about 8 days overall. Very interesting experience but not something I'd want to do every day.
The first task was to determine whether the new or form owner was at fault. Since the new owner had an engineer's inspection report documenting the deck was unsafe and should not be occupied, we found him at fault.
The second task involved determining the monetary damages to be awarded to him.
It lasted about 8 days overall. Very interesting experience but not something I'd want to do every day.
Another question about the Yank system, if I may: Do you get 'drafted' for just one trial, you sit it ,and however long it is, you go home at the end? Or do you get drafted for x days like us (unless you're still in a trial that's run over the x days, obviously) and sit on more than one trial (potentially) during that time?
The way it works in this state - I am not sure if it's the same in every state - is that if you are seated as a juror or an alternate, once the trial is over, you're sent home and excused from jury duty for a specific period of time. I believe it's one year here in Indiana - that's what it was the one and only time I served.
If you aren't seated, you could potentially be part of the jury pool for more than one trial, so you could go through more than one jury-selection session. That's never happened to me, but I know of people this has happened to.
I've never been on state or local jury, but for Federal Jury, i was in a pool for 3 months and ended up on 3 trials. This was in the 10 circuit, and was for trial jury, not grand jury.
When I did it in CA, as long as you showed up for the jury selection process, you were excused from jury duty for a year.
Actually here in california, well at least in los angeles county, they've greatly reduced the number of things that can disqualify you. You only get a year excuse if you actually sit on a jury, waiting to be called up isn't enough anymore. They've also increased the number of miles from a given city that the jury pool can be selected from, and your personal location in the city doesn't matter as long as any section of that city falls within the pre-determined distance. My trial was about 30 minutes from where I lived, three cities away.
Commander Rabbit
Commander
I have jury duty coming up this Monday. I've been called regularly, but made it on to an actually jury only a couple times. Stressful but definitely interesting.
Commander Rabbit
Commander
Varies from one jurisdiction to another, even within states.
If you ever want to get out of jury duty, try to let them know you believe in jury nullification, and when they ask you if you can judge the case fairly and follow the instructions, tell them fairly yes, but if I feel the State is trying to enforce an unjust law it is my duty to acquit. That might get you cut by the prosecution.
^ I am not in favor of lying in order to get out of jury duty. It's quite possibly illegal (though I realize the chances of getting caught are probably remote) and in any case, I consider it downright immoral. If that makes me sound priggish or whatever, so be it. So as far as I'm concerned, a person should only use the out that you suggest, Paudemge, if that peson genuinely agrees.
Well, I hope everybody actually agrees with jury nullification,it is the juries duty to acquit if they find the law or punishment unfair. They just don't want to advertise this.
“It is not only his right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” -- John Adams
Then as a responsible citizen, you work to convince your fellow jurors that the law is wrong/unfair and acquit the accused.
Is that so difficult? Oh, that's right -- it's better to whine and bitch about the system than to actually get involved when the occasion presents itself.
Then as a responsible citizen, you work to convince your fellow jurors that the law is wrong/unfair and acquit the accused.
I like jury duty, but I know others don't so I thought I'd mention something that would likely get them out of it.
Similar threads
