In “It’s a small world” news, I learned that my doctor was delayed for our appointment today because he was called for jury selection. The presiding judge was none other than, you guessed it, Judge Persky. Jury candidates were being screened and disqualified by whether or not they had heard of the judge (!). Candidates were dismissed if they were aware of the case and the subsequent controversy. My doctor shared (without going into further specifics) that a large number of people felt comfortable sharing their negative opinions of the judge, in front of the judge, before being dismissed.
[sidenote] I also learned that Judge Persky just ran unopposed in yesterday’s election. Almost anyone would have won had they been in time to get on the ballot. Thus, the current recall campaign instead of just voting him out. Missed it by that much folks.[/sidenote]
What do you think? If you were called to serve on a jury for a trial overseen by a notorious judge with whom you might disagree, like Judge Persky or Judge Ito for example, could you be impartial? Would it impact your ability to render a verdict?
I think I could do my part just fine. I would potentially have severe reservations about the judge being able to manage his courtroom or assign appropriate penalties, if warranted, but those things aren’t the responsibility of a juror as I understand them.
Here in Austin, Charlie Baird was a notoriously liberal judge who often gave light sentences to convicted criminals.
A few years back, I was summoned for jury duty in a trial presided over by Baird. No one asked how I felt about him, but I could have served on that jury with a clear conscience. The judge wouldn’t affect my vote. Now, if I’d hated the DA or the defense attorney, that might have been a different story.
It boggles the mind. The news story is a bit different than the way my doctor told me about it, but regardless of how the morning actually went, can you imagine telling a sitting judge off to his (or her) face without worrying about some sort of contempt charge?
It would affect me. Why bother working hard at understanding the case and evidence if you know the judge is probably going to hand down some ridiculous sentence if you decide on “guilty”?
If I was selected for a jury, I’d do my very best to follow the law and my own conscience. But say the defendant has 3 charges against him. The two lesser charges are slam dunks, the third and most serious charge is on the edge of guilty/not guilty. I can’t honestly say that my knowledge that the judge is known for lenient sentences wouldn’t make me lean towards guilty in the last charge, just to make sure the defendant is punished appropriately for the charges I’m sure of.
My opinion of him wouldn’t affect my ability to judge the fact in a case impartially, but it might affect my conduct in court to my detriment.
I’m reminded of the old story about a lawyer who, unhappy with the judge’s ruling, turned his chair around to face the back of the courtroom. The judge asked, “Are you trying to demonstrate contempt for this court?” He replied, “No, Your Honor, I’m trying to conceal it.”
In a great majority of criminal cases on which I might be called to jury duty, I would very likely nullify. I would not be impartial – I would evaluate the defendant on the basis of whether I thought it would be more socially productive to incarcerate him, or set him free. Irrespective of any accusations of crimes committed.
I consider the criminal justice system horribly flawed, that it functions more as a social vengeance system and a public closure system. What obligation does every citizen have to bring every miscreant to “justice”?
Currently in the USA, about 98% of all criminal cases are resolved through a plea bargain. The tiny number of defendants who are willing to take their chances with a jury are very likely either innocent, or very badly advised by an incompetent attorney. In either case, they ought to be sent home free.
To follow up on this - Persky has been blocked from participating in a different sexual assault case, where a male nurse is accused of assaulting an unconscience patient.
I wonder if the DA is going to routinely get Persky thrown off cases, now.
My opinion of Judge Persky would not stand in my way of being an impartial juror, no. Someone else potentially doing their job poorly doesn’t really affect my ability to do mine.
I gotta ask this, admitting I don’t have all the details on the case (which I generally find too disturbing to read about)… when someone makes a shitty decision like he did, why is the knee-jerk impulse to can him, or boycott sitting on his jury? Do we really have to destroy the career of everybody who does shit we think is terrible? Can’t we just be like, ‘‘That’s terrible, and points to this larger cultural issue we need to address’’ without pillorying the Poster Judge of the Week? It might have been as asshole thing to do, but as I understand it, it was within the confines of the law.
I mean, as I understand it, this judge doesn’t have a history of shit decisions. Just the one. Maybe that’s too off topic and I should start a new thread. Like, tomorrow.
