Jury Duty.....AGAIN!

[Mr. Roboto]

I consider myself a good All American Robot....
I pay taxes
I Love thy neighbor
I recycle
I vote

However, I dislike Jury Duty. The only experience comparible would be an Arm Forces Induction Physical. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! This will be my 5th "Tour of Duty". I was a Juror twice for criminal cases. One of the cases, was emotionally dehydrating and left an improper taste in my mouth. This will be my last appearence as a juror- do not send me another summons-it will be burned, like the Walls of Waco.

[caphis]

Aw, man, I was looking forward to serving my first jury duty when I got my summons in December. I was supposed to begin next week, but I have numerous conflicts with classes (full-time student), so the judge deferred my service until September 2007.

But I WAS looking forward to it. :-/

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I've always wanted to serve on a jury but never been called. It's kind of disapponting. I always picture myself as the lone holdout for acquittal who gradually convinces everyone else that the dude didn't stab his dad. Or I can be a holdout for conviction as well. I just want to be a holdout.

[Leaper]

I've always wanted to serve on a jury but never been called. It's kind of disapponting. I always picture myself as the lone holdout for acquittal who gradually convinces everyone else that the dude didn't stab his dad. Or I can be a holdout for conviction as well. I just want to be a holdout.

Be careful. You know what happened to a jury holdout on CSI?

The closest I ever got was being in a pool called to a domestic violence case. Didn't get out of the pool, and went home that day.

[butter pie]

I had to go once, and I got the part where they were lining us up and stuff, but apparently the parties going to court settled their cage while they were getting the potential jurors in order, and they let us go.

I don't mind doing it but I wish you were better compensated than the like $5 they give you. Depending on where you live it can cost more in gas and parking just to get there, nevermind if your employer doesn't reimburse you for jury duty or you work at home.

[butter pie]

case, sorry.

[Lok]

And here I am hoping to get called again. Especially Grand Jury. That was really fascinating to sit on.

[FinnAgain]

Please please please educate yourself on Jury Nullification (http://www.fija.org/) and try to educate others if you wind up on a jury.
Simply for the record, they'll probably throw you off a jury if you know about this.

[Hamlet]

Simply for the record, they'll probably throw you off a jury if you know about this.Maybe they throw you off because it's against your sworn duty as a jury? Could that be it

[FinnAgain]

Maybe they throw you off because it's against your sworn duty as a jury? Could that be it

Seeing as how jury nullification exists both de jure and de facto, I have to question how it could possibly be against a juror's sworn duty.
If a judge makes you swear to not exercise your rights as a citizen and utilitze jury nullification as you see fit, he has obstructed justie in the truest sense of the term.

[Meatros]

I'm 26, and I've been sent letters about jury duty 3 times. Twice I've had to attend. I can't really recall the other letter-but I could swear it said that I've been picked and *might* have to go.

Out of those two times, both have been for traffic court. The thing is-I'm never going to get to serve on that sort of jury because I'm always instantly dismissed when the find out that I used to be a insurance adjuster's assistant.

The absolutely shitty thing is, I'll get there at 9 (roughly) be dismissed at 9:30, and have to wait only to be dismissed again after lunch!

It's frustrating!

[don't ask]

I was called for jury duty and was really keen to sit on a jury. There were probably 80 of us there for the day's cases. Not one case was ready for court and we were all dismissed after about 3 hours of aimless sitting around and wont get called again for years.

Two guys at work have been on juries. One was the foreman of the jury in a trial where the accused woman was convicted. Just for the hell of it I used to taunt him that he had put an innocent woman in jail, it was the worst miscarriage of justice I had ever seen ......etc. Unfortunately sometime later the conviction was overturned on appeal......oops.

The other guy sat on a jury for many days. During summation the prosecutor said something to which the defense objected. The jury was taken out for legal argument and then brought back to be told that a mistrial had been declared. No member of the jury had noticed the prosecutor's assertion that the defendant was guilty of something as yet unproven.

[Hamlet]

Seeing as how jury nullification exists both de jure and de facto, I have to question how it could possibly be against a juror's sworn duty.Jury Nullificiation certainly exists as a matter of fact... it happens. But as a matter of law? Really? Could I ask you for a cite? One that was decided in the last 30 years or so, and not from the 1700 - 1800's.If a judge makes you swear to not exercise your rights as a citizen and utilitze jury nullification as you see fit, he has obstructed justi[c]e [sic] in the truest sense of the term.Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. Jurors take an oath to determine their verdict based on the facts of the case. If the facts prove the defendant guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, ignoring that is breaking your oath. Your overinflated rhetoric notwithstanding.

[FinnAgain]

Jury Nullificiation certainly exists as a matter of fact... it happens. But as a matter of law? Really? Could I ask you for a cite? One that was decided in the last 30 years or so, and not from the 1700 - 1800's

You could ask for one, but before I give you a second I'll tell you to check the first.
I will, however, quote one fact they have up there, I'm sure you can do the rest of the research yourself.
Art. I, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Aww, what the hell, I'm feeling generous (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html)
Oh, and, just to be clear, yes, I am deliberatly disregarding your injunction that only something within the last 30 years can be used as a cite due to the fact that such a prohibition is ridiculous.


.Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit. Jurors take an oath to determine their verdict based on the facts of the case. If the facts prove the defendant guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, ignoring that is breaking your oath.

Several things, first, do you feel that somehow correcting a typo makes you look like anything other than a nitpicker? Sic indeed.
Second, your overinflated rhetoric notwithstanding, it is not bullshit.
Determining a verdict based on the facts is not mutually exclusive to finding that the law is unjust. One could, quite easily, determine that the facts in a case were evident, but the law unjust, and then vote 'not guilty'.

[Elza B]

I've always wanted to serve on a jury but never been called. It's kind of disapponting. I always picture myself as the lone holdout for acquittal who gradually convinces everyone else that the dude didn't stab his dad. Or I can be a holdout for conviction as well. I just want to be a holdout.

Yeah, because that's fun :rolleyes: .

Try being one of two holdouts on a murder trial where the other ten members just want to go home. Loads of fun, I tell you. I enjoyed getting the death glare from ten people when I said that I wasn't entirely convinced that the defendant was involved in the murder. It kind of kills your faith in the justice system when you have another juror tell you "Just vote the guy guilty so we can all get the fuck out of here, okay? Because none of us wanna come back tomorrow.".

Be careful what you wish for, Dio. Believe me, it's not as fun as you think it is.

E.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Yeah, because that's fun :rolleyes: .

Try being one of two holdouts on a murder trial where the other ten members just want to go home. Loads of fun, I tell you. I enjoyed getting the death glare from ten people when I said that I wasn't entirely convinced that the defendant was involved in the murder. It kind of kills your faith in the justice system when you have another juror tell you "Just vote the guy guilty so we can all get the fuck out of here, okay? Because none of us wanna come back tomorrow.".

Be careful what you wish for, Dio. Believe me, it's not as fun as you think it is.

E.
This is what scares me about the jury system. I think an awful lot of people are very casual in how quickly they're willing to convict somebody, especially if the defendant looks unsavory (e.g. black) to them.

Ironically, the kind of people who want to convict just so they can go home would probably have the keenest sense of justice if it was them in the defendant's chair.

Did you ultimately reach a verdict in your case?

[Clothahump]

I came the closest last week to being chosen than I ever have before. I was number 35 on the panel and the last one chosen was #33.

Another wasted day....

[Elza B]

This is what scares me about the jury system. I think an awful lot of people are very casual in how quickly they're willing to convict somebody, especially if the defendant looks unsavory (e.g. black) to them.

Ironically, the kind of people who want to convict just so they can go home would probably have the keenest sense of justice if it was them in the defendant's chair.

Did you ultimately reach a verdict in your case?

Yes, we did, and while I'm 95% sure we reached the right one, there's always a part of me that wonders if we sent an innocent kid to prison for life (he was eighteen, but seemed like a kid to us).

He was tried along with his brother, and I had no doubt about his brother's guilt. But as far as he went, I had to review the evidence on my own over and over again in order to come to the verdict we chose.

What surprised me was the fact that the boys were black, and the majority of those who wanted to hurry up and convict were also black - the two of us who had questions were white. So it certainly wasn't a race issue, per se.

This was in Brooklyn, BTW. And if I am ever called for jury duty again, I will happily serve a civil trial, a criminal trial, a federal trial, etc., but I will ask to be released from any murder trials. I absolutely can not go through that again. Having the power to send two people to prison for the rest of their lives is as much as my own conscience can stand, regardless of what the verdicts were.

E.

[Hamlet]

You could ask for one, but before I give you a second I'll tell you to check the first.
I will, however, quote one fact they have up there, I'm sure you can do the rest of the research yourself.
Art. I, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.Indeed, I can do research on my own. The Supreme Court of Indiana, in 1957, specifically spoke about that provision and stated:

...in colonial day of crown appointed judges probably gave rise to the common law doctrine of the right of juries to determine the law in criminal cases. It seems this doctrine was rather narrow in its original scope. It merely offered the opportunity for juries to acquit a prisoner without a review by the judge. It did not deny the court the right to set aside a guilty verdict which was erroneous. Many states in their early history conferred upon juries in general terms the power to determine the law and the facts in criminal cases by statute or constitution. In most cases these provisions were interpreted as nothing more than a restatement of a common law principle. The Supreme Court of the United States laid to rest this theory at common law in Sparf. v. United States, 1895, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343. Indiana and Maryland are today the sole survivors of this archaic constitutional provision that a jury may determine the law in criminal cases.
and
Instruction No. 12 given by the court over the objection of the appellant told the jury that they may not 'wilfully and arbitrarily disregard the law,' nor 'make and judge the law as they think it should be in any particular case. * * * under your oaths, (you) should honestly, justly and impartially judge the law as it exists, and as found upon the statutes of our state, * * * under your oaths you have no right to arbitrarily disregard either the law or the facts in the case, * * *.'
Appellant objects to the giving of this instruction because it points out to the jury an obligation and duty in their search for the law and its determination in the case. Appellant says it 'undertook to bind the conscience of the jury, and to hold up to them the fear of violating their oaths.'
In our opinion juries should be bound by their conscience and their oaths, and not be in substance told they may act capriciously upon a whim or prejudice. To follow their oaths and conscience is a good and wholesome admonition and certainly will not hinder, but rather aid them in their constitutional function of determining the law and the facts in a criminal case.
The average juryman, being uninformed as to the law should not be left in a vacuum without obligation, duty or conscience controlling him--left entirely to some whim or prejudice in the determination of the law. He should look to the court for advice and guidance in reaching a determination in such constitutional function. He is seeking to reach a correct determination from the best sources available of both the law and the facts in a criminal case. In attempting to reach a determination of the facts in the case in the performance of his constitutional function, he listens to the witnesses and the evidence. In reaching a determination of the law he should likewise listen to the court in the performance of that constitutional duty.
A jury has no more right to ignore the law than it has to ignore the facts in a case.
and
It has an oath and duty, just as a judge does, to observe and respect such coordinate rights set forth in the constitution. To tell the jury that it is not 'limited, restricted, controlled, or influenced, or hampered by the court or legislature' gives a warped interpretation to one of the provisions of our constitution, thereby permitting such a provision to override all others in the constitution.
and
Such uncontrolled capriciousness in any officer, or body, whether it be a jury or otherwise, does not make for a government of law, but one of men. There would be no certainty from day to day or jury to jury as to what the law would be.
The line which has been drawn in this state beyond which a trial court in its instructions dare not go without being reversed because of a supposed infringement upon the jury's right to determine the law in criminal cases has been precarious, shifting and uncertain many times in the past. This historical fact is of little credit to this court. We need not cite the cases as proof thereof. They are too well known from legal commentaries on the subject for us to care to repeat them. We have no intentions of extending or perverting this anachronistic doctrine to a still greater degree in this state.

I can come up with additional cases, much the same, discussing the constitutional provisions in both Maryland and Georgia which have much the same language in their constitutions. But I don't want to bore you.

Oh, and, just to be clear, yes, I am deliberatly disregarding your injunction that only something within the last 30 years can be used as a cite due to the fact that such a prohibition is ridiculous.Well, unless Mr Roboto is sitting on a jury trial which takes place in 1834, it certainly does matter. The current state of the law is of vital importance when you "attempt to educate" someone incorrectly.

Several things, first, do you feel that somehow correcting a typo makes you look like anything other than a nitpicker? Sic indeed.You made a mistake, I corrected it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Second, your overinflated rhetoric notwithstanding, it is not bullshit.
Determining a verdict based on the facts is not mutually exclusive to finding that the law is unjust. One could, quite easily, determine that the facts in a case were evident, but the law unjust, and then vote 'not guilty'.It is not the juries place to decide that they don't like the law. In order to accomplish jury nullification, a juror must, in most cases, lie to the judge and ignore the oath they were given as jurors. While they have the "power" to nullify, they certainly don't have the right.

[Cliffy]

Oh for heaven's sake can we make it trhough one thread where the j-word comes up without sidetracking it into the nullification argument? Hamlet, there are many, many folks with law degrees out there who think nullification is perfectly proper. If you disagree, you should take it to another thread.

--Cliffy

[Hamlet]

Oh for heaven's sake can we make it trhough one thread where the j-word comes up without sidetracking it into the nullification argument?[whiny 5 year old voice]
AWWWWWW, but he started it
[/whiny 5 year old voice]

[Flander]

I just wanted to say that I'm 24, and have been called 3 times already. Neither my twin brother nor by father have received any. FUCK them, and FUCK JURY DUTY!

"It's your duty as a citizen and we'll give you $15 for the day."


FUCK YOU!

[Giraffe]

I have jury duty coming up, and I'm looking forward to it. I've done it once before and was on a week-long misdemeanor domestic abuse trial. Very interesting experience -- I hope I get chosen again this time.

[Mr. Roboto]

Caphis: Dude, It can be a good experience, please don't let my post sway you.

Elza B: That was my experience, I was involved in a criminal trial where we, as a jury were told upfront, there would be NO physical eveidence.It was a case of identification that crossed racial lines. I was the only innocent hold-out and endured 2-days of verbal venomous assault for the same reasons you described.

I'm a big guy and I don't get intimidated,however, a little female immediately change her Not guilty plea to guilty when she was confronted.

[Fretful Porpentine]

I've been called twice but never actually served on a jury -- both times, they had us sit around in the courthouse basement for a while and then dismissed everybody within an hour. I suppose I don't actually mind being paid twelve bucks for an hour of doing nothing, but it was rather disappointing, and I'd probably be quite annoyed if I'd had to take unpaid time off from work.

Neither of my parents has ever been called (in thirty-five years of eligibility). Go figure.

[caphis]

Caphis: Dude, It can be a good experience, please don't let my post sway you.

Oh, no, what I meant was "I WAS looking forward to it... until I realized I couldn't do it."

[Steve MB]

Really? Could I ask you for a cite? One that was decided in the last 30 years or so, and not from the 1700 - 1800's.
You believe in germs? Really? Could I ask you for a picture? One that was taken with an ordinary camera, not one of those microscope doohickies?

You believe that OJ is guilty? Really? Could I ask you for some item of evidence? One that was never touched in any way by that racist LAPD?

I trust that my point about the fallacy of ad hoc category creation for the purpose of excluding inconvenient evidence (aka the "no true Scotsman" fallacy) is made.

[Steve MB]

Er, the Sparf case merely upholds the judge's discretion to not inform the jury about nullification. It does not overturn the doctrine itself.

[Bryan Ekers]

The trick, of course, is to say you're prejudiced against all races.

[Blalron]

The trick, of course, is to say you're prejudiced against all races.

Or "I'd be a great juror. I can spot a guilty man from a mile away!"

[Hamlet]

I trust that my point about the fallacy of ad hoc category creation for the purpose of excluding inconvenient evidence (aka the "no true Scotsman" fallacy) is made.At the risk of pissing off Cliffy, I will point out that the exact amount of years since the decision was not meant to be a specific limit, i/e I would refuse to consider caselaw 30 years, 2 months old. It was meant to limit the discussion to authorities that have some binding, legal authority. Citing constitutional provision, without a discussion of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the provision, is misleading. As is relying on a case that was decided in the 1800's when the same courts have spoken on the issue in modern times. The date of the decision is certainly relevant in judging that citations authority.