I have only been summoned to jury duty once. It was for a rather disappointing case; something involving a car accident and the damages to be paid.
My mindset was, “If I’m going to be called out of work and undergo this whole hassle for jury duty, I want it to be OJ SIMPSON stuff.”
I spent a full week as a juror in a criminal trial last summer. I came away with a LOT more respect for the legal system than I had going in. I was really impressed with the amount of care and work that went into ensuring fairness. This goes for both prosecutors and the defense. Ditto for my fellow jurors. They were much better informed and more dedicated than I expected.
I hated it, because I had to listen to young children (7-9) describe being sexually assaulted in graphic detail. Also, we had to decide whether the defense’s arguments were enough to sway us. It sounds easy talking about it here, but putting someone into a cage for the rest of their life wasn’t easy. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, and we (jurors) spent a lot of hours going over each of the points and charges to try and find a way he was innocent. We all tried very hard to assume innocence as instructed, and see if the prosecution’s case overcame that barrier.
The physical and MO descriptions by multiple kids were too much to ignore. There simply wasn’t any logical way for them (in different cities) to have the same experience. The prior convictions, and his apparent disregard for strict instructions to avoid environments with children, swayed us on his punishment. So we found guilty on all but one count, and sentenced him to life in prison with no possibility* of parole.
I felt good about the quality and correctness of our decision. I thought I’d be happy about putting a dangerous criminal in a cage forever, but I really didn’t feel like celebrating. It was horrible that it had to be done, I guess.
*Technically possible, but he’ll be well into his 90s.
Was this a federal or state case? I’d heard that federal juries and trials are usually run really competently and fairly, but state cases often have the 12 Angry Men type of “Ah, I’ll lock him up because I am lazy and don’t want to spend weekend away from family” juror.
Juries don’t deliberate on weekends. Nor are they sequestered, in 99.999% of cases. Most state cases I’ve seen run smoothly and fairly, and jurors take their oaths seriously. The only problem I’ve seen in a few places is making jurors deliberate late into the night in an effort to get a quick verdict. I’ve had two really bad results after 10:00 p.m., and I do blame the procedure for that.
It was a state case. I remember a lot of reference to Texas State Penal Code, and at one point it was explained that allowing a defendant’s prior criminal convictions and testimony from his prior victims during the trial was unique to Texas. Not sure if other states do this too, but that’s what we were told. It was held in the County Criminal courts, but I don’t know if that’s a reference to the location, or whether the county can charge people with crimes too.
IIRC, Canada does that as well, and even goes further - where a defendant’s previous acquittals can be use against him as well. I.e., if someone has been accused of rape before, but acquitted, then if he is accused in the future of rape again, the court can take this “pattern” into account against him and say “it’s unusual for someone to be accused of this same crime twice.”
I’m a little bit surprised about that. I worked SVU for 5 years. One of the complaints I heard most from the public that were not involved in the cases was how light the sentences seemed for the accused crimes. The main reason was if the prosecutor could get both a guilty plea and avoid having to have child victims testify it was ideal. There would often be a generous plea deal to keep the children from being traumatized again. In those 5 years I never once had to testify at a trial for sexual assault.
The testimony from the children was only 1 day of the trial. One was (IIRC) 7 when molested and 8 (9?) when testifying. The other was a little older, and one of a pair of kids that he had abused earlier. When they testified, the courtroom was cleared of everyone but the prosecuting/defense teams, kids’ parents, the jury, court recorder and 1 or 2 bailiffs. They even lowered the lights in the (empty) spectator area, I think to make the room seem less huge and scary. The courtroom seemed really different than it was during the other days of the trial. Also, I gathered they were concerned about keeping the outer doors closed, and I believe the other bailiffs or police stood guard in the hall.
We (jury) were kept in the jury room most of the morning, I’d guess due to discussions about how the kids’ testimony would be handled. There were noticeable differences in how both “sides” handled questions to the child(ren), as opposed to their normal behavior with adults (on the other days). I only remember one objection being raised, and it was a quiet word to the judge instead of the louder version they used during “normal” court.
Of course, I’d never been in any trial, let alone a child SA, and have no idea what’s typical.
My sister served on a federal jury earlier this year, and she really enjoyed it. She was impressed about how smoothly everything ran, and even the building and its amenities were loads better than the County building (also in DTLA).
I’ve been on jury duty 8-10 times? I’ve been on 5 panels. I wouldn’t say I enjoyed it, but it was usually interesting if you didn’t have to just sit around. The worst experience was in DTLA while jury selection was underway for a particular case. The judge was really disorganized and kept calling for us to show up at the courtroom when he wasn’t ready for us. So, we have to gather in the hallway – sometimes for a couple of hours – until we were let in or told to go to lunch or something. Very little seating in the hallway (and we weren’t allowed to go back to the jury assembly room), so it was uncomfortable and awkward. Worst experience.
However, I worked for a company that paid our salary while on jury duty, so it was never an inconvenience for me. I usually enjoyed it at some level. My last summons was last year, and I was retired, so no problems. I was on the panel, but was eventually dismissed. It was obvious the plaintiff’s (civil trial) attorney was getting rid of anyone who had done worked that required any kind of analytical thinking. I had been a programmer, so I was chopped.
I’m sorry, but none of that is correct.
I started to reply, but then is said to myself, KC Piper will be along soon enough.
I’ve never served on a trial jury, although I have been summoned more than once, and would have willingly served.
I did serve on a federal grand jury, which is very different. We are only deciding if there will be a trial, not on guilt or innocence. Most of the cases were about guns and drugs, but one was on an alleged case of inappropriate contact with girls in a junior high. It was federal because it was in a school on a military base. The young ladies had to be in the courtroom with no one to stand by them, not even a parent. As they spoke about what they said a male teacher had done you could see how we women on the jury had our nails growing into claws, and our canine teeth lengthening into fangs. We did vote for a trial, and I did not learn how things turned out.
I’ve been summoned twice, and my number was too high to make it to voir dire.
My sister-in-law has been seated twice, and both were for lawsuits. One was totally open and shut, and for the other one, the parties walked in, saw the jury, and said, “We’ll settle this out of court.”
I served once and enjoyed the process until the end. We hung and a man I’m convinced is a child molester went free. The worst part was facing the young woman who finally had the courage to testify after she turned 18. She did the right thing but some jack-off refused to vote guilty so he went free.
Ended up being a horrible experience. I have no desire to do it again.
Been on a jury twice. One time I was elected as the foreman. No one would say I’ll do it… So I said let’s draw straws. The rest of the jurors said that I’m so smart, I should be the foreman. Sigh.
Another time sitting at the jury deliberation table, a bailiff brought in a rifle that was a prime piece of evidence. He set it on our conference table, pointed right at someone. Idiot. No gun is ever not loaded. I gently picked it up and placed in a corner after asking if anyone wanted to look at it.
Really pissed me off. An officer of the court did not know how to handle evidence or a firearm. They are ALWAYS loaded. That’s how you treat them. I did not appreciate an SKS laying on the table in front of us.
My bad, turns out it didn’t have to be an acquittal necessarily, but it does say “does not have to be proven as a conviction.”
So if the defendant has been accused before, or if there is evidence of similar deeds in the past, whether proven as a conviction or not, it can be used as a corroborating pattern to help bolster the prosecution in the current case.
I was chosen once, and the memories I have of it are interesting and good. I was greatly impressed by the emotional IQ of most of my fellow jurors. Fortunately, our holdout juror changed his mind.
The actual experience of course included delays. At the time, I didn’t much like it.
As for voir dire, all the preemptory challenges were used up by the time they got to me. That probably won’t happen again, so I probably won’t be on a jury agsin.
I’ve been called a bunch of times and served on two criminal juries. Both were for battery and in both cases we convicted and in both cases I was the foreperson. When we got into the room I said, “if no one else wants to do it, I’ll do it” and it was a resounding YES.
The first one was in 2008 or so. The jury hung out and bonded and had fun conversations about everything but the trial. After we convicted, the judge read the verdict.
The second one was a few months ago. We were all on our smart phones during breaks and barely got to know each other. After we convicted, I had to read the verdict.
I can’t say I enjoyed it but the process was fascinating and I was gratified to have done my duty. The fellow jurors took it very seriously and went about things intelligently. It didn’t feel good to ruin someone’s life but they definitely did the crime.
I have been the foreman three times for three major criminal charges and honestly, I do kind of like it.
I must be one of the very few people to read a verdict three different times for three different crimes.
Attempted Murder - defendant found guilty. This guy almost jumped up to protest, but the deputies pushed him back in his chair and he was reprimanded by the judge.
Sexual Assault - defendant found not guilty. He put his hands in prayer and said “than you!” to God.
Homicide and Attempted homicide - guilty on all charges. Kid was 16, brutal murder. The most serious and outrageous criminal offense I’ve served on. His gun even jammed and he ran out to clear it before coming back to finish off the victim.
It’s interesting, stressful, but engaging. I am a good juror and good foreman, skills that only come up once in awhile.
I like it, but wouldn’t sign up annually or anything. Tensions in criminal court are very, very high.
I was on the County Civil Grand Jury for a year. We met about a day and a half. It was very fulfilling and rewarding.
The Presiding Judge even gave me job recommendations,