For the first time in years, I have to report for jury duty

[Loren Pechtel]

Voir dire took forever due to lots of chatty people answering questions by giving their life story.

This is the part I hated the most. It's so annoying.

Over here, jurors are presented to the two sides lawyers, either of whom can veto their selection, but with basically nothing but appearance to base their call upon. No questions are permitted; It takes a couple of minutes to empanel 12 jurors.

That doesn't give them anything to go on to figure out if you're going to be biased.

 

[bilby]

Over here, jurors are presented to the two sides lawyers, either of whom can veto their selection, but with basically nothing but appearance to base their call upon. No questions are permitted; It takes a couple of minutes to empanel 12 jurors.

That doesn't give them anything to go on to figure out if you're going to be biased.

Exactly. That's a good thing.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the public. Biases (in any direction) are impossible to eliminate; Rejecting jurors based on their answers to questions only makes the problem worse.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I forget what trial it was for -- I think the charge was domestic threat -- but, in the impaneling process, which was in open court, it became clear that the defense attorney was going to ask each potential juror about their drinking habits and their opinion of heavy drinkers. I'm an abstainer, as it happens, but I feel funny admitting that to other adults. I guess it makes me feel like your aunt Wilma, from Spokane. So it came my turn, and I testified truthfully that I never drink anything, from beer through whiskey. I can still hear the attorney and his surprised inflection: "You don't drink at all? And why is that?" What a pain!! I suppose the courtroom thought I was some born-again zealot. And it didn't get me off the jury! I had to go on the panel! Which makes me wonder what sort of response would have gotten me off.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Over here, jurors are presented to the two sides lawyers, either of whom can veto their selection, but with basically nothing but appearance to base their call upon. No questions are permitted; It takes a couple of minutes to empanel 12 jurors.

That doesn't give them anything to go on to figure out if you're going to be biased.

Exactly. That's a good thing.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the public. Biases (in any direction) are impossible to eliminate; Rejecting jurors based on their answers to questions only makes the problem worse.

Well, we cannot eliminate all biases, but i would like to feel thst between prosecution and defense, they trim off either end of the bell curve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Over here, jurors are presented to the two sides lawyers, either of whom can veto their selection, but with basically nothing but appearance to base their call upon. No questions are permitted; It takes a couple of minutes to empanel 12 jurors.

That doesn't give them anything to go on to figure out if you're going to be biased.

Exactly. That's a good thing.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the public. Biases (in any direction) are impossible to eliminate; Rejecting jurors based on their answers to questions only makes the problem worse.

So you're ok with someone walking because a racist on a jury refuses to convict someone of that race?

Or they're determined to convict because it's their ex- on trial?

 

[bilby]

Exactly. That's a good thing.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the public. Biases (in any direction) are impossible to eliminate; Rejecting jurors based on their answers to questions only makes the problem worse.

So you're ok with someone walking because a racist on a jury refuses to convict someone of that race?

Or they're determined to convict because it's their ex- on trial?

No one juror can convict a defendant. In my jurisdiction, a verdict must be unanimous. It takes all twelve jurors to convict or to acquit. And jurors are required to declare to the judge if they have personal knowledge of the defendant, or even of the crime scene - at which point they are usually replaced (or if they fail to declare their prior experience, are in serious trouble if caught out). A defendant's ex would be recognized in court by the defendant (if by nobody else), and would be very unlikely to get away with failing to declare an interest.

So no, I am not "OK with" your two ridiculous ad-hoc scenarios, and nor are they remotely plausible.

 

[BH]

I've been on two and they were both federal court. One went on for five weeks and we found several doctors and chiropractors guilty of defrauding an insurance company. The other one was a drug possession charge. I was an alternate juror on that one so did not go back to deliberate guilt or innocence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. That's a good thing.

A jury is supposed to be representative of the public. Biases (in any direction) are impossible to eliminate; Rejecting jurors based on their answers to questions only makes the problem worse.

So you're ok with someone walking because a racist on a jury refuses to convict someone of that race?

Or they're determined to convict because it's their ex- on trial?

No one juror can convict a defendant. In my jurisdiction, a verdict must be unanimous. It takes all twelve jurors to convict or to acquit. And jurors are required to declare to the judge if they have personal knowledge of the defendant, or even of the crime scene - at which point they are usually replaced (or if they fail to declare their prior experience, are in serious trouble if caught out). A defendant's ex would be recognized in court by the defendant (if by nobody else), and would be very unlikely to get away with failing to declare an interest.

So no, I am not "OK with" your two ridiculous ad-hoc scenarios, and nor are they remotely plausible.

There is a considerable suspicion that OJ walked because of the first one.

 

[bilby]

No one juror can convict a defendant. In my jurisdiction, a verdict must be unanimous. It takes all twelve jurors to convict or to acquit. And jurors are required to declare to the judge if they have personal knowledge of the defendant, or even of the crime scene - at which point they are usually replaced (or if they fail to declare their prior experience, are in serious trouble if caught out). A defendant's ex would be recognized in court by the defendant (if by nobody else), and would be very unlikely to get away with failing to declare an interest.

So no, I am not "OK with" your two ridiculous ad-hoc scenarios, and nor are they remotely plausible.

There is a considerable suspicion that OJ walked because of the first one.

He wasn't tried in my jurisdiction though. It couldn't have happened under our system, despite our simpler and quicker method of jury selection.

 

[Rhea]

I find jury duty interesting.

I’ve been called a couple of times. Once to federal jury duty, the rest to county/local. The federal one is ineresting, you are “called” for a month and have to check in each Friday night for whether you should appear on Monday. If you appear and get selcted, and serve, you are still on duty and can get called again he following week.

So on federal duty I got three trials; one was two days, the others were a single day. The first one was a guy suing his employer for an injury, but the jury found that it was his own fault, violating safety protocol and also he did not appear to be actually hurt (claimed his achilles tendon was severed and hadn’t walked without a drop-shoe for four years, yet his two calves were the same circumference.). One of the jurors wanted to give him a lot of money because she felt sorry for him. We talked her out of it. I was satisfied with that outcome.

The next was an interesting experiment, where a person could come to court for a “Trial” trial and they got 6 jurors, a judge and two hours each side to present their case and see how a jury would react. Non-binding. It was supposed to be a way of reducing frivolous court cases. I like the idea. Anyway we heard evidence about a guy who was the cook on a boat (maritime law, hence federal court) who was injured stepping off it because employer didn’t have a ramp or something and he hit his face and fell into the water with a broken face. We determined that the company was not so negligent nor the guy so disfigured as to require punitive damages, but we did think they owed him his medical bills. So that was a satisfactory outcome, too.

I don’t even remember the third one, but I do remember that they were trying the bombers of “the United Freedom Front”, so there was a shitload of security that was totally new to us and they took my plastic-handled crayola scissors from my knitting bag.

I got called to a couple of more but was always dismissed. I don’t mind serving. I think it’s interesting and I would hope to have thoughtful people on a jury.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You took a knitting bag into the jury box? Did you finish a cardigan?

 

[Bomb#20]

Did you finish a cardigan?

Shrouds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The next was an interesting experiment, where a person could come to court for a “Trial” trial and they got 6 jurors, a judge and two hours each side to present their case and see how a jury would react. Non-binding. It was supposed to be a way of reducing frivolous court cases. I like the idea. Anyway we heard evidence about a guy who was the cook on a boat (maritime law, hence federal court) who was injured stepping off it because employer didn’t have a ramp or something and he hit his face and fell into the water with a broken face. We determined that the company was not so negligent nor the guy so disfigured as to require punitive damages, but we did think they owed him his medical bills. So that was a satisfactory outcome, too.

You don't actually need a court for that. I've been a "juror" in something like this--but it was put on by lawyers, no court involved. Both sides presented very abbreviated versions of their case, then we deliberated. Unlike you, I was not at all happy with the outcome: The defense showed a very damning bit of information: Her pain scores were 0 or 1 before she sought the expensive treatments and reported much higher pain scores. Obviously someone coached her on how to run up the bill. I couldn't get the rest of the jury to see the importance. The sympathy factor was a big part of it--they felt she should get something more than the chicken feed I was proposing (I was saying 100% of her costs before she tried to run up the bill, but given her behavior afterwards I don't think it warranted anything beyond that.) They didn't understand what really would happen, though--the tens of thousands they were after would result in the exact same amount in her pocket: $0. (Note that had it been a real trial I would have not been on the jury. They screwed up the voir dire and asked for my background--but nothing about my wife.)

 

[Rhea]

You took a knitting bag into the jury box? Did you finish a cardigan?

I was making a baby blanket for a friend. I didn’t work on it during the trials, just the interminable waiting in between. It was very cute. Crochet, actually, diagonal grannie squares assemble as a windmill pattern quilt.

 

[Rhea]

You don't actually need a court for that. I've been a "juror" in something like this--but it was put on by lawyers, no court involved. Both sides presented very abbreviated versions of their case, then we deliberated.

I know, but for whatever reason, this was a way the federal courts had at the time of getting an inexpensive way for people to vet their questionable cases.

 

[Ruth Harris]

In our local circuit court, the only things jurors are allowed to bring into the courthouse are their car keys, glasses if needed, and a book to read while waiting. They don't allow purses or bags of any kind, or any electronics. The minute you step inside the courthouse door, there is a deputy on duty at a scanner entrance who tells you to take anything other than the allowed items back to your car and lock them up in it. Coats and books have to be left in the jury waiting room during the trial. No note taking is allowed during the trial. This is a change from the last time I knew someone who served on a jury, which was several years ago.

Ruth

 

[Rhea]

In our local circuit court, the only things jurors are allowed to bring into the courthouse are their car keys, glasses if needed, and a book to read while waiting.

Bear in mind this was, like, 1986 (in Boston federal court)

But to be honest, our local court (now) would still not be a problem... we have a very very VERY small local court. Folding tables and chairs only. The county court does have a scanner and guards, but I don’t recall them denying a craft bag.