I have never been selected for a jury, but they don't allow you to eat? Why?
This is not my experience. I've been a juror twice in different cities. Both times the days were of very reasonable length (9-4 or shorter with an hour for lunch) and plenty of breaks. IMO it's not really an uncomfortable or taxing "work" environment.
I am constantly appalled at people's desire to get out of jury duty. I truly see it as my civic duty. I would be happy to sit again in the future. I am privileged though that my job allows me to serve while getting paid. I understand not everyone can do this. I will say though, that I was called a few months ago when I would have been back from maternity leave for only 2.5 weeks. I was planning on telling them that jury duty would be a hardship for me because I was pumping 3 times a day at the time. It was a moot point because I got excused the day before due to lack of trials. I can see how for some people serving it would be a hardship.
I don't know what the answer is. I think juries are important, but it's not a perfect system.
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?
For both trials I served on they broke it down to pretty simple english. The jury instructions were quite clear.
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.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the lawyers had us fill out questionnaires first, with a set of questions they agreed would be used to exclude potential jurors. Cool, that saves time for everyone.
There were a number of questions about your biases and whether you could set them aside to rationally consider the facts of the case. I wrote an essay on why these questions were impossible to answer (what if you don't know you're biased? What does it mean to be rational? How can one set aside biases?) and why they should not be used in jury selection.
When I clerked for a judge we did tons of work on jury instructions but even then I feel like the concepts, arcane statutes, reasonable doubt in general, etc. are not exactly easy or basic concepts for people to grasp. There are tons of other issues that the court can't control like shitty human nature and people lying during voir dire but I think jury instructions and those concepts are a huge hurdle.
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?
I agree a big part is that employers and the government need to do more. But so do people who have the luxury of salaried, secure jobs.
Prep for jurors - these things are supposed to be explained, and if they aren't, likely grounds for appeal. That said, public defenders are way overworked and may not have the resources and bandwidth to fight.
I only served on one jury, and everyone decided as soon as we got into the room that she was guilty (she had hired her 15 year old son to kill her husband). But they had given the foreperson a worksheet, which was a long list of things to check off, various elements of the crime I think. We had to go through that worksheet and agree on various elements and facts to figure out what was proven and what wasn't proven. For example, because it was a conspiracy case, the prosecution had laid out a few different theories of how and when the agreement to kill the man was made. We needed to go through each of their three or so theories of agreement and make sure we agreed on one of them. There were a few other things like that. I recall it being pretty straightforward, but again, we were all in agreement as to guilt right off the bat. The son's testimony convinced everyone.
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.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the lawyers had us fill out questionnaires first, with a set of questions they agreed would be used to exclude potential jurors. Cool, that saves time for everyone.
There were a number of questions about your biases and whether you could set them aside to rationally consider the facts of the case. I wrote an essay on why these questions were impossible to answer (what if you don't know you're biased? What does it mean to be rational? How can one set aside biases?) and why they should not be used in jury selection.
I was not called back.
I mean, in fairness, its a tough issue. I can't think of a better way with the time allotted to get jurors to answer these questions honestly, and for appellate purposes, attorneys have to ask a direct question like that so an answer is on the record. It can be really frustrating when a juror gives an answer about, for example, having a close relative who is a police officer, and then they swear up and down it won't influence their view of the evidence when you know that is just not true. I think that there are a lot of problems with jurors not wanting to be put on the spot or wanting to draw attention to themselves if noone else is. Its difficult.
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.
Man I LOVE doing jury duty. I got booted off last time because I am an idjit. I reached out to my friend who is a defense attorney and said hey I have jury duty wanna have lunch? She said sure! And then on the form when they asked if I knew anyone who worked on the courts blahblah I checked no then signed that all was true yadayada. Then we broke for lunch and I went to meet my friend and as she walked toward me I said, oh, wait. Hahahahaa! So I told her and she took me back in and got the judge's attention and explained and then asked me some questions (I dug myself deeper because one of the questions was if she talks to me about cases and I said, "no we just talk about boys." *blinkblinkblink* she chuckled but, I mean, c'mon! there had to be a better answer!!) and sent me off to lunch and when I came back and we all reconvened they dismissed me because it had to be clearly I was too stoopid to do this job. hahahaha
I loved jury duty too. It was really interesting, and what made me think I should go to law school because it was way more interesting than my job at the time. Sadly, it was way more interesting than actually being a lawyer, and because they don't like to pick lawyers for jury duty, probably my only shot.
Post by discogranny on May 19, 2017 13:44:41 GMT -5
I served on a murder case (stabbing, white 20's male vs. white 20's male.) We were in court for seven days and then deliberated for three. At the time I was early twenties, broke with no savings at all, and my employer only paid me for the first three days. The credit card hole I dug myself into that month took me more than a year to get out of. It's such a tough situation when you want to be a fair, attentive juror, but you are sitting in the deliberation room running mental gymnastics about how you are going to make rent this month. It's a real problem with our jury system.
There were a couple of women on in my pool who thought it would be "so cool" and "just like TV" to be on the jury. One of them absolutely sobbed to the point of being a huge distraction when the guilty verdict was announced because she felt so badly about putting someone in prison for 30 years. There were a ton of factors leading to the guilty verdict and I still feel confident in that vote. The most frustrating person was an older man who held out his decision for days because he was retired and said the $40 per day or whatever was good spending money for him.
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?
I agree a big part is that employers and the government need to do more. But so do people who have the luxury of salaried, secure jobs.
I am over here like SIGN ME UP! and yet I never get called! I get administrative leave to be on a jury, so I don't miss a dime of pay.
I got called once. We went in for voir dire. The whole panel got tainted within three questions, and we were all dismissed. I've never again been called.
I agree a big part is that employers and the government need to do more. But so do people who have the luxury of salaried, secure jobs.
I am over here like SIGN ME UP! and yet I never get called! I get administrative leave to be on a jury, so I don't miss a dime of pay.
I got called once. We went in for voir dire. The whole panel got tainted within three questions, and we were all dismissed. I've never again been called.
I WILL SERVE! I WILL PAY ATTENTION!
I've never gotten called and I would absolutely LOVE it.
Actually that's not true. I got called in my hometown when I was 19 and away at college. A
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."
This is an interesting point, though. The juror(s?)said they felt like the prosecution was subpar, and that if they'd done a better job, it'd be a guilty verdict. So.do.you convict because you believe someone is guilty, even if the state didn't "prove" their case? In this particular case, I wish they would've. But I'm not sure what that says about my adherence to our laws.
I agree a big part is that employers and the government need to do more. But so do people who have the luxury of salaried, secure jobs.
I am over here like SIGN ME UP! and yet I never get called! I get administrative leave to be on a jury, so I don't miss a dime of pay.
I got called once. We went in for voir dire. The whole panel got tainted within three questions, and we were all dismissed. I've never again been called.
I WILL SERVE! I WILL PAY ATTENTION!
I was super excited to get called, then we got a text the night before that they didn't need us
I served on a murder case (stabbing, white 20's male vs. white 20's male.) We were in court for seven days and then deliberated for three. At the time I was early twenties, broke with no savings at all, and my employer only paid me for the first three days. The credit card hole I dug myself into that month took me more than a year to get out of. It's such a tough situation when you want to be a fair, attentive juror, but you are sitting in the deliberation room running mental gymnastics about how you are going to make rent this month. It's a real problem with our jury system.
This is what I'm talking about. It really bothers me that people are required to serve, but that the requirement can truly financially wreck a lot of people. That's a scary situation to be in. And you never know how long the trial is going to last, how long deliberations are going to last. I can imagine how difficult it would be to concentrate on the task at hand when all you can think about it how you're going to pay your bills or buy enough food to feed your family, never mind your employer being pissed and possibly taking it out on you by cutting your hours or something.
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."
This is an interesting point, though. The juror(s?)said they felt like the prosecution was subpar, and that if they'd done a better job, it'd be a guilty verdict. So.do.you convict because you believe someone is guilty, even if the state didn't "prove" their case? In this particular case, I wish they would've.But I'm not sure what that says about my adherence to our laws.
This is absolutely not how it should work.
Your job as a juror in a criminal trial not one of public safety. Your job is to hold the government to high standards before taking away someone's liberty.
The prosecution has to meet its burden for each crime. That's a constitutional requirement. If they didn't meet it, they don't get to lock people up. And you can't just assume the past convictions were fair and just.
If people are displeased with the outcome, the solution isn't to encourage people to vote their feelings, it's to encourage people to pay enough in taxes such that the criminal justice system is adequately funded to ensure people do their jobs - prosecution AND defense.
People deciding to put someone in prison because they've decided he's a bad person even though the prosecution was shoddy and failed to meet the constitutional requirement of showing that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is precisely how so many black men get wrongfully convicted.
This is an interesting point, though. The juror(s?)said they felt like the prosecution was subpar, and that if they'd done a better job, it'd be a guilty verdict. So.do.you convict because you believe someone is guilty, even if the state didn't "prove" their case? In this particular case, I wish they would've.But I'm not sure what that says about my adherence to our laws.
This is absolutely not how it should work.
Your job as a juror in a criminal trial not one of public safety. Your job is to hold the government to high standards before taking away someone's liberty.
The prosecution has to meet its burden for each crime. That's a constitutional requirement. If they didn't meet it, they don't get to lock people up. And you can't just assume the past convictions were fair and just.
If people are displeased with the outcome, the solution isn't to encourage people to vote their feelings, it's to encourage people to pay enough in taxes such that the criminal justice system is adequately funded to ensure people do their jobs - prosecution AND defense.
People deciding to put someone in prison because they've decided he's a bad person even though the prosecution was shoddy and failed to meet the constitutional requirement of showing that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is precisely how so many black men get wrongfully convicted.
This is an interesting point, though. The juror(s?)said they felt like the prosecution was subpar, and that if they'd done a better job, it'd be a guilty verdict. So.do.you convict because you believe someone is guilty, even if the state didn't "prove" their case? In this particular case, I wish they would've.But I'm not sure what that says about my adherence to our laws.
This is absolutely not how it should work.
Your job as a juror in a criminal trial not one of public safety. Your job is to hold the government to high standards before taking away someone's liberty.
The prosecution has to meet its burden for each crime. That's a constitutional requirement. If they didn't meet it, they don't get to lock people up. And you can't just assume the past convictions were fair and just.
If people are displeased with the outcome, the solution isn't to encourage people to vote their feelings, it's to encourage people to pay enough in taxes such that the criminal justice system is adequately funded to ensure people do their jobs - prosecution AND defense.
People deciding to put someone in prison because they've decided he's a bad person even though the prosecution was shoddy and failed to meet the constitutional requirement of showing that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is precisely how so many black men get wrongfully convicted.
I don't disagree. But I would bet good money not everyone on a jury does. I just find it really convenient that a high profile case like this gets a shoddy shake from the state. It's just shocking. (sarcasm font).
I took the article as placing blame on the prosecutor and jury. But if the prosecutor doesn't do their job, is there really fault in their verdict?
Yeah, agreed. I think that's what is so problematic about these cases is that it's a mix of low interest from prosecution, who don't want to go after their buddies, and jury bias.
The article focused on the jury, so that's why the thread took the turn it did.
I really think that in police shootings, the state needs to appoint a special prosecutor from outside the DAs ranks, someone who isn't going to be thinking "it will kill my career if I go down as anti-law enforcement." Better prosecution is more attainable in the short term than fixing jury bias.
The last time I was called for jury duty, the lawyers had us fill out questionnaires first, with a set of questions they agreed would be used to exclude potential jurors. Cool, that saves time for everyone.
There were a number of questions about your biases and whether you could set them aside to rationally consider the facts of the case. I wrote an essay on why these questions were impossible to answer (what if you don't know you're biased? What does it mean to be rational? How can one set aside biases?) and why they should not be used in jury selection.
I was not called back.
I mean, in fairness, its a tough issue. I can't think of a better way with the time allotted to get jurors to answer these questions honestly, and for appellate purposes, attorneys have to ask a direct question like that so an answer is on the record. It can be really frustrating when a juror gives an answer about, for example, having a close relative who is a police officer, and then they swear up and down it won't influence their view of the evidence when you know that is just not true. I think that there are a lot of problems with jurors not wanting to be put on the spot or wanting to draw attention to themselves if noone else is. Its difficult.
I think it points to a systematic problem, that our judicial system evolved with the notion that there is/can be a "neutral" stance on a topic (particularly if that topic is related to crime). One possible solution would be to try to develop a jury that include a balance of biases that could then be spoken to... This would still have it's faults, but I think it would go a long way to dealing with the issue that the "neutral" position is actually the "white male" position.
I took the article as placing blame on the prosecutor and jury. But if the prosecutor doesn't do their job, is there really fault in their verdict?
I don't know. it is not clear what the prosecutor did that gave that perception. I am not sure if the same fact pattern existed, and the cop was black, that they would have found them not guilty. There is some element of the jury really wanting to give the benefit of the doubt to her that inevitably causes the threshold to be higher for conviction. She got off because she was scared. But apparently didn't qualify for a lesser charge because she was steady? It takes some big leaps of logic especially when her peers did not similarly act.
Post by underwaterrhymes on May 19, 2017 17:50:58 GMT -5
My one experience as a juror was awful. It was a two-week trial in a civil case against a doctor who was charged with malpractice dating back almost 20 years. I was 24.
I felt strongly he was guilty, and held out for two days against the other jurors trying to explain why I felt he was guilty, but in the end I caved because I couldn't answer how I would explain it to the judge why I was hanging the jury. (We all agreed had the case been against the hospital, we would have found for the prosecution, and in fact some of the files indicated that the hospital had originally been named a defendant too, but must have settled.)
I burst into tears when we had to go down the line indicating if we agreed with the ruling. The judge was very nice and offered to meet with me privately, but in the end I said no.
Afterwards, the lawyers for the prosecution came up to us and it turned out they knew all along how the jury would split. (There was another woman who held out the first day before caving, and they pegged us both as sympathetic to the family.) we also found out that the doctor had seven other cases against him for the same thing. We obviously couldn't know this information during the trial, but we all felt terrible.
I think about that experience often. I honestly don't know that hanging the jury would have been better because they would have had to go through it all again, but I'm so mad because I feel so strongly to this day that this doctor committed malpractice and I wasn't equipped to make others see it the way I did.
My one experience as a juror was awful. It was a two-week trial in a civil case against a doctor who was charged with malpractice dating back almost 20 years. I was 24.
I felt strongly he was guilty, and held out for two days against the other jurors trying to explain why I felt he was guilty, but in the end I caved because I couldn't answer how I would explain it to the judge why I was hanging the jury. (We all agreed had the case been against the hospital, we would have found for the prosecution, and in fact some of the files indicated that the hospital had originally been named a defendant too, but must have settled.)
I burst into tears when we had to go down the line indicating if we agreed with the ruling. The judge was very nice and offered to meet with me privately, but in the end I said no.
Afterwards, the lawyers for the prosecution came up to us and it turned out they knew all along how the jury would split. (There was another woman who held out the first day before caving, and they pegged us both as sympathetic to the family.) we also found out that the doctor had seven other cases against him for the same thing. We obviously couldn't know this information during the trial, but we all felt terrible.
I think about that experience often. I honestly don't know that hanging the jury would have been better because they would have had to go through it all again, but I'm so mad because I fee so strongly to this day that this doctor committed malpractice and I wasn't equipped to make others see it the way I did.
See this is where it seems like the system is flawed. 7 other malpractice suits and none of it was mentioned? Fancy lawyering can do incredible things.
My one experience as a juror was awful. It was a two-week trial in a civil case against a doctor who was charged with malpractice dating back almost 20 years. I was 24.
I felt strongly he was guilty, and held out for two days against the other jurors trying to explain why I felt he was guilty, but in the end I caved because I couldn't answer how I would explain it to the judge why I was hanging the jury. (We all agreed had the case been against the hospital, we would have found for the prosecution, and in fact some of the files indicated that the hospital had originally been named a defendant too, but must have settled.)
I burst into tears when we had to go down the line indicating if we agreed with the ruling. The judge was very nice and offered to meet with me privately, but in the end I said no.
Afterwards, the lawyers for the prosecution came up to us and it turned out they knew all along how the jury would split. (There was another woman who held out the first day before caving, and they pegged us both as sympathetic to the family.) we also found out that the doctor had seven other cases against him for the same thing. We obviously couldn't know this information during the trial, but we all felt terrible.
I think about that experience often. I honestly don't know that hanging the jury would have been better because they would have had to go through it all again, but I'm so mad because I fee so strongly to this day that this doctor committed malpractice and I wasn't equipped to make others see it the way I did.
See this is where it seems like the system is flawed. 7 other malpractice suits and none of it was mentioned? Fancy lawyering can do incredible things.
There's a rule of evidence that often precludes such things. No fancy lawyering needed.
I took the article as placing blame on the prosecutor and jury. But if the prosecutor doesn't do their job, is there really fault in their verdict?
Yeah, agreed. I think that's what is so problematic about these cases is that it's a mix of low interest from prosecution, who don't want to go after their buddies, and jury bias.
The article focused on the jury, so that's why the thread took the turn it did.
I really think that in police shootings, the state needs to appoint a special prosecutor from outside the DAs ranks, someone who isn't going to be thinking "it will kill my career if I go down as anti-law enforcement." Better prosecution is more attainable in the short term than fixing jury bias.
I agree with this. My CW actually did the impossible and got a conviction for excessive use of force. He was then berated by the law enforcement union, which coincidentally usually donates to the elected DA's campaign. So CW ended up getting berated by our own admin for doing his damn job.
Use of force cases should really be handled by the state AG rather than local prosecutors.
See this is where it seems like the system is flawed. 7 other malpractice suits and none of it was mentioned? Fancy lawyering can do incredible things.
There's a rule of evidence that often precludes such things. No fancy lawyering needed.
Lol. Yes I am aware there is a rule of evidence. I would imagine the sheer number of poor people who are incarcerated with overworked public defenders may disagree. Having money gets you a better defense. Is this really a question? And having money influencing your outcome means the system is broken.
There's a rule of evidence that often precludes such things. No fancy lawyering needed.
Lol. Yes I am aware there is a rule of evidence. I would imagine the sheer number of poor people who are incarcerated with overworked public defenders may disagree. Having money gets you a better defense. Is this really a question? And having money influencing your outcome means the system is broken.
I agree with you generally. As I understand it, the case referenced was a civil case, though.
The civil system has issues, for sure, but very different than the criminal one.
Lol. Yes I am aware there is a rule of evidence. I would imagine the sheer number of poor people who are incarcerated with overworked public defenders may disagree. Having money gets you a better defense. Is this really a question? And having money influencing your outcome means the system is broken.
I agree with you generally. As I understand it, the case referenced was a civil case, though.
The civil system has issues, for sure, but very different than the criminal one.