Jackasses who try to get out of jury duty

The BBQ Pit
41

That had no relevance to the issue of who made the OP. However, I shall say that to me it was not plausible for such an exchange to have occurred. I’m not a stanger to a courtroom–I’ve been a court recorder for more than a few courts-martial.

Once again, you prove your lack of reading comprehension. I do not deny my earlier posting.

What about the possibly innocent man he’s accused of another crime or two in the OP? I guess it only matters what the crime is for you to be concerned about the falsity or veracity of the accusation.

Agreed. That’s exactly why I made the comment about the indictment number, etc.

Well, if all lawyers agreed on everything they saw, there wouldn’t be any trials, now would there?

Witnessed the same thing <> Witnessed this particular event happening.

I’ve requested proof of the incident. Wishywashing response. Leads to more doubt that the incident didn’t happen.

Well, better a trained one than your untrained chimpanzee tush.

42

Every once in a while, a cutdown in the Pit can still make me laugh. Well done, Myrr!

43

And how 'bout you deal with the substantive comments of myself, DPWhite, and doreen–lawyers, all–who say that your accusation of falsity is flatly unfounded? I have a lot of respect for you as a poster, Monty, but now would be a classy time for you to admit that you jumped the gun.

44

Michigan. I’ve worked w/offenders from this county for 25 years now. The liklihood that I personally know the judge, attorneys (on either side), defendant, victims, witnesses, relatives of same is astronomical. In one trial, I knew: the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the main defendant, and his mother, the main witness, one of the 3 victims, and a juror.

I wouldn’t mind serving, but I’ve got reasonable expectations that I’d be bounced by one side or the other (the defense would worry that I"ve testified often in cases for the prosecution, the prosecution would worry that I’ve worked for decades as an advocate of sorts).

I’ve been called 3 or 4 times, asked to have it delayed once (timing was bad), got out of it completely once (I’d moved to a different county), and had to show up one week.

During that particular week, on the first day, I was sent (along w/about 50 other folk) to seat a jury. So, they started calling up folk for voir dire . ONe woman was called and asked if she knew the defendant. She replied yes, in capacity w/her duties as a county probation agent.

Courtroom went silent, both attorneys approached the bench for hasty whispering. We were all sent home that day (well, except for the probation agent who, I believe was sent back to her boss with complaint from the judge about wasting the courts time and the prosepective jury pool).

I’d thought about it the night before, wondering how I would handle it, but knew better than to blurt out in open court that I knew the defendant had a criminal record. After that day, I always alerted the clerk of my situation, so if I said that I knew the defendant that I should just quietly be excused for cause.

45

Hey, minty, I as much as admitted that above. HOWEVER, when I ask for proof, I get, as stated above, wishywashy vagueness.

I also said I’d like to believe the story.

So far, it’s just a story until there’s proof.

46

From the detail in the OP about the juror, he might as well have been called “Mr X” . Giving the indictment number and the court would give a first and last name and a likely area of residence- far more specific than “Mr Martinez”

True as far as it goes, but the fact that others have witnessed similar events certainly has a bearing on whether or not it’s plausible.Or is an anecdote only plausible if you,yourself have personally witnessed the exact same thing?

And to me it’s not plausible that a person accused of a crime would have his guilt decided by a body composed only of members of the military.I’m not a stranger to a courtroom- I’ve been the prosecutor for hundreds of administrative hearings.So what if courts in different jurisdictions operate differently and I’ve never been at a court-martial? I’ve never seen it,so I don’t think its plausible.

minty thanks for the compliment, but IANAL
Doreen

47

Then you’re purposefully unaware of both recent news (mililtary tribunal issue) and a whole section of federal law called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not to mention the whole concept of military justice itself.

48

Oops. I thought you were an immigration attorney, doreen. No matter.

49

Uh…MONTY…The UCMJ works on an entirely different set of rules than civilian courts. What you might want to say is that “This couldn’t happen in a military court” not that TS is a liar, because everybody in this thread except you, many of them lawyers and court workers, has said that no only is TS’s story plausable, it’s very similar to things they have witnessed in court. Your continued refusal to admit that you are wrong, have no basis for calling TS a liar( YOU weren’t there, after all ), or at least are talking about a different breed of cat ( Military courts vs civilian ones ), frankly makes you look like an asshole.

50

So, if I start a Pit thread about my neighbor’s slovenly yard, I’m going to have to provide a cite for it? This isn’t a debate, f’rchrissake, it’s a rant. If throatshot was trying to use his ancedote as a basis for arguing court reform, or something else, you might have a good reason for challenging him, but he’s just bitching about something that he saw. Lay off with the red hot pokers.

51

cite??

Oh, come on you knew some one would do it.

52

Guess it didn’t occur to you that I couldn’t come up with that statement if I was completely unaware. :slight_smile: Fine, I’ll be more explicit. Even if such an exchange is implausible at a court-martial (I wouldn’t know), it does not follow that it is therefore implausible in every jurisdiction in the US. Just like the fact that it’s implausible for a NY Supreme Court jury to be composed entirely of members of the military has no relevance to what is or isn’t plausible at a court martial. You are the only person in this thread who finds this exchange implausible.You apparently have no experience in a civilian courtroom, or I’m sure you would have mentioned it.Having no experience might be a basis to question the plausibility, but it certainly is not a basis to accuse the OP of lying or to ignore the statements of those who have more experience than you in a civilian courtroom. Even the lack of proof isn’t a basis to accuse the OP of lying.
Doreen

53

I don’t do criminal, just civil. But the scenario is very plausible. And I know enough about human nature to know that it requires maturity to apologize.

54

WOW does this thread smell like ass.
no REALLY!

55

My jury duty experience involved being “on call” for ten days, meaning I had to phone in at 10.30 every morning for ten days to see if they needed me (they didn’t). It so happened I was temping at the time, which meant I couldn’t work for ten days (who’s going to hire a temp that might have to leave after a couple hours?). The State of California did not consider this an acceptable excuse to get out of jury duty. The State of California also did not reimburse me for those ten days (and if they had it would only have been at the rate of $5 a day). It is fortunate I had money saved up, otherwise I would have been up shit’s creek after two weeks with no income. You will forgive me if I think under the circumstances I had every right to be one of those “jackasses who tried to get out of jury duty”.

BTW after I moved to Ireland California tried to call me for jury duty again. I was advised that the fact that I’m living in Ireland does not disqualify me from having to serve jury duty either, if I’m still maintaining a California residence. I had planned to maintain that residence so I could vote in the presidential election, but there’s absolutely no way I could afford to go back for jury duty, so I had to give it up, and therefore lose my vote. I’m still bitter about it :mad:

56

Actually, ruadh, a perhaps more accurate title to my thread would’ve been “people who try to get out of jury duty by being jackasses.” My problem stemmed entirely from Mr. Martinez’s actions, not the fact that some people try to get out of serving legitimately and without making 40+ other people want to rip his skin from his body. As someone pointed out, he could’ve rescheduled.

I don’t like jury duty. For example, I’ve been called three times. My husband has never been called. I always wonder about those long O.J. trials and how they would be a serious hardship to people who aren’t fortunate to have employers who will continue to pay their salaries.

I realize after seeing how some of these jury duty selections are done, that we’re quite lucky here. We show up one day. They tell us which courtroom (if any) we’ll be in. If we’re not selected for the jury, we’re done. No going back to the jury pool.

But, none of that was the point of my rant. The entire point of my rant was the fact that Mr. Martinez acted like a jackass for the sole purpose of getting out of jury duty.

57

Sorry, DP, I wasn’t trying to drum up unwanted biz for you.

My only point was that you appeared to have some familiarity with trial practice; of course, I did say criminal trial practice, but for purposes of this discussion (assessing the likelihood that a particular event did or did not happen during voir dire)–the civil vs. criminal distinction isn’t all that important.

My experience is almost exclusively in the criminal field, and I concur with your assessments: Thoat is telling the truth, and Monty is going to show up here right quick and demonstrate that he is, indeed, mature enough to acknowledge that his accusations against Thoat were entirely unfair.

58

Well, let me add my vote to this …

The scenario is quite plausible. To refersh everyone’s recollection:

It was apparently the defense lawyer’s staying quiet at this point that set of Monty’s BS detector. But it all depends on how this jurisdiction handles voir dire and dismissals for cause.

Mr. Martinez’s initial statements may have been enough to allow the defense attorney to challenge him for cause. Often, when that happens, a savvy prosecutor will attempt to rehabilitate the potential juror, getting him to say that he meant the crime was sick, but that he could decide fairly based the evidence presented if a crime was committed and if the accused was the guilty party. If the juror takes the hint, and agrees with that sentiment, defense counsel usually has to burn a preemptory challenge to get rid of the juror, and, if things are tight, make sure that their objection for cause is preserved for appeal.

I understand some jurisdictions go through juror by juror, with oral motions for challenge for cause, and, failing that, for preemptory challenges. In Virginia, we don’t do that. The first panel of twelve is seated and questioned. Then each side submits written challenges for cause to the judge. He rules on those, and then we submit any premptory challenges. The judge then excuses the veniere members without reference to why they are excused, and replacements are seated and questioned, until a full jury (and alternates, if needed) are seated. Then the entire jury is sworn.

For these reasons, at least in Virginia, the scenario described above is plausible, especially the prosecutor’s anger… here’s a juror clearly ready to vote his way, and too stupid to take the rehabilitive bait that was offered.

  • Rick
59

I just didn’t want my silence to come back to bite me later, of course you had no way of knowing. Um, my crack about maturity was why there would be no apology forthcoming. Maturity is not learned overnight. Of course our hero may not feel that he was wrong. I’ve flamed moderators and not apologized when I wasn’t wrong. Unfortunately these choice posts were lost in the flood of '02. :cool:

60

I see. When you’re wrong (according the moderators, judging by what you just said), but believe you’re right, it’s okay to not apologize when the masses clamor for it but when I’m right (or wrong) and believe I’m right and the masses clamor for an apology but I don’t give one, then I’m wrong. ::Noting this for future discourse with DPWhite::

Anyway, here’s what y’all will get:
[ul][li]I was abrupt and rude in describing my take on the situation. I could’ve worded it differently and definitely should have. That should suffice for apologizing for the wording.[/li][li]Next, as I alluded to earlier, there was a time on this board (IIRC, shortly before the First Great Board Crash) when someone posted a thread asking “who’s the legal father” and the talk was all about how he learned about all this felonious stuff going on in his conversations over the back fence with the DA. Couple of lawyers on the board fell for it at first, and then same lawyers came back to point out how wrong the story was. I trust you’re familiar with the expression “once burnt, twice shy.”[/li][li]I got off my lazy ass this afternoon and called the Secretary of Tarrant County District Court #4. She told me the incident related didn’t happen to the best of her knowledge.[/ul][/li]
Granted, the Court Secretary may not have all the information, but that’s the person to whom my call was forwarded when I explained what I was asking and she told me she’d know.

So basically it boils down to this:
[ul][li]Before the Big Crash Way Back When there was a fake legal story posted on the boards.[]Some of the lawyers bought it.[]Same lawyers came back and said it couldn’t be true.[]Fast forward to recent days, and see the OP.[]I originally bought it.[]I came back after I determined that I don’t buy it.[]I was rude about my take on it and for that I apologize.[]Sort of free-for-all ensued above.[]I waited until today to talk to the Court and got the answer related above.[]Based on that answer, I’m still not buying that it did happen.[]This is just my opinion that it didn’t happen and I just gave all of my reasons for making that opinion.[*]I could be wrong[/ul][/li]
Mature enough for you?