The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
My Disappointing Experience with [Jury Duty]
Yar
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
"If there was a problem with the DA's case, how come the Defense didn't bring it up?"
"Don't you think the 11 of us telling you you're being unreasonable is proof that you're being unreasonable?"
"Here, I just researched some stuff on my Android, and it says you're wrong."
"Don't you think that your unique experience and insight are causing you to be unfairly biased?"
"If you think he's not guilty, then you're saying the victim and the police are all lying under oath."
"If you're questioning one piece of evidence, then you have to throw out every piece of evidence in the entire case."
"Fine, prove it. You can't prove he's innocent."
"Hey man, I actually see what you're saying now, but I just want to go home."
I certainly didn't plan it this way, but I saw it coming early on in the trial. I was the lone hold-out, the one guy trying to get 11 other jurors to understand that there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
It wasn't quite 12 Angry Men. This wasn't murder. There were 7 criminal charges, and 6 of them he was clearly guilty of. The 7th he was probably guilty of as well.
Like several other charges in the case, this 7th one was a felony. But unlike all the other charges, this one rested entirely on a single, vague, forwarded email. There was no direct evidence as to who or how or when it was originally sent. There was little to nothing identifying the defendant in it, certainly nothing that positively identified him. Even though appropriate officials and experts were on the stand as witnesses, nothing about this email or this particular felony charge was ever discussed. The DA passed the whole thing off as an "email from the defendant" even though every single word of it was marketing fluff from a well-known Internet brand, and none of it written by the defendant or anyone else. But this one forwarded email was the sole piece of evidence for a whole separate felony charge.
The quotes above are not just the worst bits... they are the majority of what was said to me by the other 11. Shouted at me, in many cases. And it didn't win me any support when I tried to point out that pretty much all of those statements are in direct contrast to due process and to what the Judge charged us to consider (and not consider).
I think at one point I was gaining some momentum. A local big-league pro-sports athlete on the jury with me was the one who started to see it my way, but he still just wanted to get home to his daughter. And there was a nice old lady on the jury, who'd brought us cookies every day, and whose husband had terminal cancer. He had radiology that afternoon, and she'd really hoped to be done and go with him. With me defying the vote for hours like I was, that wasn't going to happen. Then the Court got a phone call that her husband had suddenly died in radiology, and she had to run out in a tearful panic. Another juror next to me muttered something about time being precious. And I about had an anxiety attack.
When the alternate juror was brought in, he wasn't any different, and I had already lost any fight I had in me. The defendant was a dangerous, rotten, creep. I felt no sympathy for him. So, whatever; guilty on all counts.
But you know, this is why O.J. and that Mom in FL go free. DAs get spoiled by the average jury, who don't care about due process, who are going to say "guilty" unless the Defense can prove some sort of huge conspiracy to frame the defendant. When these prosecutors find themselves on a high-profile case against a million-dollar defense attorney one day, they lose. They lose because they've always gotten away with half-assed cases, and now they can't.
There was a lot of talk during this long trial about how amazing and honorable and crucial the jury system is. And going into this I bought into it completely. I was thrilled to be a part of it. But obviously I left feeling quite a bit disenchanted.
What really is the value of a trial by jury? I hope I'm never innocent and facing 12 uneducated grumps who don't want to be there. Heck, if I'm ever guilty, I hope I've got a good lawyer and I'm facing this DA.
Did the Judge believe that we were actually going to decide the case based on all the stuff he told us to do, or does he know that most jurors don't care about all the due process crap? In modern jurisprudence, shouldn't you have to be trained to make these sorts of decisions?
If you care to, tell me your jury experience, or your thoughts on the institution, or on my situation.
"Don't you think the 11 of us telling you you're being unreasonable is proof that you're being unreasonable?"
"Here, I just researched some stuff on my Android, and it says you're wrong."
"Don't you think that your unique experience and insight are causing you to be unfairly biased?"
"If you think he's not guilty, then you're saying the victim and the police are all lying under oath."
"If you're questioning one piece of evidence, then you have to throw out every piece of evidence in the entire case."
"Fine, prove it. You can't prove he's innocent."
"Hey man, I actually see what you're saying now, but I just want to go home."
I certainly didn't plan it this way, but I saw it coming early on in the trial. I was the lone hold-out, the one guy trying to get 11 other jurors to understand that there was not sufficient evidence to convict.
It wasn't quite 12 Angry Men. This wasn't murder. There were 7 criminal charges, and 6 of them he was clearly guilty of. The 7th he was probably guilty of as well.
Like several other charges in the case, this 7th one was a felony. But unlike all the other charges, this one rested entirely on a single, vague, forwarded email. There was no direct evidence as to who or how or when it was originally sent. There was little to nothing identifying the defendant in it, certainly nothing that positively identified him. Even though appropriate officials and experts were on the stand as witnesses, nothing about this email or this particular felony charge was ever discussed. The DA passed the whole thing off as an "email from the defendant" even though every single word of it was marketing fluff from a well-known Internet brand, and none of it written by the defendant or anyone else. But this one forwarded email was the sole piece of evidence for a whole separate felony charge.
The quotes above are not just the worst bits... they are the majority of what was said to me by the other 11. Shouted at me, in many cases. And it didn't win me any support when I tried to point out that pretty much all of those statements are in direct contrast to due process and to what the Judge charged us to consider (and not consider).
I think at one point I was gaining some momentum. A local big-league pro-sports athlete on the jury with me was the one who started to see it my way, but he still just wanted to get home to his daughter. And there was a nice old lady on the jury, who'd brought us cookies every day, and whose husband had terminal cancer. He had radiology that afternoon, and she'd really hoped to be done and go with him. With me defying the vote for hours like I was, that wasn't going to happen. Then the Court got a phone call that her husband had suddenly died in radiology, and she had to run out in a tearful panic. Another juror next to me muttered something about time being precious. And I about had an anxiety attack.
When the alternate juror was brought in, he wasn't any different, and I had already lost any fight I had in me. The defendant was a dangerous, rotten, creep. I felt no sympathy for him. So, whatever; guilty on all counts.
But you know, this is why O.J. and that Mom in FL go free. DAs get spoiled by the average jury, who don't care about due process, who are going to say "guilty" unless the Defense can prove some sort of huge conspiracy to frame the defendant. When these prosecutors find themselves on a high-profile case against a million-dollar defense attorney one day, they lose. They lose because they've always gotten away with half-assed cases, and now they can't.
There was a lot of talk during this long trial about how amazing and honorable and crucial the jury system is. And going into this I bought into it completely. I was thrilled to be a part of it. But obviously I left feeling quite a bit disenchanted.
What really is the value of a trial by jury? I hope I'm never innocent and facing 12 uneducated grumps who don't want to be there. Heck, if I'm ever guilty, I hope I've got a good lawyer and I'm facing this DA.
Did the Judge believe that we were actually going to decide the case based on all the stuff he told us to do, or does he know that most jurors don't care about all the due process crap? In modern jurisprudence, shouldn't you have to be trained to make these sorts of decisions?
If you care to, tell me your jury experience, or your thoughts on the institution, or on my situation.
Yar on
0
Posts
"We the panel of old white judges find the defendant guilty of being young and black"
Because TIME is needed for the fucking task. Anyone who treats it like "get in, get out" is dumb as shit and not capable of critical thought.
then they asked me- would you be able to give equal weight to the testimony of a doctor or other medical expert or police officer versus that of an everyman?
and i said, no. i recognize that this is unfair, and i don't know whether it stems from class issues or what... but past basic issues of expertise, i think i would inherently assign more trustworthiness or decency to an accomplished professional or public servant.
and they're like do you understand that you need to be able to blah blah
and i'm like, i understand why that is a reasonable expectation... but i'm telling you that i can't meet it.
---
i wasn't trying to skip jury duty. i had a lame retail job, no kids at home... i was willing to participate but i didn't think it was responsible to lie about my honest bias just to be a 'good juror'.
But it backfires in the same way, like in the aforementioned OJ Simpson murder trial.
Bingo.
And I have never, ever been even called to jury duty and I have been registered to vote (and kept up my voting registration) for over a decade. It's weird.
Well... FUCK.
It depends on the context. Would I take an everyman's side about medical knowledge and what they read on web md? No, not over a doctor. If they were witness to a crime? It doesn't really matter. I'd say you're right.
Though, I'd always assume the cop is lying.
Also, re using phones to research case, the Chief Justice is preparing a report and the Attorney General of the UK is planning to crack down as well. I believe he is also planning to personally lead the prosecution, which being a QC prior to election, would be interesting to see!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/dec/09/jurors-tempted-to-go-online
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/full-text-dominic-grieve-on-the-press-and-contempt-of-court/s2/a546997/
In three separate appeals last year, convictions were found to be unsafe in the light of jury irregularities; re-trials were ordered in two of those cases.
In June, Joanne Fraill, 40, a juror in a Manchester case, was sentenced to eight months in jail for contempt of court after using Facebook to exchange messages with Jamie Sewart, 34, a defendant already acquitted in a multimillion-pound drug trial.
Fraill, from Blackley, Manchester, also admitted conducting an internet search into Sewart's boyfriend, Gary Knox, a co-defendant, while the jury was still deliberating.
Last month the high court gave permission for contempt proceedings to be brought against a juror whose internet research led to a criminal trial being aborted.
Theodora Dallas, a university lecturer, was hearing a grievous bodily harm case at Luton crown court in July when she looked up information about a defendant including a previous conviction.
"Next day, when the jury retired, she informed other members of the jury," the high court was told. "Her conduct was reported to the court and the judge discharged Dallas and the remaining jurors.
better yet, make it paid time off
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Let's say 12 jurors unanimously convict a defendant. However, their reasoning is undeniably spurious: "We do not believe that there is any credible evidence establishing the guilt of the defendant. However, we just don't like him. We think he's ugly. Therefore, we find him guilty."
What would happen?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I've read about appeals based juror misconduct, but those have always been due to, well, conduct - like showing up intoxicated - but never based on poor reasoning.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
who pays? The state? Hi, I'm a CEO with a $4000-an-hour effective wage rate. I'll take cash.
Your legislature is supposed to act here.
Then if you go to the video replay and see jurors blatantly disregarding judge's orders, or saying bullshit like "I don't care about the evidence, let's convict him so I can get home in time for Monday Night Football", that verdict needs to be thrown out.
Washington state went from voter rolls to drivers license I believe because they felt jury duty was keeping people from registering. I've only gotten called once for jury duty and it was after I'd moved from snohomish to king county so I wasn't able to do it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's a good idea in theory, until you deal with a case like a mafia boss or something and then you've given 12 people their death sentence.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Pretty much this.
Or hell even a celebrity trial would be bad enough, with wackjob fans and the like.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah I want to serve as well, my wife got to this year even though she hated it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
the employer pays
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Doesn't anyone sitting in the courtroom have the opportunity to look directly at the Jurors anyway? I'd be in favor of videotaping like this. Perhaps with the added anonymity of those lights out muffled voice interviews you see occasionally. It's clear there needs to be some oversight into this as the average moron can't reasonably be expected to make a fair decision in a jury. Or probably even understand that you're innocent until proven guilty.
Explain Michael Vick.
Other countries can do without jury trials without the judiciary gaining much power.
Hell, you could keep it sealed unless there are reports of juror misconduct, and then you could just have either the judge on the case or a panel of judges review the tape.
My jury experience was pretty easy.
Got called in, sat around for a half hour, went in. Sat on the bench. Then got asked to leave by the defense attorney. Went home. Took about 2 hours.
You're forgetting that juries don't just serve on criminal trials; they also serve on civil trials, and the population's hatred for things like insurance companies is really the only thing that keeps them from fucking over their customers even more than they do already.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
I've been called to jury duty twice, but never ended up on a panel.
Rigorous Scholarship
The first one, assault + intent(?), was a four-hour deliberation with a guilty verdict. The writing was basically on the wall.
The second one was much more difficult. Eleven hours over two days of deliberation for a rape + kidnapping. The dissection of law and definition of "reasonable doubt" was more than most people could wrap their head around.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
it is a terrifying thing, and Yar's experience with it is unique only that he has the (not particularly uncommon) benefit of dealing with someone who is at least guilty of something. "Well, the store owner says they had a gun and the defense says they didn't and why would the store owner lie? Obviously they just found someplace really clever to hide the gun and avoided showing it on cameras, they had guns. Guilty!"