Jury Duty?

[DizRotus]

I know you're dying to know,  to quote the late Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Never mind,"

 

I called the jury duty phone number just now to learn that I need not report tomorrow and my service this go-round is concluded.  I would enjoy serving on a jury, but I don't enjoy sitting around all day for nothing.

 

One of my all time favorite movies is 12 Angry Men.  Of course, I would play the Henry Fonda part.

[wvu80]

One of my all time favorite movies is 12 Angry Men. Of course, I would play the Henry Fonda part.

 

Great call, counselor! 

 

Agree on the movie as well, one of my all-time fav's.

Edited July 20, 2016 by wvu80

[oldtimer]

Forgiveness is devine.

[USNRET]

I am not a lawyer and I don't think there is a Holiday Inn Express nearby. I have been summoned numerous times to sit on petit juries (serving once, what a farce of an attempted prosecution) and started a 6 month service on a grand jury last week. What surprised me is the vast differences in the selection process of jurors between the two types of jury.

[DizRotus]

I've mentioned this before, but that's never stopped me in the past.

Juror questionnaires are often a source of humor. The following are real answers.

Q: What is the Highest grade completed in school?

A: "Cs and Ds"

Q: Have you been convicted of a crime?

A: "Impaired vision." [Meaning they pled to the reduced charge of "driving while visibly impaired" due to consumption of alcohol.]

[wvu80]

I like having fun with lawyers, I know a lot of them and several circuit court judges.  We would meet at court where they would represent kids and I was CPS representing The State.  I ran meetings where kids, families, service providers and attorneys would attend to discuss treatment.  The attorneys would usually attend by phone, which was actually OK with me.

 

The difference between our lawyer friends here and the lawyers with whom I worked is that they did not represent the kid per se, but much of the time due to the child's age they were representing the child's best interest.  So if a kid was out of control at home, running away, doing drugs, refusing to go to school the attorneys might team with CPS to get the kid into counseling or residential treatment.  We were on the same team.

 

It was sometimes an adversarial position with lawyers, but more often cooperative and I met some great lawyers, truly good people  who were solidly on the side of the kid and very helpful in getting their client treatment.

 

Now back to lawyer bashing...

Edited July 21, 2016 by wvu80

[garyrc]

As a recovering psychologist, I've never served on a jury.  Neither have any of my close colleagues, except for one with an Irish name, which she blamed.

 

I've done experimental research on eyewitness testimony; did that eliminate me?

 

A friend was asked, "Do you have negative feelings about those who drink a lot of alcohol?"  The friend asked, "Compared to what?"  "Excused," said the lawyer.

 

F. Lee Bailey used to ask, "How would you vote if you think the defendant is very probably guilty."  If the potential juror answered, "Guilty," Bailey would excuse, and rightfully so, IMO.

 

If asked, I would have to say I would have a hard time concluding that someone was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, short of something like DNA evidence.  And then there is the matter of custody of evidence.

Edited July 21, 2016 by garyrc

[WMcD]

The judge runs the trial in large part. This is to assure that the jury does not hear about certain matters which are considered irrelevant. 

 

Trial lawyers are very cautious about potential jurors who might bring extraneous information into the jury room during deliberations. 

 

Jurors should not visit the scene of the crime or accident unless the judge and lawyers and bailiff goes with them all.  They should not investigate the matter on their own.  They should not bring exemplar weapons they obtain into the jury room.  Yet you see these things happen in movies even though the preliminary instructions to a jury tells them no to.

 

WMcD

[USNRET]

I went in expecting to be dismissed based on 1) who my customer is but that wasn't brought up and I answered strictly to the questions asked on the questionnaire without reading into them (more relaxed explanation of my biography by the DA once selected) and 2) the judge leaves 4 doors down from me (we have only met once at a neighborhood watch meeting) and I THINK recognized me but never acknowledged it.

 

Example paraphrased: are any members of your family a member law enforcement? eh, NO (they are retired) so I considered that an honest answer to the question asked.

 

During group introductions I was surprised to learn that there is a parole officer on the panel.

 

edit: too much TV. I assumed anyone with any slight connection with LE would be dismissed but then this was the DA's party as I think about it. Another thing learned (or told by the DA), there is no such thing as 'premeditated murder'; another TV term.

Edited July 21, 2016 by USNRET

[DizRotus]

I've done experimental research on eyewitness testimony; did that eliminate me?

 

Give me good circumstantial evidence over eye witness testimony any day of the week. 

 

Gary, you may have heard of Elizabeth Loftus.  She was an expert witness in an armed robbery trial I prosecuted in 1985. I agree with her work and theories, but, fortunately, she did not persuade the jury in this case.  The defendant stole an immature 15 year-old boy's bicycle at gun point.  The boy saw the defendant on his bike a few days later and called the police.  What the jury did not know is that the defendant had just been released from prison and that he had another pending charge of armed robbery against a woman who also positively identified him.  None of that was legally relevant in the trial at hand, nor should it have been.  He was convicted and returned to being a guest of the State.  According to Michigan's Offender Tracking Information System," Earliest Release Date: 09/28/2038"

 

I feel that many sentences are needlessly long, but not in this case.  He has earned the right to die in prison.  FWIW, I'm not in favor of capital punishment.  It's not a deterrent and it costs more than warehousing for life.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DizRotus

[USNRET]

It's not a deterrent and it costs more than warehousing for life

Neil, just me thinking about this (over a drink or so) but would a quicker resolution to ANY sentence and having to actually serve the sentence be more of a deterrent? This is not to be thought of in relation to innocent people in prison (I know that there are some) but, if a human knew that there would be swift justice (justice as best we can manage) do you think that the general population would be less likely to commit a crime?

[DizRotus]

 

It's not a deterrent and it costs more than warehousing for life

Neil, just me thinking about this (over a drink or so) but would a quicker resolution to ANY sentence and having to actually serve the sentence be more of a deterrent? This is not to be thought of in relation to innocent people in prison (I know that there are some) but, if a human knew that there would be swift justice (justice as best we can manage) do you think that the general population would be less likely to commit a crime?

 

Yes, IMO, in most situations, swift certain reasonable punishment is much more of a deterrent than the possibility of more serious punishment, including the death penalty.

 

For example, no reasonable person thinks, "If commit a murder I could be executed, but if the sentence were only30 years, I could handle that."  If criminals knew that there is a strong possibility that they would do 6 months, that would be a greater deterrent than the theoretical possibility of decades of incarceration.

 

Michigan has a felony firearm statute, which roughly means if you are convicted of any felony involving an illegal firearm you get 2 years, period; no parole, no time off for good behavior . . . 2 real years.  Many times defendants would plead to crimes with far higher potential penalties to avoid the 2 year felony firearm charge.  

 

Politicians love to show they're "tough on crime" by voting for long mandatory sentences.  As a result, prisons are crowded with non-violent drug offenders.  Short and swift sentences are a deterrent.  Long delayed hypothetically severe sentences are not a deterrent.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DizRotus

[WMcD]

There can be a lot of hidden logic in selection of a jury or as DUI said, de-selection.  The lawyers get unlimited de-selection "for cause" (prejudice) and a limited amount for "no cause" the lawyer just doesn't like them but can't show prejudice.

 

For example of the hidden, a leading civil attorney in town described. "If a priest or nun was driving and hurt a pedestrian, do you want a priest or nun on the jury?  Answer:  Yes, because the priest or nun will tell the other jurors that the church has lots of insurance.  That there is insurance is not admissible but the juror might tell others. 

 

It appears to me that the goal in jury selection or de-selection is to get a blank slate.  Some might say, too blank.  OTOH, juries are notorious for seizing on some aspect which is unforeseen by the trial attorneys.

 

This came from a column in an ABA publication, years ago.  (I hope memory is correct.)

 

There was an older wealthy man in a big city in the Southeast and a young man from a rural area who met and who lived together in a presumably sexual relation.  This may have been the 1960's.  Eventually there was a falling out.  The young man soon after wound up with a valuable painting owned by the older wealthy man. 

 

The older man claimed it was a theft because the young man was annoyed at being dumped .  The younger man claimed the painting  was a going-away present from the older man who felt remorse at dumping him and wanted to soften the rejection.

 

The young man sent the painting to his parents in Texas and he purportedly intended to relocate near them because he was so distraught.

 

So the issue for the jury was whether there was a gift followed by remorse or a theft.

 

The jury found "theft."  In post-trial interviews, they said that they thought it was theft because Texas was close to Mexico and the young man intended to fence it over the boarder.  Neither the prosecution nor the defense had ever argued this or thought about it.  No jury selection technique would have predicted it.

 

Reportedly, though speculation by the author I believe, the judge felt that the young gay man had come to the big city and been seduced.  He sentenced the young man to some years of probation in a rural county.  The author commented it was the only time he had seen "banishment" as part of a sentence. 

 

WMcD

[USNRET]

Yes, IMO, in most situations, swift certain reasonable punishment is much more of a deterrent than the possibility of more serious punishment, including the death penalty.

Excuse me, perhaps the question was not properly asked or I misunderstood the response. Regardless of the offense or the sentence imposed (given the disclaimer in my question) would a swifter resolution from our justice system AND the requirement to serve the full sentence ordered be a deterrent to others considering criminal action?

[muel]

... I think I'd rather have some people knowledgeable about the law on a jury than a jury full of idiots....especially if it was my neck on the line and I knew I was innocent.

hmmm... quite the opposite if I knew I was guilty.

[garyrc]

Gary, you may have heard of Elizabeth Loftus. She was an expert witness in an armed robbery trial I prosecuted in 1985.

 

Yes, she is quite well known to social and behavioral scientists.  I saw her testify on film once -- I wonder if that was part of the trial you were the prosecutor on?  Was there a movie camera there?

[DizRotus]

Was there a movie camera there?

 

No. 

[Mighty Favog]

I thought jurors were not supposed to use personal knowledge of a particular field of expertise such as a juror already being in the medical field, engineer, etc. But only make their judgment from the evidence of the case. If something is overlooked or wrong, the jury can pose questions to the judge. But does the judge have to allow/answer the question?

 

Last time my name was drawn for jury duty, I was a little apprehensive about it. Ya see, I work for a private court reporting company and first and foremost a court reporter is sworn to be impartial (Civ. Rule 30 and 28d). But if I serve and pass judgment for a trial and one of those attorneys is also one of my clients, there may be a good chance that attorney will never use my services again if it's against his client.

 

Our case, that day, never went to trial but I did ask the judge what the names were of the two attorneys. Sure enough, one of them used our services before.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Mighty Favog

[DrWho]

 

 

So why aren't attorneys considered part of my peer group?

Would you instead, prefer a jury of all engineers?

Back when I mostly did criminal defense and DWIs, my best jurrors were EEs in breath test cases.

 

 

Haha, probably because EEs understand how "well" (poorly) a lot of equipment actually behaves under the hood

 

There's probably a lot of other cases though where a stereotypical engineer is probably a really bad choice....

[Travis In Austin]

It's not a deterrent and it costs more than warehousing for life

Neil, just me thinking about this (over a drink or so) but would a quicker resolution to ANY sentence and having to actually serve the sentence be more of a deterrent? This is not to be thought of in relation to innocent people in prison (I know that there are some) but, if a human knew that there would be swift justice (justice as best we can manage) do you think that the general population would be less likely to commit a crime?

Not.less likely. Sounds like DA already has you as "one of the team."

There is no one from defense to ask questions for Grand Jury. It is pretty much if you are legally disqualified or not.