Those of you that think that people selected for jurors are slightly dimwitted and easily swayed remind me of this XKCD Comic: xkcd: Sheeple . For those who don’t want to click it’s a group of commuters, every one of them thinking that they’re the only ones who are intelligent in the group while everybody else is an easily swayed sheep.
I’ve been on 2 jury panels (both relatively minor cases which lasted about a day and a half). In both cases I very much enjoyed the discussion in the jury room. The discussion was always respectful. In both cases it was clear that the people in the room were hesitant to take any piece of evidence too quickly and every detail received a bit of discussion. In each case somebody took on a natural role of devils advocate to argue the opposite point of view on evidence.
The last trial I was in was especially interesting, we all wanted to believe the defendent (much of what the police officer testified was not visible on the TV screen provided to us in the jury room) and as we watched the video on the TV the majority of us were ready to find him not guilty - that is until the very end of the video when his actions and behaviors were too odd for us to ignore. We decided to watch the video again, but this time asked for a bigger TV so we could see more detail. Sure enough, as we watched it a second time we picked up on things we couldn’t see on the smaller screen. What impressed me most was how we tried so hard to convince ourselves he was innocent until there was just no other reasonable argument to believe that he was.
Jury duty is fascinating - but I do admit that anything that lasted more than a few days is taking advantage. Some of these trials that last for weeks, months, or even years are ridiculous.
I only made it to voir dire once, and I got bounced. I have no idea whether it was the defense or the prosecution that bounced me, but I was puzzled by it. I did initially have concerns about being selected (I had a wedding to be at that Friday), but after I found out it was expected to be a one-day trial, and voir dire was on a Monday, trial starting Tuesday, I relaxed and actually was a bit excited in participating in the process.
I answered all the questions honestly. The trial involved a burglary and a rape. One of the questions asked, naturally, was whether I knew anybody who was raped, I honestly answered that I did (a date-rape type situation), and that the case went through the court system, and was plea bargained down to sexual assault. I was then asked if this whether this would affect my ability to be impartial, and I said “no.” I believe I was the third or fourth juror interviewed. Before me, nobody knew a rape victim. After me, it was interesting. I think almost every single person not only knew somebody who was raped, but they knew multiple people, often several relatives, and hemmed and hawed about whether they would be able to be impartial, but eventually all agreed they would be. It may have been true, but my bullshit meter was pinging that all of a sudden everybody seems to have a sister that had been raped.
At the very end, there was also a notice that the trial would include sensitive and disturbing photos and whether we’d be able to maintain our impartiality after viewing them. I and one other person said “yes.” Everybody else hemmed and hawed a bit, some answered “I don’t know.” In the end, only two jurors were dismissed, and I was one of them.
There was also a question which required me to disclose that I had worked for a defense attorney for a couple of years as an office manager/legal assistant type hybrid position. So I wonder if that’s what got me bumped off. Unless it was one of the stupid questions by the defense about what papers I read, where I get my news from, what shows I watch, etc.
If you mean this, you might want to consider being a grand juror (the people who decide if there’s sufficient evidence to have a trial). Here in Dallas, people are allowed to volunteer to serve on a grand jury (I think) once every six months. My mother has done it several times.
Another one that won’t necessarily get you off the jury: the last jury I sat on, one of our fellows was asked his occupation during selection. He told the court “professional gambler,” with complete sincerity. He turned out to be nice guy, quite sensible - though tight-lipped about any details of his profession. Made no difference to the case at hand, first degree murder. …hey, why shouldn’t a professional gambler be law abiding, willing to do his civic duty?
Aw… you’re the one who’s sweet to say that, and here you’re being so kind and you don’t even know me.
But, see, that’s the weird part. NO ONE who knows me IRL would ever call me “sweet” on my very best day. If I had acted sweet instead of being my opinionated, outspoken self, I prolly would have gotten picked.
Unless the lawyers told you this, no. The way your post reads, I have a good guess as to why. But it could be for any number of reasons like one of the related parties (plaintiff, defendant, complainant) was a mathematician, or hated mathematicians, or you could have been wearing blue, defendant’s most hated color, or one of the lawyers saw you picking your nose. Don’t make assumptions especially as picking a jury is part science and part voodoo.
What makes you think that they aren’t simply stating their honest view of the matter rather than posturing? For example, on another legal subject I have the same opinion ThelmaLou states here:
When I was in my early twenties I was called up and at the time it seemed like something to be gotten out of.
I answered questions truthfully and earnestly. But most of the time, as I was required to just sit there, I feigned a distracting twitch. I’m not proud.
I was on a jury about five years ago for a first-degree murder trial. (The guy murdered his estranged wife in the office building of the mediator or marriage counselor.) Because there were elements of domestic abuse to the case, a couple of women were excused for that reason. Another woman claimed to have limited English fluency but then one of the other jurors mentioned that the woman spoke perfectly good English in the ladies room. (In other words, she pretended to speak only limited English to get out of the trial.) The trial was expected to last several weeks (I think it took just over two weeks) and so it took a while to get enough people for the jury panel. Anyone with travel plans for the next few weeks was excused. Anyone who would not be paid (or was self-employed) for the time was excused. (Although the judge asked the name of their employer. So either he was checking against a list he kept of which employers actually did pay for jury duty, or perhaps he was going to ask the employer to start to do so.) Anyone who spent their time taking care of their children or someone else (like an elderly parent) was excused. (But not the woman who babysat her grandchildren; the judge told her that the grandchildren were her son’s responsibility and the son would have to make other arrangements.) I said that my jury duty would mean that my office would be shorthanded, but he didn’t consider that a valid excuse.
So I served on the jury and it was an interesting experience, although the room was a little chilly.
And another thing. You know how everyone stands when the judge enters the courtroom? Well, they did the same thing for us on the jury, so that was cool.
Absolutely we stand for the jurors. Oftentimes the judge does so as well. And in some courts the bailiffs will boot gallery members out of the courtroom for failing to do so.
Because they’re not stating a reasoned opinion that they arrived at through consideration and reflection. I see it all the time, whole rows of people who say, “Yeah, I feel the same, I can’t give less than the max,” one after the other. Part of it is posturing, and part of it I feel sure goes to two more psychological factors: we (that is, people in general) like to agree with what’s already been said, and we don’t like speaking in front of big groups of people. Many folks can overcome those tendencies, but most can’t.
We usually try to head it off by telling jurors at the beginning of voir dire that the quickest way to get on a jury is to stay quiet. If we don’t know anything about you, we’ll pass over your name and leave you on. So, speak up!
“Assistant county attorney with misdemeanor responsibilities”, technically. I sit second chair with my boss when he does felonies, and I do the misdemeanor trials on my own.
Sort of an aside, but why the hell does the justice system think that abusing potential jurors makes sense? I was called once-and kept in a room with 20 other victims. All there was to do was stare at the walls, make small talk, and read some days-old newspapers. I was then called in for voir dire, rejected, and sent back to the torture chamber.
If you DON’T want to be selected, act intelligent. Lawyers want people who are easily swayed.
No. Dead wrong. None of us want a jury that will be blown like chaff on the wind. Certainly we rely on the fact that many jurors will be sheep and care more about what kind of lunch will be brought in during deliberations rather than justice. But someone will have to lead the jury, and we use psychology, voodoo, personal feelings and anything else handy to pick jurors who will ve sympathetic to our side or style of argument or at least pick jurors who aren’t sympathetic to the other side.
My thing is teachers. God love them, but every time I get an adverse verdict, there’s a teacher who was very vocal about supporting the other side. It’s usually elementary teachers and college professors, adjunct or otherwise, are fine. Why? I don’t know, but I’ll be damned if I haven’t learned my lesson.
Every time I’ve gotten a jury summons, and actually had to show up (not on stand-by), part of the instructions suggested bringing something to read. I don’t remember what else we might have been allowed, but I know my mother knitted a couple of Christmas stockings back when jury duty was a two week stint, regardless. Now, at least in this county, it’s one day/one trial, whichever is longer.
