Well, I just served 2 days worth Mon and Tue for the first time in my life. I'm 49. Apparently they use drivers license registrations to pull from and since I've been a registred driver since before I was 18 almost in one county the whole time you got me as to why I was never called.
Fellers, there is a whole 'nother world out there that I want no part of. Criminal armed robbery between 2 rival gang members. I didn't really fancy being in that juror's box to be honest. What I listened to for those 2 days was fascinating and a depressing reality. I didn't 'learn' anything. What I thought I knew was only re-enforced sadly.
I hope it is another 49 years before I have to sit through that again.
Oh, I did 'learn' one thing. Apparently the GD's or the Ganster Disciples is not a gang at all like the Crips who are. They are and I quote "...an organization similar to the Boys and Girls Club...designed to help the community and the children of the community..." Other than this I didn't actually learn anything.
Any other stories worth sharing? Curious how some other coutries work this.
Quote from: TNblueshawk on June 06, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
"...an organization similar to the Boys and Girls Club...designed to help the community and the children of the community..."
Let me guess, this came out of the defense attorney's mouth. So sad, sometimes I wonder who is worse the criminals or the attorneys.
Quote from: murdog47 on June 06, 2013, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: TNblueshawk on June 06, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
"...an organization similar to the Boys and Girls Club...designed to help the community and the children of the community..."
Let me guess, this came out of the defense attorney's mouth. So sad, sometimes I wonder who is worse the criminals or the attorneys.
Nope, this came out of the girlfriend's mouth who was testifying on behalf of the perp. She tried to explain that the Crips (the victim's gang) are a real gang that do bad things and they on the other hand are there to serve the community. They were probably better served to not have her testify.
To answer your question though, the criminals are still worse but the attorneys are nipping at their heels to be sure.
I've been called up several times, but only sat on one actual trial. The defendant was an enforcer for a motorcycle organization. The charges had nothing to do with that activity, although the prosecution obviously did. I did learn a couple of things. The most important is that jurors can be really bad. Two direct quotes, "He's a man and they charged him, so he must be guilty." and "How can anyone really be guilty of anything?" Luckily, the person who was the jury foreman was really patient and able to reason with several of the jurors who really needed help with reasoning. If you ever go to trial and are innocent, hope for at least a couple of smart jurors.
The other thing I learned was that the prosecution really will come up with some interesting charges if they want to get someone. In this case, a truly minor and reasonably questionable domestic case (with both parties involved) turned into a felony witness tampering trial because two people who were both directly involved and charged had talked to each other. There wasn't even any evidence that they had talked about the case, just that they had been in a car together the night of the alleged crime, before anyone was even charged.
Quote from: TNblueshawk on June 06, 2013, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: murdog47 on June 06, 2013, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: TNblueshawk on June 06, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
"...an organization similar to the Boys and Girls Club...designed to help the community and the children of the community..."
Let me guess, this came out of the defense attorney's mouth. So sad, sometimes I wonder who is worse the criminals or the attorneys.
Nope, this came out of the girlfriend's mouth who was testifying on behalf of the perp. She tried to explain that the Crips (the victim's gang) are a real gang that do bad things and they on the other hand are there to serve the community. They were probably better served to not have her testify.
To answer your question though, the criminals are still worse but the attorneys are nipping at their heels to be sure.
Believe it or not, in Chicago, the GD's sponsor the Fourth of July fireworks displays in some of the rougher neighborhoods, and it is accepted by the authorities.
However, the Boys and Girls Club they are not. Smart organized crime usually includes some community service and outreach. It makes excellent PR.
I always thought people got selected for jury from voting records. Ot slected becuase they were shown to vote.
I sat on a Grand Jury once. Got to indict a lady I used to work with. It was eye-opening to see all the pics of the money, drugs, and firearms in their house.
I learned I didn't like the other jury members very much.
I am currently serving 2 months of State grand jury.
2 days a week for 2 months. And I get the added fun of having to travel almost 30 miles one way to do this.
We hear many cases per day (grand jury is not like normal trial jury, it's very different) but, it wakes you up to what's going on around you. It's not a fun world out there.
I sat 3.5 weeks on an intercity drug ring trial. It makes you more aware of what's going on around that you didn't notice before.
It's just like buying a car. You never saw anyone else with that car in that color until after you bought yours.
We're you in the Santa Ana courthouse? I was just there too. Spent two days going through jury selection on a peeping tom case. I wasn't picked.
Bill, I'm in Nashville TN. I guess you were thining back to that thread about where I was from in LA originally.
The voting records, as I understand it, used to be how they did it but not any more. Of course I can only account for Davidson County which is the largest county that Nashville is part of.
Yeah, I didn't even talk about the jurors. In our case we only deliberated about 30 minutes or so. However, I could easily see how hard feelings can be had and some serious arguments can ensue. I guess the jury foreman/woman in our case could really play a large part like you said.
Spaceboss, the Chicago connection came up. The perp informed us that he learned everything on the internet about the GD's and that they were from Chicago etc...
I actually thought I'd get kicked off because for 26 years my wife has worked for the TN Bureau of Investigation. So I tried to play up the angle of her being involved with drug busts, fingerprinting people and now she does a lot of background checks for school employees etc... but, alas, it didn't work. Had to suck it up.
Quote from: TNblueshawk on June 06, 2013, 06:49:27 PM
Bill, I'm in Nashville TN. I guess you were thining back to that thread about where I was from in LA originally.
The voting records, as I understand it, used to be how they did it but not any more. Of course I can only account for Davidson County which is the largest county that Nashville is part of.
Yeah, I didn't even talk about the jurors. In our case we only deliberated about 30 minutes or so. However, I could easily see how hard feelings can be had and some serious arguments can ensue. I guess the jury foreman/woman in our case could really play a large part like you said.
Spaceboss, the Chicago connection came up. The perp informed us that he learned everything on the internet about the GD's and that they were from Chicago etc...
I actually thought I'd get kicked off because for 26 years my wife has worked for the TN Bureau of Investigation. So I tried to play up the angle of her being involved with drug busts, fingerprinting people and now she does a lot of background checks for school employees etc... but, alas, it didn't work. Had to suck it up.
I had to go in, but didn't make the cut..I suspect it was because I said,"well of course he's guilty, he's already in jail"
I've managed to successfully avoid jury duty a couple of times, usually by answering the questions in such a fashion during selection that clearly indicates an unreasonable bias towards the accused (similar to Jimi's line). Much more effective than a note from the boss, and after a while, they stop picking your name....
Middle class people in the USA have no idea of the other world off the grid and only a few hundred feet from our own houses, churches and schools.
I went to a city commission meeting last month where a commissioner stated there were no hungry children in OUR community and everyone on drugs was from out of town. I go to church with this man. His oldest son is my brother-in-law. I even really like him. But dang, yo. really?
Almost forgot, my favorite jury moment was grand jury when a son is being led out in cuffs and his father is being led in in cuffs. Both charged with selling marijuana. The father headbutted and kicked the son, yelling that he told him to stay away from drugs.
Guys, I've had a rough day, but this is just killer depressing. Our legal system hard at work. I live in one of Illinois' arguably most affluent areas and I help out with a food pantry thru my church from time to time. It's mind numbing to see folks crawl out of the woodwork around here 400 at a pop. HERE! I don't need to drive more than a few blocks and am surrounded by McMansions while doing this.
We could use Superman right about now... :-[
I thought about giving some nebulous answers but truthfully I just couldn't do it. A few did and they got grilled so you have to keep it going. Then they just tossed them back downstairs and they had to go through it all over again for the next case. That day there were 6 criminal trials so theoretically you would have to go through it 6 times I guess. Sometimes you just have to suck it up.
Now, if I had any inkling this was an OJ trial, no way in hell am I sitting on that one, unless I can bring my soldering iron to court ;D. I actually have a job and would like to have one when I'm done too!
I was being honest when I said I thought he was guilty cause he was already in jail, so that helped. Also I have long hair, and US long hair fellows are always getting a bad wrap:P
Not only in the US Jimi, here as well.... I've had it happen to me that an old lady, not too stable on her legs anymore, refused to let me help her get of the bus and gave me a look like I came strait from Hell. Thats what long hair and a leather jacket does....
Back to the original topic: Jury duty is something we don't have here, our judicial system is completely different from yours. Of course I know it from the movies, but there you always see exaggerated cases where the jurors are holed up in a hotel for 6 weeks.... I know you guys don't like it, but for me it's an insight in something I'll never experience. Quite interesting!
Paul
/Rant mode on/
The jury system is very important, and I have never been convinced that there is a better way to do things, especially in the criminal sphere. Honestly it is the only real check on who the gov. gets to lock up and who they don't.
And no offense meant to the folks in this thread who try to get out of jury duty: But I am always disappointed when reasonable smart people try to get out of jury duty (because unreasonable dolts never do.). It is a civic duty, and unlike an individual vote in an election-a jury will make very real, very consequential decisions for someone's life. Just think about who you would want on your jury if you were facing charges--legit or otherwise. The are plenty of cases that are a waste of time or that cause hardship, but that is a small price to pay to have a democratic criminal justice system.
The adversary system on the other-hand (which as an attorney I am part of), places the value of skilled advocacy a little too close to the value of the truth.
/Rant mode off/
Quote from: spaceboss on June 07, 2013, 07:05:31 PM
/Rant mode on/
The jury system is very important, and I have never been convinced that there is a better way to do things, especially in the criminal sphere. Honestly it is the only real check on who the gov. gets to lock up and who they don't.
And no offense meant to the folks in this thread who try to get out of jury duty: But I am always disappointed when reasonable smart people try to get out of jury duty (because unreasonable dolts never do.). It is a civic duty, and unlike an individual vote in an election-a jury will make very real, very consequential decisions for someone's life. Just think about who you would want on your jury if you were facing charges--legit or otherwise. The are plenty of cases that are a waste of time or that cause hardship, but that is a small price to pay to have a democratic criminal justice system.
The adversary system on the other-hand (which as an attorney I am part of), places the value of skilled advocacy a little too close to the value of the truth.
/Rant mode off/
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....
Paul
Quote from: DutchMF on June 07, 2013, 07:18:42 PM
...
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....
Paul
I can see advantages and problems with both systems. One question I have though is that one of the protections a jury system provides is via jury nullification, that must be totally missing from a system that has only professionals involved? The politicization of judicial appointments that occurs here should be enough to point to this being troublesome.
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....
Paul
[/quote]
Well, from my limited knowledge of European (mostly the German) systems: I like that the theatrical (fun) elements of lawyering are downplayed--which levels the playing field for the accused and lowers the temperature of the proceedings.
On the other hand, I am a little worried about how an overly chummy relationship between the judges and lawyers could work against Defendants from politically unpopular groups who have neither a true advocate nor the check of a jury (For example, maybe North-Africans in France). In the US, the good old boys club is bad enough between parties that are ready to kill each other. I can imagine that the lack of friction in the European mode could lead to complacency which can allow an ugly status quo to continue. (On the other hand, European sentences genuinely reflect the more humane belief in rehabilitation.)
In criminal matters especially, a true jury of one's peers, provides for lack a better phrase a "This is bullshit protection" for the accused. Jury nullification is real and important. I actually believe that generally juries are more likely to hold the prosecution (and defense) responsible for meeting their burdens of proof. In the worse case scenario, juries can reflect more of a mob justice or reflect the will of one particularly persuasive juror. But the protections in place, like preemptive strikes and Batson challenges (not allowing one side to strike all jurors of on race or gender) are fairly good.
In other litigation, a jury is less important. I don't know how a jury of lay people (or even judges without specialized backgrounds) can adequately understand and decide complex patent issues, for example.
Do I think that the US system is fair on the whole? No. I think it is biased in favor of those with $$, and is especially hard on criminal accused without $$.
I could write a book. :-X But I'll stop now.
Quote from: RobA on June 07, 2013, 07:47:01 PM
Quote from: DutchMF on June 07, 2013, 07:18:42 PM
...
Spaceboss, after reading your 'rant' I'm interested in how you (or other posters in this thread) view a system like the one we have here in The Netherlands. We don't work with juries, just the judges and attornies on both sides.... I do have an opinion on the jury system, but that's for later. This could be interesting....
Paul
I can see advantages and problems with both systems. One question I have though is that one of the protections a jury system provides is via jury nullification, that must be totally missing from a system that has only professionals involved? The politicization of judicial appointments that occurs here should be enough to point to this being troublesome.
I have no idea what 'jury nullification' is.... And a lot more questions, but those will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm quite intrigued by this discussion, gives me an insight in your judicial system.
@spaceboss: thanks for your explanation. As mentioned before, I'd like to ask a lot more, but I have to go to sleep right now. I've had a few long (no, really long!) weeks at work. And paintball with my co-workers tomorrow!!! Thanks again,
Paul
As someone who for 26 years has dealth with attorneys in my line of work, work comp, I've been to many a civil trial that doesn't have a jury. The work comp system in the US is juryless (word?) it is now!
So this jury thing was a first for me personally. Obviously I'm familiar with it as a citizen of 40 some odd years. I have no idea what is best to be honest. I'm too biased as this is all I know. I do believe democracy is best in general vs not so I suppose the jury system in that sense sort of makes sense.
While I've made light of the proceedings, and they deserved it with the rash of BS and lies I had to sit through, as I sat there I was fully aware that I along with 11 others were asked to vote on something that could send a dude to jail. Of course he had been in jail the past year for something else and had 3 more criminal trials to go for other arrests so jail appears to be his home for the time being but nevertheless it was a serious matter that deserved serious attention. I did my best and voted with what I thought was right.
I suppose the difficult part is that no matter whether it is judges or jurors political bias, race etc... can still be a part of it. I'm not much of rehab believer at all. Never have been probably never will be. I'm on the punisher side of things.
The only thing I could say I suppose about the jury system is I don't like that it has to be 12-0. Justice may not be served. What should it be? Either 11-1 and at most 10-2. If you truly have an idiot, a racist, or someone who truly is not there with a good heart and mind then someone gets off who shouldn't have or doesn't get off. We had one, what I would call at best, someone who on a good day can tie both her shoes. I won't go into detail but if on another case her "situation" was the difference between justice and not, i.e. she is the one in an 11-1 vote I can assure you justice was not served per our laws.
But, a judicial overhaul is sorely needed in the US and the jury thing is way down on my list of what I'd overhaul I know that for sure.
Sorry to ramble.
Just saw RobA's post. Yeah the political apointments in and of itself is enough to say the jury system is better. I deal with this in rural counties in Tennessee on my civil cases where the judges are voted into office and I can assure you there is no "fair trial" going on. No one can argue otherwise no matter what side you are on. However, both plaintiff and defense sort of laugh about it together - how biased the judges are.
In fact, under TN work comp law the employer (or insurance company) is allowed to "jump sue" the employee. Why would I do this? Because you want to be able to pick the courtroom i.e. the judge who might give us a fair shot. If we don't there is a 100% chance we will lose, period end of story. Fair? I think not. So it forces me as the employer to actually sue our employees "first". Any system that encourages that has some serious flaws.
Political appointments, or lack there of, would be one of my many changes in our judicial system.