In San Diego Superior Court you go to a big room with a few hundred people in it. Then groups of people are called from that room to go to court rooms. Sometimes you never get called from the big room and are sent home at about 2:00 PM and your service for the year is over. When I have been called to the court room the defendant is there as part of voir dire process. There were some initial questions from the judge then based on those there were follow up questions by the two sides lawyers to individual people and to the group as a whole. The judge did not ask for statements. I have a hard time imagining a judge allowing a statement. All three times I have been in the voir dire process the judge really seemed intent on getting the jury selection process done in a timely manor and would not have been amused by any layperson’s impediment to the process. The lawyers seemed to know the process and moved along without much delay.
People asked clarifying questions about things the questions from the judge and lawyers.
When I had jury duty in Massachusetts, the defendant was there. Also the witnesses and arresting officer. We were told that if we knew any of these people personally we should raise our hand so we could be kicked out right away.
Is it odd that I’ve never been summoned for jury duty? I mean never…in the 17 years I’ve been over 18 (and yes, I vote, and yes, I’m licensed to drive a car, I registered for selective service (though being in the Army for 5 years makes that one kind of a moot point), I pay taxes, I pay property taxes on my house that I own, etc.)
It seems odd that I’ve never been sent a notice in my life. Not that I really want to do it, but I know some people who’ve been called 3-4 times that are my age.
Where do you live? I was summoned last month and I’m not even a US citizen (which worked out, because my summons date was during a trip to the Caymans).
No, it’s not odd. The process is semi-random, so these things happen.
I’ve only been called once (while I was at college so I didn’t go).
My mother got summoned 3 times in the space of 4 years but only 20 years after being registered - twice for city and once for county. My father has only ever been summoned once for county court and only after 30 years of being registered.
I’ve been a registered voter ever since 1982, and didn’t get my first jury summons until last year. Since then I’ve been summoned just once more. I’ve never made it into the box as a juror, though, worse luck.
Is your courthouse anywhere near stately Wayne Manor?
In California, Alameda County, I’ve been called for three criminal and one civil trial. Two of the criminal trials were for murder, one capital. (Didn’t get picked for either.) You do see the defendant at all of them. In the first session of the murder trials (which are long so they have a big pool) you get a long questionnaire, which seems tailored for the case. I guess you can spout off there if you must. When you are called back the next week they randomly select jurors to question until they seat an adequate number. The defendant never speaks, but at the last one the public defender did consult with him about certain jurors.
There have been cases where jurors expressed doubts about the entire system, but only in response to questions from the judge. And the rants, though emphatic, were polite.
By “prepared statement,” I mean something like: Please be aware that I am fully informed of my right and duty to judge the defendant’s guilt or innocence based not just on the facts of the case, but also according to my conscience with regard to the law itself. I will not vote in favor of conviction for anyone accused if violating any drug laws, which I believe are immoral.
Judges have no sense of humor when it comes to a potential juror talking about Jury nullification. Altho you are unlikely to serve time as a juror, be prepared to spend a nite in the clink and/or write a large check.
Because its the same as jumping up and down in court yelling “Look at me! Look at me!” Also known in legal circles as contempt. Its not about you, (term expunged).
The defendant was there, we knew the charge - attempted murder.
I don’t know what questions I would have wanted to ask or what statement I would want to read.
Everything you need to know is explained before hand and there was a long list of questions to eliminate potential jurors long before anybody even got into the jury box.
I’m pretty sure the defendant asked his lawyer to eliminate me.
I have no idea why.
Did you make an annoucement about how you feel about drug laws?
To the OP: you are told ahead of time what kind of case it is. Would you still need to make your annoucement? If it is a drug case and they get to the point where they actually ask you questions you can explain your positions on the law in a much less dramatic and costly fashion.
Making your “statement” in front of the whole panel, and thus requiring them all to be sent home so they can calling in another 40 to 60 people, is likely going to piss off the judge and parties. Maybe not, though. Like I said, let us know how it goes.
I got called for jury duty late last year, in San Jose CA. It was a criminal case, and the charge was child molestation. The defendant was there. Those of us who got through the initial process had to fill out a questionnaire and then each potential juror was called individually by the judge to answer questions (both from the judge herself and by both attorneys). It seemed pretty uncomfortable to me, because the questions they were interested in were about whether the potential juror had been molested as a child, had a child or other close friend/relative who was molested, or had ever been accused of child molestation themselves. There were actually a couple of the potential jurors who had to admit in front of the whole courtroom that they’d been accused of molestation. A couple of others flat-out said that they would be unable to give the defendant a fair trial based on their experiences with molesters (either of themselves or of someone close to them). It was all handled very professionally, but it still seemed uncomfortable.
I got dismissed, so I didn’t end up having to be on the jury. But I did make it to the “12 butts in the seats” stage. A lot of people got dismissed, and not just because of obvious past issues.
But in answer to the OP’s question, I suppose in a way each person did get to make a “statement” (in the sense of “I can’t give this guy a fair shake”). Nobody that I saw admitted to refusing to convict the guy because they thought child molestation laws were immoral.
In my experience it’s common for judges to ask potential jurors whether they have any problems with the law the defendant is charged with violating, and if so, whether you could put your personal feelings aside while judging the case. Those who can’t do this are dismissed for cause. In other words, you wouldn’t have to submit a statement - the judge would probably ask you anyway, and you wouldn’t get in trouble for giving an honest answer.
You do *not * have “a right” to vote based on your opinion of the morality of the law involved. You are duty-bound to find the defendant guilty or not of the charge based on the facts and evidence offered in court, nothing else. If you can’t in all conscience do that, get yourself excused.
You might *want *to have that right, fine, but wanting it does not confer it, and you risk contempt. If it does turn out to be a drug case you should seek to be excused from the case, as you cannot come to a valid determination on the facts of the case.
In all of the “serious” discussions I’ve ever read about jury nullification (including Cecil’s article, cited up-thread), I think the general conclusion was: The Jury does NOT, technically, have a legal right to nullify. That said, though, the Jury does have that power, de facto in the sense that if they agree among themselves to do so, nobody can stop them. And even if they openly declare (afterwards) that they did so, it seems (from most of what I’ve read) that nothing can be done after-the-fact anyway. In particular, one would not expect the jurors to be held in contempt of court.
(ETA: This implies, though, that a juror who declares, before the trial, that he claims the right to nullify, may well be held in contempt.)
That said, the argument comes up sometimes: Should the judge be required to advise the Jury of their [del]right[/del] power to nullify? The answer to that has been clear and consistent: No, the judge shouldn’t and won’t say that to the Jury.