Cite?
Eiter way I guess QTM is covered.
When I laughed at a defense attorney who asked me if I would consider someone showing me a gun, a threat. Should I apologize? :rolleyes:
Yeah, the one time I actually ended up serving on a jury, there was a physician on the panel. The didn’t excuse him just for being a physician, but they did excuse him when it came out that he specialized in the treatment of chronic pain.
(It was the dumbest trial I’ve ever heard of - civil trial, auto accident, minor injuries. Defendant had admitted culpability, and the entire trial was over the amount of damages, which of course hinged on the plaintiff’s treatment for chronic back pain allegedly resulting from the accident. Can you believe we spent 2 days deliberating that? I think the lost productivity of the jury was greater than the amount of th award in the end - I can’t believe these people couldn’t settle.)
MoonIndigo1 is from Canada.
As a Canadian doctor I can say s/he’s right - about Canadian jury duty.
I’ve got jury duty tomorrow for the first time. I’ve heard it’s dull with a lot of waiting, so I’m bringing a few books and some Cheetos. I like the idea of civic duty and democracy and all that, but I hope I don’t get some really intense Henry Fonda-style trial.
Or psychos or stupid people, but that’s probably too much to ask. GOD, I hate stupid people.
I actually did notice Moon’s location. Of course, Qadgop is from Wisconsin, so an exemption from Canadian jury service probably isn’t one of his biggest worries.
But you knew that. Unlike you, though, Moon apparently hasn’t grasped the concept that different jurisdictions have different rules, especially when it comes to local court procedure.
And yet the common wisdom is that God must love stupid people, since He made so many of them. Obviously you’re not that kind of Lord… 
That kinda sounds like a good thing.
I was a deputy sheriff in the mid 1970s. I have been bounced off of every jury panel I’ve ever been called for, whether civil or criminal, since then. I wish it were somehow possible for my name to be taken off the roles, because it it’s a gigantic waste of my time under the circumstances. But those summons forms keep showing up, regular as clockwork.
That reminds me, I should be on the lookout for an opportunity to get a pro-jury-nullification letter to the editor published. The prison warden would be less thoroughly disqualified…
I think there should be one Doper as an alternate at every jury trial just to balance out the stupid people and help fight the epidemic of ignorance.
Well whaddya know, I am scheduled for Jury duty tomorrow as well. I have to call in after five pm today to find out if I need show up. I am listed twice this month. the 15th and the 20th. My bosses husband is a court reporter. She told me I should say something so I don’t get picked, but I am pretty sure that’s contempt of court, so i am playing it straight. If I get picked, I get picked.
The last time I was called was about ten years ago, and I didn’t get selected. The case was a guy suing asbestos companies for lung damage. They formed a full jury out of the pool before my number came up, and I was released. It was interesting watching the procedings. One woman demanded that she be let off duty because she was so importaint to her workplace as the director of public relations for a large hospital.
The judge told her that was no excuse. Then the plaintiffs lawyer came up. Turns out that this lawyer represented a guy in a very successfull lawsuit against this very woman and the hospital she worked for. The hospital, through the woman had released the name of the plaintiff in the press as the first patient with AIDS in our state, totaly blowing off patient privacy and such. The judge dissmissed the woman saying, “If you had told me that I would have relesed you right away instead of wasting all our time.”
I am a registered voter, and have never been called.
I’d like to, just for the experience.
/slight hijack/
My wife last year was called for jury duty here in Oregon. During the questioning, one of the potential jurors was asked if he had any sort of relationship with either the prosecutor, the defense attorney, or the defendant. He replied that the defense attorney was also HIS attorney in a case he had pending against his ex-wife. The judge said that didn’t count as a conflict and allowed him into the jury! WTF? My wife of course (who actually WANTED to serve as it was her first time being called) wasn’t picked because she was an elementary school teacher (the case involved children).
I’m still shaking my head at that one.
Wally
/end hijack/
My [post=6298282]Jury duty story[/post].
I disagree. I think there should be one Doper on* every jury trial just to balance out the stupid people and help fight the epidemic of ignorance.
- Not just as an alternate where their knowledge and opinions (and time) could be wasted.
Just be sure they allow food and drink in the waiting area. IIRC, when I had to spend my morning in downtown Indianapolis, they did not allow food and drink in the room where we waited to be called. We got a break around 10:00 AM, but had to be finished before we went back in the room.
I was on a jury about 3 or 4 months ago. The case was pretty open and shut and involved a drug dealer. The defense tried really hard to come up with anything and I mean anything that would get his client off. He was stretching everything, trying to discredit the cops who busted the guy, trying to say that the people in the lab processed someone else’s drugs and not the ones the cops claimed to take off of his client. He even went to far as to say that his client wasn’t the one who actually sold the drugs, but rather it was someone who looked exactly like him and the cops had mistaken his identity. Never mind that his prints were all over everything. Anyway, it was just very obvious that the guy was guilty.
It was obvious to 11 of us anyway. It wasn’t as obvious to juror number 12 though. You see, during the trial, one of the undercover officers showed the jury pictures of the apartment building the guy was arrested in front of. The picture was taken from across the street, which is where the officer said she was standing when she radioed for backup to come in and arrest the guy. She had gone back to the scene of the crime approximately 3 months after the fact to take photos for use at the trial. She told us that the pictures were not taken on the same day as the crime and the judge instructed us to make a note that the pictures were taken after the fact.
When it came time to vote the guy guilty or not guilty, our little Hold Out asked to see those photos again because she wanted to see what the officers saw.
The bailiff brought the photos in for us to look at, and juror 12, the Hold Out, puzzled over them for about 30 minutes.
Finally, she said out loud “This guy just can’t be guilty! I don’t know why you all think he is guilty when clearly, as you can see from this photograph, there is a van blocking part of the view from the street to the front of the apartment building.”
We remained silent for a moment, then slowly we each began to look at each other in disbelief. One of the other jurors said “That picture wasn’t taken at the time of the arrest.”
Hold Out said “yes, but there’s a van in the picture. The officer couldn’t know that the guy she arrested was the same guy who was selling drugs because that van is clearly in the way. Am I wrong about that?
I said, “yeah, you are wrong because you see, that picture was taken 3 months after the guy was arrested.”
Hold Out- “So what? That van is clearly in the picture”
I said “I see that, but that van probably , or rather almost certainly, wasn’t in the same exact spot during the arrest which happened 3 months earlier”
Hold Out-“I don’t understand what you are trying to say”
Another Juror: “She’s saying that the van in the picture is irrelevant. At the time of the arrest, the view wasn’t obstructed. The van just happened to be there when she took the picture, which incidentally was taken 3 months after the guy’s arrest.”
Hold Out “I’m confused”
Me internally, along with 10 other jurors “Ya think?”
Anyway, after about another hour of arguing over this picture, the judge called for us to come back into the court room as it was the end of the day. You could tell that she was disappointed that we hadn’t come up with a verdict yet, and she told us that if it had been a few years earlier, we would have been sequestered and unable to leave if we didn’t have a verdict, but that the laws had changed and we should be glad we could go home and get some sleep.
I wanted to tell her that if she would just let this crazy woman off of the jury, we would all find him guilty and it wouldn’t be an issue, but you know, I didn’t want to disrupt anything., or get arrested for something that’s probably a no no.
The next day, we eventually got Hold Out to see the light, but you could tell that she was very unhappy that she had to give him a guilty vote. When the verdict, was read, the judge went down the line to ask each of us if we agreed with the verdict or if we felt that we were pressured into giving a guilty verdict.
You could tell that we were all holding our breath when she asked Hold Out these questions because as soon as she answered them, reluctantly I might add, with a “Yeah, I agree and well, I didn’t feel pressure to vote the way I did”, we all let out a big sigh of relief. It was very audible, and the judge asked her again if she was sure. She said she was sure and then we were free to go.
After that, I decided that I don’t ever want to be on trial for anything in this city because you just never know who is going to be on your jury. Honestly, I don’t know how some people on the jury with me even tied their shoes, yet they held a person’s life in their hands. Now that is scary.
I was on jury duty around Christmas for a murder case involving multiple defendants. It was fascinating. Yeah, it screwed up my travel plans, and the trial and deliberation took something like 7 days, but I’m really glad I did it.
The most interesting part was when I saw a certain well-known journalist in my jury pool. Judging by his answers to the judge’s questions, he’s the least open-minded journalist in history.
Judge: How many of you feel that you would give undue weight to the testimony of police officers?
Well-Known Journalist: [raises hand]
Judge: How many of you would give less credibility to the testimony of police officers?
WKJ: [raises hand]
Judge: Other witnesses in this case may have used illegal drugs in the past. Would this prevent you from fairly weighing the credibility of their testimony?
WKJ: [raises hand]
(so on, and so on…)
All this from a guy who is recognized as an excellent and fair-handed interviewer of very powerful people.
But wouldn’t that technically make you fair-minded and unbiased in the eyes of the law?
The real trick is just throw out any notices you receive in the mail and refuse to sign for registered letters