How about “police officer”? My sister was summoned a few years ago for jury duty on a murder trial. At the time she was an animal control officer with her city’s police department. She showed up for jury selection in uniform (she had to cut out of work to appear for selection). Not only that, the murder occurred just 2-3 blocks from her home, though she somehow hadn’t heard about it. She was seated on the jury with no objections from either side.
I sat on a jury for drug possession trial. There were close to 100 potential jurors. Everybody got a number, and we filed into the courtroom in order, with the first 12 people (of which I was one) being seated in the jury box and the others in the gallery. The judge and attorneys asked a few questions, and one of those first 12 was excused, but otherwise they went with the first 12 people seated in the box.
Of those who were excused from the general pool, I thought the best excuse was the guy who said, “I work for the Attorney General’s office and I’m in the middle of a case.” Two or three others were excused because they’d been victims of drug-related crimes (such as their houses being burglarized by drug addicts).
Thanks, noctilucent, for telling us about your experience. Sorry you weren’t picked.
When I was a prosecutor, we’d have venires of 40 people. In dozens of felony trials, including murders, I never had one where we couldn’t get a jury of 12 and 2 alternates from those 40. It’s true, that sometimes you do just as well with the first 12 as with an exhaustive voir dire.
Studying law, practicing or even being a judge is no longer an “excuser” in Ohio. A very liberal judge was seated as a felony drug case juror here a few years ago, became its foreman, and the jury ended up convicting. I suspect the prosecutor would’ve been fired for letting him stay, had there been an acquittal.
I highly doubt pregnant defense counsel would be hired or appointed to a case just for symbolic reasons. One of my best friends in the prosecutor’s office was twice pregnant during her service there, and worked as long as she could.
I knew one judge who liked to ask prospective jurors if they let their pets get up on the furniture. He’d read a study in a judges’ magazine that suggested a strong correlation between those who let their dogs and cats up on their furniture, and those who are likely to excuse/rationalize criminal activity and thus vote to acquit. A wacky theory, sure, but there may be something to it.
I’ve never been on a jury - never even been summoned, despite being a registered voter since 1984 - but someday I hope to. I’d be very interested to see what goes on on the other side of the jury room door.
You know, I’m not sure. He did have friends or family in the courtroom, and I just don’t recall the details, other than that we were encouraged to leave in groups and not loiter for our own safety in ways that we weren’t when I served on two other juries that month.
Huh. I always thought “voir dire” referred to the questions they ask the prospective jurors. I just learned that it’s the oath they swear you to when they assign you to a courtroom. I did get sworn in, but I never got called up into the jury box and asked any questions.
I was on the jury for a relatively minor criminal case, with a venire of about 40. (New word for me ). However I went through three stages of a selection process for a murder / rape case that could (and did) result in the death penalty. There were several groups of potential jurors who were questioned over a number of days, and the final selection was done on a group of over 100, after the preliminary winnowing. I got the impression that the judge and attorneys did not let a lot of people off early - perhaps to discourage people using superficial anti-death penalty responses to keep from being impaneled for a long trial?
This was in Oakland California (Alameda County) so there is a large jury pool.
Fortunately, I’ve only been called once and it wasn’t nearly as exciting.
They numbered us 1-50 (another case pled out that morning so they distributed the pool over all the other cases). We were all sworn in. Jury was to decide the award in a civil case (from what I gathered the defendant admitted wrongdoing). Must have been a doozy because a groan went up when someone mentioned “possibly two weeks of service.”
A whole bunch were dismissed because they were patients of one of the doctors that was to testify. And one point the judge even commented, “We can’t dismiss EVERYONE.” I drew a big number and they took them in order. I was 32 and they got their jury at about 24. I went home.
It scares me to think those are the same people that could decide MY fate someday. I heard some pretty stupid things said in those three hours.
In capital cases in Ohio, voir dire runs along the same lines. First you find out if there are any obvious problems - a juror knows the defendant or one of the lawyers, is a drug or alcohol abuser, has a genuine and severe scheduling conflict, etc. They’re almost always dismissed for cause, no prob. Then you find out who has a strong opinion, one way or another, about the death penalty, or if there’s some other factor that makes the lawyers think that juror shouldn’t decide the case. These are struck, or not, by peremptory challenges. Then the judge and counsel will meet, usually in chambers, one by one with the jurors, to see who can keep an open mind and, if the jury reaches a guilty verdict, impose the death penalty if it is appropriate. This is called Witherspooning, after the landmark death penalty case of that name. Often questionnaires, agreed upon by counsel for the defense and for the State, and by the judge, are submitted.
Voir dire means “to speak the truth”. I suppose it could be the technical term for the oath itself, but in common usage it refers to the whole jury selection process.
Sometimes they’re thrown together in relatively little time, or are cobbled together from previous similar cases’ questionnaires, so I’m not surprised there’d be typos.
I figured that was the case. It was just a little amusing to see the little ‘This questionnaire was approved by the LA Superior Court and blah blah’ disclaimer after the mistakes.
). However I went through three stages of a selection process for a murder / rape case that could (and did) result in the death penalty. There were several groups of potential jurors who were questioned over a number of days, and the final selection was done on a group of over 100, after the preliminary winnowing. I got the impression that the judge and attorneys did not let a lot of people off early - perhaps to discourage people using superficial anti-death penalty responses to keep from being impaneled for a long trial?