This is why jury trials are sketch

[cookiemdough]

www.readfrontier.org/stories/juror-agreed-betty-shelby-never-patrol/

“At one point I talked with another juror about just hanging the jury, and making the state try the case again,” he said. “We really agreed that if they did a better job, they could have convicted her. And maybe the right thing to do was just make them do it again, maybe they do something different and a different jury convicts her.

“I’ll always feel like a coward for not doing that.”

He said jurors had no idea how long they would be required to stay in the deliberation room. As tiredness and hunger set it, votes started to trend toward not guilty.

[cookiemdough]

They were tired and hungry. Ok

[greenlight]

When I served on a jury, the judge interviewed all potential jurors and gave us every opportunity to back out if we felt we couldn't serve.

Multiple times he asked each one of us if we were sure we felt up to what could potentially be a long trial.

Every one of us agreed to serve.

After 3 days people were getting downright hostile about having to be there. Much of the conversation would be about how much of a pita the whole thing was. Several people slept when we should have been deliberating.

We ended up hung because people just didn't give a fuck and wanted to go home.
It was so frustrating.

[Deleted]

May 19, 2017 11:21:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

They were tired and hungry. Ok

I really see this as a systemic issue. Obviously, it's not an excuse for rendering a verdict that isn't supported by the evidence. But I think we all know from personal experience that when we are tired or hungry, we have trouble concentrating, are more irritable, and often make poor choices. I'm sure some newer courthouses have nicer jury rooms, but the ones I'm familiar with are SO uncomfortable. They're tiny, ancient room with a bunch of uncomfortable wooden chairs. One tiny ensuite bathroom for everyone to share (and hear everyone's eliminations). During deliberations, you get one meal break, and you stay in the tiny cramped room while lunch is brought to you. You have no real access to snacks or drinks other than water. Occasionally they could ask for a 10-minute break to go outside, but everyone has to stay together. You can't even get 10 minutes to go be by yourself and decompress and collect your thoughts.

None of this is said to excuse jurors who ignore evidence or decide cases based on prejudice, but more to reaffirm your title. We don't really create an ideal environment for good decisionmaking, IMO.

[miniroller]

May 19, 2017 11:21:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

They were tired and hungry. Ok

I'm seeing red just reading this; I cannot imagine my response if I were a member of this jury . GAH!!!! 😡
Thanks very much for adding that perspective @angryharpy

[ESF]

To everyone on this board who has ever tried to get off jury duty or bragged about never serving or complained about having to do your time there, you are part of the problem.

Justice starts when people committed to it show up and do their part, and don't write it off as bullshit for suckers.

[pizzapizza]

Holy fuck. This is terrible but not really surprising.

One of the elements of a successful manslaughter case like the one presented against Shelby is that fear must be “an overriding” factor. He said the jury felt like Shelby was scared — she testified that the encounter with Crutcher was “the most scared she’d ever been” — but that she wasn’t panicking.



To illustrate, he said the jury watched one of the dash cam videos multiple times that showed two laser-sighted dots on Crutcher as Shelby and fellow officer Tyler Turnbough held Crutcher at gunpoint. (Turnbough had a Taser.)



The juror said that one dot, which they saw near Crutcher’s pant leg, was unsteady. The other dot, near his right chest area, was stable.



“The stable dot was right next to where the bullet appeared, so we all decided that was probably from Shelby’s gun,” he said.



Testimony during the trial stated Turnbough’s Taser actually had two dots. Shelby’s gun was not equipped with a laser sight.

So his logic that she was steady is completely inaccurate.

So the jury doesn't give a shit and wants to go home and the prosecution did a crap job.  Disgusting people.

[penguingrrl]

So the jurors short term comfort and convenience matters more to them than getting the right verdict on the cold blooded murder of a black person. This is America, right here. The same case, the same jury discomforts and pushing each other to get out of there would absolutely have resulted in a different verdict if it had been a white man.

[andwhat]

OMG, Unfortunately I don't think a bench trial would have gone differently.

What I was saying yesterday about the prosecutors not even believing in the case they are prosecuting.

He said the letter also outlined the jury’s “extreme displeasure” with the case laid out by prosecutors.



“There were so many holes in their case,” he said. “We really felt like they could have gotten a conviction had they presented it better.”

And WTF were they not even listening?

The juror said that one dot, which they saw near Crutcher’s pant leg, was unsteady. The other dot, near his right chest area, was stable.



“The stable dot was right next to where the bullet appeared, so we all decided that was probably from Shelby’s gun,” he said.



Testimony during the trial stated Turnbough’s Taser actually had two dots. Shelby’s gun was not equipped with a laser sight.

Also WTF!

“We really at that point were feeling like it was going to be not guilty, and none of us were happy about it,” he said.



After submitting the verdict form to the foreman at the nine-hour mark of deliberations, he said they all sat down for an additional 30 minutes and waited.



“It was like we were thinking ‘Hey, we can change our minds,'” he said. “But none of us did.”

[pizzapizza]

May 19, 2017 11:29:22 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

May 19, 2017 11:21:43 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

They were tired and hungry. Ok

I really see this as a systemic issue. Obviously, it's not an excuse for rendering a verdict that isn't supported by the evidence. But I think we all know from personal experience that when we are tired or hungry, we have trouble concentrating, are more irritable, and often make poor choices. I'm sure some newer courthouses have nicer jury rooms, but the ones I'm familiar with are SO uncomfortable. They're tiny, ancient room with a bunch of uncomfortable wooden chairs. One tiny ensuite bathroom for everyone to share (and hear everyone's eliminations). During deliberations, you get one meal break, and you stay in the tiny cramped room while lunch is brought to you. You have no real access to snacks or drinks other than water. Occasionally they could ask for a 10-minute break to go outside, but everyone has to stay together. You can't even get 10 minutes to go be by yourself and decompress and collect your thoughts.

None of this is said to excuse jurors who ignore evidence or decide cases based on prejudice, but more to reaffirm your title. We don't really create an ideal environment for good decisionmaking, IMO.

Nah they let this lady get away with murder.  I just can't let that go.  This guy knew it was wrong.  

This idea we need to provide the most lovely of accommodations which I get may be preferable just reeks of privilege.  

[Deleted]

May 19, 2017 11:35:47 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

May 19, 2017 11:29:22 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

I really see this as a systemic issue. Obviously, it's not an excuse for rendering a verdict that isn't supported by the evidence. But I think we all know from personal experience that when we are tired or hungry, we have trouble concentrating, are more irritable, and often make poor choices. I'm sure some newer courthouses have nicer jury rooms, but the ones I'm familiar with are SO uncomfortable. They're tiny, ancient room with a bunch of uncomfortable wooden chairs. One tiny ensuite bathroom for everyone to share (and hear everyone's eliminations). During deliberations, you get one meal break, and you stay in the tiny cramped room while lunch is brought to you. You have no real access to snacks or drinks other than water. Occasionally they could ask for a 10-minute break to go outside, but everyone has to stay together. You can't even get 10 minutes to go be by yourself and decompress and collect your thoughts.

None of this is said to excuse jurors who ignore evidence or decide cases based on prejudice, but more to reaffirm your title. We don't really create an ideal environment for good decisionmaking, IMO.

Nah they let this lady get away with murder.  I just can't let that go.  This guy knew it was wrong.  

This idea we need to provide the most lovely of accommodations which I get may be preferable just reeks of privilege.  

I agree they let her get away with murder. I apologize for sounding like I was excusing that. I should be clear that I am speaking about jury duty generally, not this specific jury. On the whole, we don't create an environment for good decisionmaking. But as I said, that is not an excuse for juries making poor decisions based on bias. I probably should have saved this for a discussion about juries generally and not this case specifically.

I don't want to derail from the injustice that occurred here, so I apologize for doing that.

[andwhat]

How are you a juror in a case like this and not thinking about how you would want the jury to behave if this were your family member? How are we so detached as a society that people put a growling stomach over letting a murderer get away?

I have never been selected for a jury, but they don't allow you to eat? Why?

[cookiemdough]

May 19, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

To everyone on this board who has ever tried to get off jury duty or bragged about never serving or complained about having to do your time there, you are part of the problem.

Justice starts when people committed to it show up and do their part, and don't write it off as bullshit for suckers.

I have served on a jury. Me and another person were the holdouts on not convicting a young black male for a drug offense that had a mandatory sentence. In my experience people don't understand the charges, what burden of proof means and what reasonable doubt means. I think the concept of "deliberations" among a group of strangers is a farce. People came into that room with their mind made up and tried to bully undecideds. I found the whole process very frustrating and depressing. Nothing about it seemed just.

[WOT?*]

Our jury room didn't even have a bathroom. The chairs were orange herculon (I think that's what it was called - the heavy fiber weave from the '70s) and the room was mismatched with a huge laminate conference table. The courtroom was stuck out of hte '70s, with walls made from wood planks with inserts designed to keep the jury paying attention to the trial and not the surrounding (but in reality the results were opposite.)

The problem I have is that the defendant's counsel was a public defender who was woefully unprepared. Instead of having a defense, she was concentrating on police abuse in getting her in the car and even the defendant was defending them. We felt almost compelled to convict because there was so little defense; we spent time trying to construct one for her in the jury room.

That's where the other angle comes in. Prosecutors get paid and have access to things that public defenders don't. There is a larger budget and more means to *convict* than there is to defend. And there aren't nearly enough PDs available to give adequate counsel to their clients.

(That's not relevant to this particular story, but again, an overall view of the judicial system as a whole.)

[MrsAxilla]

May 19, 2017 11:35:47 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

May 19, 2017 11:29:22 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

I really see this as a systemic issue. Obviously, it's not an excuse for rendering a verdict that isn't supported by the evidence. But I think we all know from personal experience that when we are tired or hungry, we have trouble concentrating, are more irritable, and often make poor choices. I'm sure some newer courthouses have nicer jury rooms, but the ones I'm familiar with are SO uncomfortable. They're tiny, ancient room with a bunch of uncomfortable wooden chairs. One tiny ensuite bathroom for everyone to share (and hear everyone's eliminations). During deliberations, you get one meal break, and you stay in the tiny cramped room while lunch is brought to you. You have no real access to snacks or drinks other than water. Occasionally they could ask for a 10-minute break to go outside, but everyone has to stay together. You can't even get 10 minutes to go be by yourself and decompress and collect your thoughts.

None of this is said to excuse jurors who ignore evidence or decide cases based on prejudice, but more to reaffirm your title. We don't really create an ideal environment for good decisionmaking, IMO.

Nah they let this lady get away with murder.  I just can't let that go.  This guy knew it was wrong.  

This idea we need to provide the most lovely of accommodations which I get may be preferable just reeks of privilege.  

It's broader than that.  The jury selection process often weeds out exactly the type of people you DO want on a jury.  The conditions are miserable.  The prosecutors and public defenders put up shit cases because they're handling hundreds at a time.  The whole fucking justice system is riddled with systemic issues no one cares to address.  Privilege is certainly one of them (see ESF's comment about getting out of jury duty). 

[WOT?*]

I was working in a law firm at the time I was called for jury duty. (Twice within a year actually. Once Common Pleas and once municipal.) We were paid a jury fee of about $20 at the time. This doesn't cover gas or parking for a lot of people. Honestly, I worked to get ON the jury. I was fortunate to have a boss who comped jury time and thought it was important, and I knew others weren't as fortunate so I'd be filling a seat with a juror who wanted to be there, who could afford to be there, who had a boss who was understanding about me being there, etc. The prosecutor knew my (other) boss and had worked with him as a prosecutor and as a councilman. We spent my entire voir dire talking about him, our office, his family (new baby), etc. and I spent the entire time watching the PD and waiting for her to strike me because I worked for a litigation (generally plaintiff side cases) firm and because the discussion the prosecutor was having with me would render me unsuitable (at least in my POV.)

[cookiemdough]

May 19, 2017 11:39:09 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

May 19, 2017 11:35:47 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

Nah they let this lady get away with murder.  I just can't let that go.  This guy knew it was wrong.  

This idea we need to provide the most lovely of accommodations which I get may be preferable just reeks of privilege.  

I agree they let her get away with murder. I apologize for sounding like I was excusing that. I should be clear that I am speaking about jury duty generally, not this specific jury. On the whole, we don't create an environment for good decisionmaking. But as I said, that is not an excuse for juries making poor decisions based on bias. I probably should have saved this for a discussion about juries generally and not this case specifically.

I don't want to derail from the injustice that occurred here, so I apologize for doing that.

I get what you are saying. But I think there are to many people, even under the best circumstances, that are not capable of making good decisions. Full belly and comfy chairs aside. Our process doesn't have a way to filter out those people.

[maple]

May 19, 2017 11:32:08 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

Holy fuck. This is terrible but not really surprising.

One of the elements of a successful manslaughter case like the one presented against Shelby is that fear must be “an overriding” factor. He said the jury felt like Shelby was scared — she testified that the encounter with Crutcher was “the most scared she’d ever been” — but that she wasn’t panicking.



To illustrate, he said the jury watched one of the dash cam videos multiple times that showed two laser-sighted dots on Crutcher as Shelby and fellow officer Tyler Turnbough held Crutcher at gunpoint. (Turnbough had a Taser.)



The juror said that one dot, which they saw near Crutcher’s pant leg, was unsteady. The other dot, near his right chest area, was stable.



“The stable dot was right next to where the bullet appeared, so we all decided that was probably from Shelby’s gun,” he said.



Testimony during the trial stated Turnbough’s Taser actually had two dots. Shelby’s gun was not equipped with a laser sight.

So his logic that she was steady is completely inaccurate.

So the jury doesn't give a shit and wants to go home and the prosecution did a crap job.  Disgusting people.

I've only ever been on a grand jury, but this is pretty consistent with my experience. People were pretty terrible about keeping facts straight. Or they just heard what they wanted to hear and never got the facts correct in the first place. It was incredibly frustrating.

It was also pretty interesting to see the make up of the grand jury. It skewed more male, white and old than the population as a whole in my area. The average age may have contributed to some of the issues with keeping facts straight. One of the women could barely hear. Maybe they do a better job of making trial juries more accurately reflect the make up of the general population, but I found it alarming how skewed the jury was. In retrospect, it made sense that these might be the people who have the time for jury duty and the ability to accept $10 a day in compensation rather than working, but it was alarming to see all the potential sources of human fallibility in the process. 

[jeaniebueller]

A few things too, attorneys can ask all the questions they want in voir dire, but the bottom line is that many prospective jurors won't admit or don't know their own biases to even answer these questions truthfully.

Second, i don't expect jurors to understand the rules of evidence, court rules or statutes. The jury instructions are supposed to address those things but many times when juries submit questions to the judge, they want to know about something that cannot be admitted into evidence. And I think that at times like that, they may hold it against the prosecution, for better or worse. Attorneys have to take semester or year long classes on criminal law and con law in law school, but we expect jurors to understand jury instructions just by having the judge read them one time? No.

the system is basically a mess and i don't know the solution.

[jeaniebueller]

May 19, 2017 11:48:41 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

May 19, 2017 11:35:47 GMT -5 pizzapizza said:

Nah they let this lady get away with murder.  I just can't let that go.  This guy knew it was wrong.  

This idea we need to provide the most lovely of accommodations which I get may be preferable just reeks of privilege.  

It's broader than that.  The jury selection process often weeds out exactly the type of people you DO want on a jury.  The conditions are miserable.  The prosecutors and public defenders put up shit cases because they're handling hundreds at a time.  The whole fucking justice system is riddled with systemic issues no one cares to address.  Privilege is certainly one of them (see ESF 's comment about getting out of jury duty). 

The other thing, often the cases that go to trial are the "shit" cases because of how the system works. When there is incontrovertible evidence, the defendant is more likely to take a plea. When you have a case that relies on a lot of circumstantial evidence, potentially unreliable witnesses, etc., obviously the defendant will contest the charges.

[ESF]

May 19, 2017 11:46:57 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

May 19, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

To everyone on this board who has ever tried to get off jury duty or bragged about never serving or complained about having to do your time there, you are part of the problem.

Justice starts when people committed to it show up and do their part, and don't write it off as bullshit for suckers.

I have served on a jury. Me and another person were the holdouts on not convicting a young black male for a drug offense that had a mandatory sentence. In my experience people don't understand the charges, what burden of proof means and what reasonable doubt means. I think the concept of "deliberations" among a group of strangers is a farce. People came into that room with their mind made up and tried to bully undecideds. I found the whole process very frustrating and depressing. Nothing about it seemed just.

Yeah, the system is absolutely broken, and I can't begin to imagine how frustrating jury service for people of color must be.  

The alternative is no jury but having a judge decide, which even if it were constitutionally permissible to mandate it, I'm not convinced it's going to be more fair.   I do think the bar associations, civil rights groups, and courtroom personnel need to do much more to educate the public and more specifically, the jurors on a given case. I don't bring cases to trial, and there are HUGE differences between the states and counties as to how its done (as well as differences in any given courtroom) so I don't know what specifically needs to be done, other than that there's no one size fits all solution. 

Until that bigger problem is fixed, privileged white people need to stop taking pride in cracking jokes about a jury is 12 people too stupid to get off jury duty or act like their jobs and lives are too important for them to make the time. People who proclaim to be allies need to realize that if they skip jury duty, their spot may very well go to some unemployed MAGA-hat wearing dipshit. Show up and do your damn part, listen to the people of color serving with you, and do your part to ensure justice is done.  

[MrsAxilla]

May 19, 2017 11:55:42 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

I was working in a law firm at the time I was called for jury duty. (Twice within a year actually. Once Common Pleas and once municipal.) We were paid a jury fee of about $20 at the time. This doesn't cover gas or parking for a lot of people. Honestly, I worked to get ON the jury. I was fortunate to have a boss who comped jury time and thought it was important, and I knew others weren't as fortunate so I'd be filling a seat with a juror who wanted to be there, who could afford to be there, who had a boss who was understanding about me being there, etc. The prosecutor knew my (other) boss and had worked with him as a prosecutor and as a councilman. We spent my entire voir dire talking about him, our office, his family (new baby), etc. and I spent the entire time watching the PD and waiting for her to strike me because I worked for a litigation (generally plaintiff side cases) firm and because the discussion the prosecutor was having with me would render me unsuitable (at least in my POV.)

I was called while I was general counsel and my boss was similar.  I was dismissed in the first round based solely on my questionnaire. 

[jane6672]

May 19, 2017 11:46:57 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

May 19, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

To everyone on this board who has ever tried to get off jury duty or bragged about never serving or complained about having to do your time there, you are part of the problem.

Justice starts when people committed to it show up and do their part, and don't write it off as bullshit for suckers.

I have served on a jury. Me and another person were the holdouts on not convicting a young black male for a drug offense that had a mandatory sentence. In my experience people don't understand the charges, what burden of proof means and what reasonable doubt means. I think the concept of "deliberations" among a group of strangers is a farce. People came into that room with their mind made up and tried to bully undecideds. I found the whole process very frustrating and depressing. Nothing about it seemed just.

Yes. I served on a jury for a DUI charge. It was this person's third, so it would be a felony offense. There were a couple of older lady jurors bitching about how we needed to finish up because they had Christmas shopping to do. 
A guy said that we should vote "guilty" regardless of evidence because this person had 2 previous DUIs and we needed to "get him off the streets."

[05heel]

My one jury experience was very interesting. What was intriguing to me is that the jurors with the most insightful comments had pretty significant criminal histories themselves. I can't recall what their crimes were, but they were obviously not serious enough to preclude them serving on a jury. Anyway, we decided to convict, which I think was the right decision. We had one holdout - a middle-aged black lady - and while I empathized with her overall mistrust of the criminal justice system for young black males, I think she was wrong. I'm sure if you asked her, she would say that she felt bullied by me in particular, which I feel badly about in hindsight.

Anyway, I was lucky that everyone on my jury appeared to take the process seriously, and although we deliberated for several days, no one really complained. It did however cement my belief that people who brag about avoiding jury duty should be ashamed of themselves.

[starlily]

May 19, 2017 11:47:52 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

We felt almost compelled to convict because there was so little defense; we spent time trying to construct one for her in the jury room.

Stuff like this is part of the problem. That is not the job of the jury.

I stopped talking to jurors post-trial after my 3rd trial. If I ever fund myself in trial I'm choosing a bench trial. I don't trust jurors.

[CrazyLucky]

May 19, 2017 12:03:12 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

A few things too, attorneys can ask all the questions they want in voir dire, but the bottom line is that many prospective jurors won't admit or don't know their own biases to even answer these questions truthfully.

Second, i don't expect jurors to understand the rules of evidence, court rules or statutes. The jury instructions are supposed to address those things but many times when juries submit questions to the judge, they want to know about something that cannot be admitted into evidence. And I think that at times like that, they may hold it against the prosecution, for better or worse. Attorneys have to take semester or year long classes on criminal law and con law in law school, but we expect jurors to understand jury instructions just by having the judge read them one time? No.

the system is basically a mess and i don't know the solution.

I was recently in a jury pool, but not chosen as a juror.  But I was surprised at how some of the questions went.  One defense attorney asked the potential jurors if they had ever thought they saw someone they knew, only to find out it was really someone else.  Not a single person raised their hand?!?!  Seriously?  I can't be the only person this happens to.

I wish I had been selected.  It has to be more interesting to BE a juror than to be stuck just waiting to be called on.

[CrazyLucky]

May 19, 2017 12:08:40 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 19, 2017 11:46:57 GMT -5 cookiemdough said:

Yeah, the system is absolutely broken, and I can't begin to imagine how frustrating jury service for people of color must be.   

The alternative is no jury but having a judge decide, which even if it were constitutionally permissible to mandate it, I'm not convinced it's going to be more fair.   I do think the bar associations, civil rights groups, and courtroom personnel need to do much more to educate the public and more specifically, the jurors on a given case. I don't bring cases to trial, and there are HUGE differences between the states and counties as to how its done (as well as differences in any given courtroom) so I don't know what specifically needs to be done, other than that there's no one size fits all solution. 

After my jury SERVICE (It was comical how the court was rebranding it as service and not duty), the judge spoke to us  for a few minutes about the importance of jurors and the jury system.  Basically, in NC, the guilty verdict has to be unanimous.  So if you have an asshole judge, you're going to be guilty.  But with a jury, you hopefully have a couple of reasonable people who will not assume you are guilty just because you were arrested, or you're poor, or whatever.  And then the judge went on to make several obnoxious comments regarding liberals, which made me think that whoever goes into his court will be better served by a jury of their peers.

[rootbeerfloat]

My first jury experience was frustrating. After a 3+ week trial, we spent several days deliberating and ended up hung. It was the second time the case was tried (first also resulted in a hung jury), so was unlikely to be tried again. It was a rape case with the victim's testimony being key, but she'd been drugged during the incident (at least those of us who felt the defendant was guilty believed she was) which had taken place a few years prior. Both victim and defendant were black, and the jury included a few POC, myself included. The hold-outs were two middle aged white ladies; at the time I wondered if the fact that they both had teenage sons had something to do with it.

About a year and a half ago, I served on a much shorter trial. A homeless man was charged with drug possession. Testimony only took a day and a half, and after 2 half days, we found him not guilty. Opinions were split at the beginning, but people took the process seriously, and the more we discussed the shady police officer testimony, the more everyone agreed the evidence was lacking. That experience renewed my faith in the jury system.

[PinkSquirrel]

The one jury I sat on was horrifying. They gave zero shits about the jury instructions. I literally dragged all of their asses back into the courtroom so we could have the judge repeat shit and they STILL didn't get it. Basically, it was a drug trial. A car with a hidden compartment had been pulled over and drugs and gun were found in the compartment. The driver was not the owner and the only evidence to support the person knew about the drugs was a drug notebook that was in the disaster of a vehicle and was not in the defendant's handwriting. In order to convict, the defendant had to not only know the drugs were in there, but also had to have intent to sell them. Only knowing they were in the car wasn't enough.

After the prosecution rested everyone was horrified by how corrupt the cops seemed (they were currently on desk duty based on unrelated actions) and no one believed them. Then the POC defendant got up, was nervous and they alllll decided he definitely did it. Except. There was ZERO evidence presented that he intended to do anything with the drugs let alone that he was aware of them. Luckily, I was in it for the long haul and bullied everyone into actually following the law and not voting based on their god damn feels. The jury foreman almost died that day. If he said "So, do you think he knew about the drugs?" one more time I was going to murder his ass dead.

[isabel]

May 19, 2017 11:30:53 GMT -5 ESF said:

To everyone on this board who has ever tried to get off jury duty or bragged about never serving or complained about having to do your time there, you are part of the problem.

Justice starts when people committed to it show up and do their part, and don't write it off as bullshit for suckers.

How much of this has to do with the fact that as a country, we don't value this kind of service? Employers are not required to cover pay for jury duty in all cases. My employer covers my standard pay for the first 3 days and then I get the stipend from the court, which is practically nothing. Luckily, I can afford to take that hit (at least for a little while), but lots of people can't. There's something to be said for the fact that we require people to serve, but we don't ensure that they are financially compensated when they miss work for days or weeks.

Also, I'm not sure how much prep jurors get. I've been called once and my case was dismissed, so I've never served. Are jurors given any kind of overview of what the burden of proof is or how to legally determine if there's reasonable doubt? Or do we count on people having a law and order education?