Jury Duty

[38Mike]

Just finished up serving on jury of a shooting case. Apparently gang/ drug related. When I was driving home I spoke to my wife, I kind of felt like a spring under tension that was slowly unwinding or a hot air balloon that all the steam was being released from...don't know if it was from information overload from all evidence, witness testimony being poured into me or general courtroom tension that I was experiencing, glad it's over with and very glad for the oppurtunity to have served; it was very interesting, my eleven other peers were fun to work with......

Glad for the experience, will do it again if and when called...

Mike

[Kosh75287]

Yah, not ALL jury duty transpires like "Twelve Angry Men", just the few that I've ended up on. And no, I DO NOT try to be Henry Fonda's character when serving... Maybe more like Jack Klugman's...

[kilimanjaro]

Before retiring I was asked for jury duty about every six months. Now that I'm retired, I don't exist. I'm sure they'll get me yet.

[g.willikers]

You may not be called.
In some places, folks over a certain age are not.
Must be due to their propensity for falling asleep during procedures.
Judges seem to frown on snoring in their court rooms.
Or maybe it's about hearing loss.
"Eh, what was that agin, sonny."

[steveno]

in Nebraska when you get a jury form in the mail it asks you if you are over age 65 and would be excused from jury duty. it didn't take very long to check the box and take it up to the court clerk. when I lived in Colorado I was called several times to Greeley for jury duty. I got called for federal jury duty in Denver and that was for a month. I almost made it through the month and had to sit for a civil trial that lasted a week. while interesting we spent a good portion of the week in the jury room while the lawyers hashed things out in the courtroom.

[BarryLee]

I agree the process is interesting especially if you’ve had limited exposure to the criminal justice system. I’ve been on several juries and the criminal cases tended to be pretty clear. However, I was on a couple of civil cases one involving an elder custody case and it was very very difficult. We went back and forth trying to decide what the right thing to do was. We even had a couple of people in tears and I’ll admit to this day I’m still not sure we reached the correct decision.

[Aguila Blanca]

The last time I was called I created a minor crisis in the courthouse. Durning group voir dire we were asked if anyone would have problems following the judge's instructions on the law. I was the only prospective juoro out of about thirty in the room to raise my hand.

They immediately hustled the other twenty-nine out of the room, whereupon the attorneys for both sides (civil case) ganged up on me and tried to browbeat into me that jurors MUST follow a judge's instructions. When I remained unrepentant, they stuffed me in a small side chamber while they hunted down a judge. I was then examined by a judge, who asked me all the same questions the attorneys had asked, and who got all the same answers from me. The judge finally excused me from jury duty, told me that my understanding of the law, the Constitution, and history were flawed, and that I should go home and do some research.

So I went home, and I looked up the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (3 U.S. 1). This was the case that was heard before the Supreme Court, in which the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay, said the following in his instructions to the jury: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

I wrote a polite letter to the judge citing that case and quoting the Chief Justice's statement (which the SCOTUS has never rescinded). She didn't respond. I very much think my name has been blacklisted on the roster of prospective jurors. Neither judges nor attorneys really want jurors who presume to believe they are allowed to think.

[WyMark]

Sorry, but all I can say is that I'm really glad that you and I will never have to be on jury duty together.

The court is aware of facts in every case that the jury is not privy to. This is pretty standard and may be for a wide variety of reasons, but as a juror are none of your business. There is always information that could prejudice a juror one way or another but that is maybe not remotely relevant to the case currently under consideration. In other cases that information may be relevant and should be considered.

The judge will instruct the jury as to what information they are allowed to consider in the scope of the particular case. It's unfortunate that some people feel that they know more/better and are above the legal system and will decide for themselves what to consider.

But then again, it's just as well that you spoke up when you did and excluded yourself from the burden of service.

[Japle]

In Florida, if you’re 70 or over you can be excused if you ask to be excused.

The form that jurors fill out when they report has a section at the bottom that asks if you’re a member of any organizations. Back when I was a consultant and didn’t want to miss work, I wrote in “National Rifle Association – Life Member”. I never got picked.

[rwilson452]

Been called several times, never picked.

[egor20]

Been called three times and every time I was either at sea or stationed overseas. Now that I'm retired from the Navy and available nada nothing.

[2ndsojourn]

From WyMark:
"The court is aware of facts in every case that the jury is not privy to. This is pretty standard and may be for a wide variety of reasons, but as a juror are none of your business. There is always information that could prejudice a juror one way or another but that is maybe not remotely relevant to the case currently under consideration. In other cases that information may be relevant and should be considered.

The judge will instruct the jury as to what information they are allowed to consider in the scope of the particular case. It's unfortunate that some people feel that they know more/better and are above the legal system and will decide for themselves what to consider."

There are instructions a judge may give to the jury other than what evidence to consider. Some pertain to how a jury must find given certain circumstances. And like AB stated, I might have a problem with some of the judge's instructions. I might. I think AB probably should have stated more clearly that he might have a problem with certain instructions, not that he will.

IANAL, nor do I play one on TV, so there's a good chance that some folks here know a bit more about the law than I do. I've also been rejected for jury duty twice because one of the attorneys didn't like some of the answers I gave during jury pooling. But I know that juries can be an uninformed/misinformed bunch sometimes, and some lawyers can sometimes be over zealous when presenting their case. That's what I would reserve jury nullification for. So, yeah, I might have a problem with some judge's instructions. I might.

[kilimanjaro]

It's a big difference between perhaps discerning a reason not to adhere to the instructions of a judge and intending to have a difference in order to vindicate one's own personal biases and beliefs, in spite of the evidence of guilt or innocence.

I kind of want the jury that's going to convict me or free me to do so based on the evidence, the law, and my civil rights, not how they feel about the citizen/government interface, the law itself, public employees, lawyers, police, racial matters, 99%/1% divides, public opinion, or any other such excuses.

After the trial is concluded, maybe such a verdict is in order, but not until then.

[mehavey]

So I went home, and I looked up the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (3 U.S. 1).
This was the case that was heard before the Supreme Court, in which the first
Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, John Jay, said the following in his instructions to
the jury: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the
other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both
objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it
upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in
controversy".

And that is my view as well.
The jury is the final arbiter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 2ndsojourn

There are instructions a judge may give to the jury other than what evidence to consider. Some pertain to how a jury must find given certain circumstances. And like AB stated, I might have a problem with some of the judge's instructions. I might. I think AB probably should have stated more clearly that he might have a problem with certain instructions, not that he will.

I didn't really make an absolute statement, I just answered a question non-verbally. In fact, because I believe in jury nullification as a citizen's right (and, sometimes, duty), I would not voluntarily make any mention of it, because I know it's an automatic disqualifier. But, we were under oath in the group voir dire, and my oath means something to me. The question asked was, IIRC, "Would any of you have any problems following the judge's instructions on the law?"

Believing in jury nullification, I couldn't honestly answer no to that question, so I had to raise my hand. The next thing they asked me was "Why?", so I then had to explain that I was aware of the Supreme Court case in which the Chief Justice had stated that the jury is the trier of the facts and of the law, and so if I didn't agree with the judge's instructions I would have a problem following them. That's essentially equivalent to your "might," I believe. The bottom line is simply that I kin reed two, so I'm not likely to blindly accept what a judge tells me a law says if I can read the law and see that it says something else than what the judge just told me it says.

[wizrd]

During my last call for jury duty -- I underwent voir dire - and was excused from jury duty. The information I gained from this experience only confirms the fact that it is nearly impossible to have anyone accused get a fair and impartial jury trial in this country today. Do some research on the FIJA -- Fully Informed Jury Association, you will be doing yourself a favor.

[JERRYS.]

my wife got a jury duty notice. she had to submit a form to not serve because I was a cop and had to state where I worked for verification. I'm glad too because that $12/day wouldn't help us at all if she had to miss work.

[OuTcAsT]

mehavey Wrote:

The jury is the final arbiter.

I agree. I have served on a Grand Jury 3 times in the last few years and, the Judges charge was just that. You are the trier of Law and Fact. `

Apparently, there are some Jugdes who understand this and, some that do not hold to that concept.

[g.willikers]

It seems there's the possible risk that some judges will mistakenly think the courtroom is theirs, and not the peoples'.
If judges can interpret the law to their liking, why should they complain if a member of the jury does the same?
That's why there's plenty of jurors, to balance out one another.
Who is there to balance out the judge and lawyers, but the jury?

[44 AMP]

Durning group voir dire we were asked if anyone would have problems following the judge's instructions on the law. I was the only prospective juoro out of about thirty in the room to raise my hand.

Bully for you!!!

And I say this without any reference to the rights and responsibilities of a juror.

I understand that when you are asked questions like this, you are expected to give honest answers.

How can one be honest, and still agree that you would not have problems with the Judges instructions, when you DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WILL BE??

A juror does not take a loyalty oath to blindly obey directions, they are expected to make decisions, and decisions cannot be made, until one knows what one is deciding ON.

If, for an extreme example, the Judge instructed the jury they must make a guilty finding because the defendant had a bad haircut, I would have an issue with that.

I would not agree in advance to "have no issues" with something that I don't know what it is. Neither would I sign a blank check.

Telling the attorneys, a judge, or anyone else that I would, simply wouldn't be honest for me.

[Dreaming100Straight]

If judges can interpret the law to their liking, why should they complain if a member of the jury does the same?

Judges cannot interpret the law to their liking. Should they do so, their are mechanisms to correct them by taking writs and appeals, if you mean trial level judges. You can also complain to entities such as the commission on judicial performance in some situations. In some jurisdictions, trial judges are elected and subject to recall elections.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

How can one be honest, and still agree that you would not have problems with the Judges instructions, when you DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WILL BE??

...

I would not agree in advance to "have no issues" with something that I don't know what it is. Neither would I sign a blank check.

That was (and is) pretty much the way I look(ed) at it. Demanding that I, as a juror, agree to follow unknown instructions regarding as-yet unknown laws, given by an unknown judge, is asking me to sign a blank check.

No way would I agree to do that. But I do agree with the concept of jury nullification, and I would not have volunteered same if they hadn't asked. As I posted above, I was under oath, and my oath means something to me. Once they asked, I had to answer honestly.

[44 AMP]

Demanding that I, as a juror, agree to follow unknown instructions regarding as-yet unknown laws, given by an unknown judge, is asking me to sign a blank check.

And what does it say about the state of our system when BOTH sides councils AND the Judge ask and EXPECT you to sign that blank check in order to be on a jury???