Experiences with jury duty

[GVH_Dan]

I used to live in the 'hood. Every time I was called it was for something that happened within a few blocks of my place. At the first opportunity I always asked the judge if living in the neighborhood disqualified me. They would always ask if it would effect my decision. Of course I always said, "No."

The first time I got out of jury duty was over a fight at a local convenience store. I asked, "What date was that? I think I was there." Then when the date was read I said, "Nevermind, I witnessed the other beating. The one that happened there three days earlier." Dismissed.

Another time it was an "alleged" domestic abuse case that happened in an apartment across the street from my house. They asked if we had ever been a victim of a crime. I raised my hand to tell them how my mailbox is always bashed in and my mail scattered. The judge asks, "Were you targeted in the crime?" I said, "No. You just have to know the neighborhood. They are always beating things up." The judge quickly shushed me...and dismissed.

I'm not sure what I'll do now that I moved to a nice area. Probably get stuck serving and have to finally earn my $15.

 

[b-boy]

Got picked. Arranged a day off work (without pay, self-employed). Showed up at the county courthouse at 8 AM. Signed in. Went and sat in the courtroom with 60 other people, awaiting screening. After 45 minutes, the judge comes in, announces the defendant had a change of heart, confessed to the crime and we could all go home. My understanding was that we would be paid the minimum required fee just for showing up and signing in. Apparently not, since I never got paid. Maybe you only get paid for each day you actually serve on the jury?

In NY, if your company pays for your time on jury duty, you don't get paid.

 

[shelly_belly]

does the verdict have to be unanimous?

I would think so, but I don't know.

 

[krackin]

I have been called up twice. Both were juvenile rape cases. I was a volunteer biker organization child advocate. They didn't see fit to pick me.

 

[Braumeise]

I would think so, but I don't know.

if it has to be, no one better call me after I become a Citizen

 

[b-boy]

I would think so, but I don't know.

In NY, a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict. A civil trial does not.

Just like the OJ case. The jury wouldn't convict him criminally, but in the civil trial they had no problem establishing liability.

 

[gspot]

In NY, a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict.

That's the conflict in the book Twelve Angry Men, which I teach in my English class. 12 dudes all have to agree in whether a person is guilty of murder. Really, really good play (and movie) if anyone is interested. The themes are whether it's actually possible to get a fair trial when everyone is motivated by there own prejudices (not just racial).

 

[Hamaki]

What about sentencing? It was my understanding, maybe mistaken, that the jury determines guilt and the judge determines any punishment. Might vary by state.

 

[Braumeise]

That's the conflict in the book Twelve Angry Men, which I teach in my English class. 12 dudes all have to agree in whether a person is guilty of murder. Really, really good play (and movie) if anyone is interested. The themes are whether it's actually possible to get a fair trial when everyone is motivated by there own prejudices (not just racial).

I love that movie!

the justice system in this country is very strange to me. how can it be up to peoples judgement to determine guilt? People in most cases have incredibly poor judgement on a everyday basis... and personal perception is really no criteria to determine anything.

very scary... seriously...

 

[WI_Wino]

I love that movie!

the justice system in this country is very strange to me. how can it be up to peoples judgement to determine guilt? People in most cases have incredibly poor judgement on a everyday basis... and personal perception is really no criteria to determine anything.

very scary... seriously...

Give me 12 strangers over 1 or more "experts" any day.

 

[nDub]

What about sentencing? It was my understanding, maybe mistaken, that the jury determines guilt and the judge determines any punishment. Might vary by state.

This is my understanding also.

It might but that the jury convicts of the crime which has its own guidelines for the judge to sentence. Like if someone runs somebody over and the jury decides they're guilty of vehicular manslaughter and not guilty of murder. The judge then sentence accordingly. Maybe?

 

[Kee]

A co-worker of mine served on a jury that deliberated an arson case. He said that they found the defendant guilty. I asked "so you are very sure that he was guilty"?

He replied "Oh, I don't know, I just went along with everyone else". That probably happens more often than we would like to believe.

 

[nDub]

Give me 12 strangers over 1 or more "experts" any day.

or "I'd rather have 12 judge me then 6 carry me" bam.

 

[b-boy]

I love that movie!

the justice system in this country is very strange to me. how can it be up to peoples judgement to determine guilt? People in most cases have incredibly poor judgement on a everyday basis... and personal perception is really no criteria to determine anything.

very scary... seriously...

The foreman in one of my cases was illiterate. He couldn't even write his name. When we sent notes the judge, I had to write them and he just scribbled a mark on the paper as his signature.

Our main witness obviously lied on the stand because he had a separate trial coming up. He couldn't tell the truth because it would be used against him. His story was so ridiculous, we had to toss it.

There was an off duty cop involved, but he was drunk, so his memory was a little cloudy. That, and he got beat up and was knocked unconscious.

Other members of the jury couldn't seem to grasp the fact that only the evidence could be used to convict a person. They just kept saying 'I know he did it', and making up wild scenarios about the case that had nothing to do with the evidence presented. It was a little scary.

It took two days, but in the end, we let the guy go, even though we were pretty sure he was guilty. The evidence to convict just wasn't there.

If I was given the choice, I'd take a judge over a jury any day.

 

[GrogNerd]

In NY, a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict. A civil trial does not.

Just like the OJ case. The jury wouldn't convict him criminally, but in the civil trial they had no problem establishing liability.

lower standard in civil trial... "reasonable doubt" vs "Preponderance of the evidence/more likely than not"

 

[gspot]

the justice system in this country is very strange to me. how can it be up to peoples judgement to determine guilt? People in most cases have incredibly poor judgement on a everyday basis... and personal perception is really no criteria to determine anything.

very scary... seriously...

I don't claim to be an expert on the judicial system (i don't teach social studies) or anything really, but we do have that discussion in class about why it's setup the way it is.

I think part of the reason stems from the enlightenment/revolutionary values prevalent when this country was founded. For example the idea that a jury of your peers is a better way to determine guilt than a king or some petty feudal lord. Also that you stand a better chance the more people responsible, similar to the idea that a majority is the best way to decide something.

There's also the idea that consideration of the facts is better than relying on the supposed expertise/qualifications/experience of a judge(s).

We always come to the conclusion that no system is perfect, and all have inherent flaws. For what it is, our system looks pretty good in theory, but doesn't always work in an ideal way.

 

[itsnotrequired]

so far, only called in once as an alternate. this was in chicago so lots of 'stuff' going on, the place is pretty hectic. they announced in the morning that they weren't sure if there would be any cases that day and gave us a two hour lunch. sat around in a room all day and about 3:00 they said there would be no cases and everyone could go home. picked up my check for $18.20 and was on my way...

 

[Kee]

I don't claim to be an expert on the judicial system (i don't teach social studies) or anything really, but we do have that discussion in class about why it's setup the way it is.

I think part of the reason stems from the enlightenment/revolutionary values prevalent when this country was founded. For example the idea that a jury of your peers is a better way to determine guilt than a king or some petty feudal lord. Also that you stand a better chance the more people responsible, similar to the idea that a majority is the best way to decide something.

There's also the idea that consideration of the facts is better than relying on the supposed expertise/qualifications/experience of a judge(s).

We always come to the conclusion that no system is perfect, and all have inherent flaws. For what it is, or system looks pretty good in theory, but doesn't always work in an ideal way.

It's kind of like what Churchill said about democracy being the worse form of government except for all the others.

 

[Braumeise]

The foreman in one of my cases was illiterate. He couldn't even write his name. When we sent notes the judge, I had to write them and he just scribbled a mark on the paper as his signature.

Our main witness obviously lied on the stand because he had a separate trial coming up. He couldn't tell the truth because it would be used against him. His story was so ridiculous, we had to toss it.

There was an off duty cop involved, but he was drunk, so his memory was a little cloudy. That, and he got beat up and was knocked unconscious.

Other members of the jury couldn't seem to grasp the fact that only the evidence could be used to convict a person. They just kept saying 'I know he did it', and making up wild scenarios about the case that had nothing to do with the evidence presented. It was a little scary.

It took two days, but in the end, we let the guy go, even though we were pretty sure he was guilty. The evidence to convict just wasn't there.

If I was given the choice, I'd take a judge over a jury any day.

honestly, this is super scary to me.
What if there isn't one person actually bright enough to say: hey Guys you need to stick to the evidence? Will they just agree on what they "feel" is true?

OMG!

 

[Braumeise]

I don't claim to be an expert on the judicial system (i don't teach social studies) or anything really, but we do have that discussion in class about why it's setup the way it is.

I think part of the reason stems from the enlightenment/revolutionary values prevalent when this country was founded. For example the idea that a jury of your peers is a better way to determine guilt than a king or some petty feudal lord. Also that you stand a better chance the more people responsible, similar to the idea that a majority is the best way to decide something.

There's also the idea that consideration of the facts is better than relying on the supposed expertise/qualifications/experience of a judge(s).

We always come to the conclusion that no system is perfect, and all have inherent flaws. For what it is, our system looks pretty good in theory, but doesn't always work in an ideal way.

looking at this from a European point of view....
it starts with liability and who can sue whom over what...
I get the original idea as I do get the original idea of the election system, yet I would highly recommend getting the original idea sort of modernized so it fits into our society now as opposed to the founding fathers society...

 

[b-boy]

honestly, this is super scary to me.
What if there isn't one person actually bright enough to say: hey Guys you need to stick to the evidence? Will they just agree on what they "feel" is true?

OMG!

There was a crowbar used in the assault. It was found a few blocks from the incident. The police found it.

One guy kept insisting that the cops planted it there, and that it was a setup. We kept saying, 'Where are you getting this from?' He said since there were no finger prints, it proved that the cops must have planted it to frame the guy. We said, 'You can't just make stuff up'. He had a hard time following the facts of the case without filling in the blanks with his own version of the story. That guy would scare me if he was deciding my case.

 

[autobaun70]

What about sentencing? It was my understanding, maybe mistaken, that the jury determines guilt and the judge determines any punishment. Might vary by state.

This is correct, varies state to state. In states where the jury decides, they basically have a very limited "multiple choice" option that complies with the sentencing guidelines for the statute the party was found guilty of violating, and deliberations for this phase typically occur after the actual reading of the verdict.

 

[ajdelange]

I For example the idea that a jury of your peers is a better way to determine guilt than a king or some petty feudal lord.

Interestingly enough you do not have a right to trial by a jury of your peers in the US. That right, if I'm remembering this correctly, is reserved under English common law for peers.

 

[ajdelange]

This is correct, varies state to state.

In the Old Dominion the jury determines the penalty after a separate 'Penalty Phase' of the trial. The judge may accept or reduce the jury's recommndation but not increase it.

 

[gspot]

Interestingly enough you do not have a right to trial by a jury of your peers in the US. That right, if I'm remembering this correctly, is reserved under English common law for peers.

Ok, I'm showing my ignorance here, but I thought the right to a trial by jury was one of our basic rights. I COULD get off my fat butt and go look it up, but I need a short nap first

 

[ajdelange]

I was going to respond with well, yes you do, there's just nothing in there about the jurors being your peers but then I remembered that in some states you are not entitled to a jury trial if the maximum penalty upon conviction is less than a year in jail.

 

[gspot]

I was going to respond with well, yes you do, there's just nothing in there about the jurors being your peers but then I remembered that in some states you are not entitled to a jury trial if the maximum penalty upon conviction is less than a year in jail.

Ahh. Hmm. That bit of information calls for a beer.

 

[Hamaki]

I was going to respond with well, yes you do, there's just nothing in there about the jurors being your peers but then I remembered that in some states you are not entitled to a jury trial if the maximum penalty upon conviction is less than a year in jail.

I think 6th amendment addresses this...
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

But in practice I believe you're correct; there has to be a threshold where this kicks in otherwise we'd be doing jury duty every time someone challenged a speeding ticket.

 

[krackin]

In my limited experience, my understanding is thus. With misdemeanors you go to local court from where you have the right to settle, or, appeal which goes from the local court to Superior Court thus the jury. Felony charges skip local court through Grand Jury.

 

[madscientist451]

I don't like Jury duty because they "system" has no respect for the Jurors. I've been on a jury several times and the jurors have always been treated like we don't know anything and are a bunch of dumb *sses.
I work in law enforcement now and always get kicked off the jury.

 

[shelly_belly]

I couldn't find the convicting requirements but here are the sentencing requirements, which are performed by a jury.

In Alabama a jury needs a 10-2 vote to recommend a life or death sentence. Alabama is the only state in which judges routinely override the jury's decision not to impose the death penalty.

 

[Michigan_Wolfman]

I've only been called for jury duty once. It was a case involving a local high stakes drug dealer who was finally apprehended when he sold a substantial amount of hard narcotics to an undercover officer. The dealer lawyered up using a court appointed defense attorney. The prosecuting attorney and the undercover officer show up, bringing in an evidence box that was full to the top with drugs. During the jury selection process, the dealer's attorney asks if anyone in the jury pool had any issues with drug dealers. After seeing what the prosecuting attorney and the undercover officer had brought in as evidence, every hand in the jury pool goes up, including mine. The judge overseeing the case looks at the court appointed attorney with an expression on his face as if to say "Open mouth and insert foot, *******!" Needless to say, jury pool #1 was dismissed.

 

[TheWayne]

Guilty

 

[nDub]

And like clockwork I got a summons last night almost exactly one year from serving in 2015. I must be on the "good" list.

 

[agrazela]

And like clockwork I got a summons last night almost exactly one year from serving in 2015. I must be on the "good" list.

Hang 'em high!

 

[nDub]

Hang 'em high!

Great movie. Big fan of Clint Eastwood and the spaghetti westerns he was involved with.

 

[Accidic]

With the exception of perhaps a long controversial trial involving sequester there are things worse than regular Jury duty. My last draw from the bin resulted in Grand Jury duty. Daily attendance for 9-12 hours a day for 5-7 days followed by a second stint 3 months later (guaranteed). Nevermind that many of the cases end up being miserable to listen to and wear on you... The clerical items of a room full of 12-20 people gets pretty bad.