Jury Duty

[Back]

Back in November I got a summons. I didn't know I had one until December, after it expired, because I really don't check my snail mail more than once a month. Well, used to, now I check at least once a week...

Anyway, got it deferred, and went in two weeks ago. Guess what? I was selected to be a petit juror. We've just listened to two weeks worth of testimony by actual witnesses, expert testimony, depositions and lawyers arguments. Today it all wrapped up and we went into deliberation.

What a trip. Seriously. I've never had to decide on an actual case before. This is my first time going all the way from start to finish with a case. I'm finding the process very interesting.

I'm posting this to discuss the process only. I can't talk about the particulars of the case, yet.

First of all, the testimony. The part where both sides say everything they have to say, with all their witnesses, making all their points, refuting other points, and everything that goes into a trial before deliberation.

We, as jurors, are told to only weigh the facts of the case. Well, someone should tell that to the lawyers because their opening and closing statements were presented as if they were beyond a reasonable doubt facts. Seriously, and I dont know if its these particular lawyers because I have nothing else to base it on than TV or movies, these lawyers may as well be on TV because they are so passionate about what they are saying its easy to fall into believing them. Its like they were on trial. And while I would like to think they believe beyond a shadow of a doubt in their cases and fight for them passionately because of some moral or ideological standpoint, I know THEY ARE LAWYERS MAKING A PAYCHECK.

I knew that going in and made it a point to only listen to testimony. But even then, its the lawyers who decide what gets presented and what doesn't. Its all driven by the lawyer's point of view. And, like, not all the facts can be laid out in front of everyone. Only the facts that each lawyer presents for their case. So, even if the jurors are to decide the case based solely on the facts, we are still dependent on the lawyers' decisions on WHICH facts are presented.

At certain points in the trial I began to think about the process and started to wonder, like, why couldn't the jury ask the questions they wanted to know? I know I know, its been set up this way since our forefathers crashed into Plymouth Rock, but still... we are the jurors. We are deciding. We are basically volunteers getting a nominal fee, IF THAT, taking time out of our lives to be upstanding citizens doing our civic duty to our country and its system of doing things. Why aren't we the ones who decide what information we need to know? Why aren't we the ones to ask for that information and have it given to us WITHOUT any spin or bias or opinion?

Ok, obviously the legal system is complex. We are not trained dectectives, lawyers, judges or even bailiffs, and thats what makes us jurors. I understand that completely.

And its really a trip when you think about it. All the cases in this country are decided by 12 ordinary everyday people. Take 12 ordinary everyday people, give them two sides to a case, then throw them in a room, lock the door, and let them figure it out. Unanimously! I suppose that is the beauty of the system. That none of us know barely anything about the law, the particular case, the people involved, the motives of the people involved... yet peoples lives hang on our decision. That just blows me away.

Have you been on a jury? What are your thoughts on the process?

[Jorddyn]

I got a jury duty notice once. Called Sunday night, found out my group didn't have to appear. Off the hook for two years now :)

Jorddyn, not a very interesting story

[Tisket]

Been on three juries. We sat through all the testimony etc. In all three cases the two sides settled before we got to deliberate. Sorta frustrating but very interesting nonetheless. Just wish I had been able to experience the actual deliberation process as well.

[Back]

Been on three juries. We sat through all the testimony etc. In all three cases the two sides settled before we got to deliberate. Sorta frustrating but very interesting nonetheless. Just wish I had been able to experience the actual deliberation process as well.

Well, about deliberation. Think about this. You have however many strangers deciding on this case and everyone has to be unanimous to end it. I suppose there is the divided jury resulting in a mistrial, and I am not sure how that works because no one told us how that works, so I am going on the basis that we all have to agree to finish it.

Its not a democratic process. If one ONE PERSON disagrees with the others, its not over. How do you deal with that? Who compromises? How strong are your convictions vs other peoples?

Lives are at stake. And not just the defendant's or the plaintiff's. All the jurors, all the clerks, in fact, you could go so far as to say that all the people in this country's lives are involved because we all pay taxes, not to mention that this is one of the things we all have a right to in our Constitution, for these things to be disputed and decided fairly.

12 ordinary people get to decide. And from my perspective... thats far more compelling, interesting and investing than anything and everything that leads up to that point.

[Jazuela]

I never made it past the voir dire process the last time because I was gonna be out of state the morning of the trial opening statements. But I sat in on a couple of cases when I was in college. I agree with Backlash on the whole thing about the jurists not being allowed to ask any questions of their own.

The case our class viewed was a motorcycle/murder situation. One side claimed the biker intentionally kicked his car on the highway, as an act of violence stemming from a previous scuffle in a parking lot an hour before. And because of the kick, the car swerved and crashed into the bike.

The biker said the car intentionally swerved into his lane, there was no kick, and that was that.

Lots of medical experts were brought in (the biker was wheelchair bound with multiple broken bones), but there was no expert testimony to tell the jury that it is -impossible- to kick a car, while riding a motorcycle, while that bike is moving in a relatively straight line at high speed. If you snap your leg out, you tip over. It's physics at its most basic, law of gravity, laws of centrifuge, laws of action/reaction, etc. etc. etc. It can't be done, period. But the jury was never allowed to hear anyone mention this. Fortunately, the case ended pretty much how it would've if they did have that information. But it would've gone a lot quicker if the defense had presented an expert to testify to that, because it would've proven that the prosecution was lying.

[Tisket]

Its not a democratic process. If one ONE PERSON disagrees with the others, its not over. How do you deal with that? Who compromises? How strong are your convictions vs other peoples?



Unfortunately, I think in drawn out deliberations that have one or two disagreeing with the majority over a verdict, that just plain frustration and a desire to get it over with will often lead to them changing their vote to the majority decision. Not because the dissenters have changed their minds. Seems this would be especially true when juror time and lost wages are involved since what you get paid for serving often falls far short of what you would be earning if you were at work.

[Numbers]

but there was no expert testimony to tell the jury that it is -impossible- to kick a car, while riding a motorcycle, while that bike is moving in a relatively straight line at high speed. If you snap your leg out, you tip over. It's physics at its most basic, law of gravity, laws of centrifuge, laws of action/reaction, etc. etc. etc. It can't be done, period.

Uh, yeah it can.

I've seen it done.

[Jazuela]

Fine, I'll qualify the statement. In normal driving circumstances, on a public, non-closed-course, outdoor highway in moderate traffic, with a driver who is not trained in stunt-driving, carrying a passenger on the back of his bike, with the intention of causing harm to a steel-reinforced sedan in the lane beside him, it can't be done without the bike tipping over. Bike riders who drive through these conditions know this.

I gave the readers of this forum enough credit in intelligence to realize I wasn't referring to stunt-driving, where the driver has spent years learning how to maintain his position on a bike while doing outrageous things. Perhaps I gave one of you too much credit.

[Skirmisher]

I gave the readers of this forum enough credit in intelligence to realize I wasn't referring to stunt-driving, where the driver has spent years learning how to maintain his position on a bike while doing outrageous things. Perhaps I gave one of you too much credit.
It's physics at its most basic, law of gravity, laws of centrifuge, laws of action/reaction, etc. etc. etc. It can't be done, period.

While not a huge thing you in fact did state your position as if it were an incontrovertible fact of the universe.

I do not know if it is or is not possible, but I know not to make such a claim without a heck of alot of resources and references to back it up.

Regarding Jury duty:

I was called for petit duty but also didn't make it past the selection process. I'm glad you got the opportunity and even moreso that you found it an enriching experience.

[Numbers]

I gave the readers of this forum enough credit in intelligence to realize I wasn't referring to stunt-driving, where the driver has spent years learning how to maintain his position on a bike while doing outrageous things. Perhaps I gave one of you too much credit.

What Skirmisher said.

The only thing I find stupider than a stupid person, is a stupid person pretending to be smart.

Don't state something is a fact when it's so stupidly false, as if you're Isaac fucking Newton reborn, and then lash out when somebody calls you out on your stupidity. Especially when it involves fucking jury duty, where fact is so important.

You're not an expert in everything, regardless of how much and how often you try to pass yourself off as one.

Sorry to derail the thread.

[Back]

What Skirmisher said.

The only thing I find stupider than a stupid person, is a stupid person pretending to be smart.

Don't state something is a fact when it's so stupidly false, as if you're Isaac fucking Newton reborn, and then lash out when somebody calls you out on your stupidity. Especially when it involves fucking jury duty, where fact is so important.

You're not an expert in everything, regardless of how much and how often you try to pass yourself off as one.

Sorry to derail the thread.


If you have something to add to this thread besides bashing someone else's opinion or experience, I'm sure we would all like to hear about it.

[Numbers]

All right, I've been called for jury duty once, spent the day in a large auditorium in downtown Manhattan, ate my lunch outside on the steps (a hot dog and a pepsi, if you're interested), listened to some music (Pink Floyd, particularly Animals, Dark Side of the Moon, and Meddle), had a few smoke breaks, got yelled at for using my cell phone, and then went home by subway.

Oh, and I wasn't bashing anything. I was simply pointing out a false statement, with no malice behind my words. I wasn't expecting her to go flipped out bitchcrazy on me.

[Hulkein]

We, as jurors, are told to only weigh the facts of the case. Well, someone should tell that to the lawyers because their opening and closing statements were presented as if they were beyond a reasonable doubt facts. Seriously, and I dont know if its these particular lawyers because I have nothing else to base it on than TV or movies, these lawyers may as well be on TV because they are so passionate about what they are saying its easy to fall into believing them. Its like they were on trial. And while I would like to think they believe beyond a shadow of a doubt in their cases and fight for them passionately because of some moral or ideological standpoint, I know THEY ARE LAWYERS MAKING A PAYCHECK.

I knew that going in and made it a point to only listen to testimony. But even then, its the lawyers who decide what gets presented and what doesn't. Its all driven by the lawyer's point of view. And, like, not all the facts can be laid out in front of everyone. Only the facts that each lawyer presents for their case. So, even if the jurors are to decide the case based solely on the facts, we are still dependent on the lawyers' decisions on WHICH facts are presented.


And here I thought good lawyers were paid a ton of money for no reason!

[Drew]

Fine, I'll qualify the statement. In normal driving circumstances, on a public, non-closed-course, outdoor highway in moderate traffic, with a driver who is not trained in stunt-driving, carrying a passenger on the back of his bike, with the intention of causing harm to a steel-reinforced sedan in the lane beside him, it can't be done without the bike tipping over. Bike riders who drive through these conditions know this.

I gave the readers of this forum enough credit in intelligence to realize I wasn't referring to stunt-driving, where the driver has spent years learning how to maintain his position on a bike while doing outrageous things. Perhaps I gave one of you too much credit.




On the highway it's near impossible to fall over on a bike. Centrifugal force keeps the bike upright, you can hang your whole body off the bike and it wouldn't fall over. Heck, I've seen plenty of times where people fall off the motorcycle and it continues in the direction it was travelling for a long time. If you pay attention to motorcycles you'll note that many riders indicate lane changes by pointing their leg in whatever direction they intend to change. Any person who's been riding a motorcycle for a month would be able to kick a car pretty darn hard and not worry about falling over, at highway speeds.

[Sean of the Thread]

The system is extremely flawed. The fact that someone as close minded and politically slanted as you are (blacklash) is enough evidence that there are serious problems.

I seriously wouldn't want to see you in a position to be a juror on a moving violation let alone something of more dire consequence... scary.

That being said.... <3

[Skirmisher]

The system is extremely flawed. The fact that someone as close minded and politically slanted as you are (blacklash) is enough evidence that there are serious problems.

I seriously wouldn't want to see you in a position to be a juror on a moving violation let alone something of more dire consequence... scary.

That being said.... <3

And if someone knows close minded and politically slanted it's Xyelin.

oh...forgot the <3 thing that makes it all okay.

[Back]

The system is extremely flawed. The fact that someone as close minded and politically slanted as you are (blacklash) is enough evidence that there are serious problems.

I seriously wouldn't want to see you in a position to be a juror on a moving violation let alone something of more dire consequence... scary.

That being said.... <3

You can be assured that I will listen and compromise if I feel its warranted. Unlike some people who like to grief every situation they can.

[Emo Emu]

Go you, Backlash on wanting to do Jury duty. I'd flat out do anything to get out of it.

I mean... I wouldn't trust you at a political trial, but umm.. I think something like this you're fine with.

[Back]

You know, I do exaggerate myself here on these boards, but in real life I think you would find me one of the most objective and fair people you ever met. And to a fault in some cases.

[Goldenranger]

I'd have to disagree about the jury getting to ask questions unless they are vetted through both sides' lawyers objections and the judges good sense. The reason they get to choose what facts are presented are first the various rules the common law and legislatures have developed regarding evidence, hearsay etc. Also our system is an adversarial system, which means both sides are going to use the facts in such a way that it presents their client in the best light. Since there are two sides doing this for opposite positions, theoretically all of the relevent facts that help each side are represented. Of course this doesn't always work out since some sides can hire better lawyers than the other, but hey our country loves Capitalism so this ain't gonna change anytime soon.

I personally like jury duty, called once for a criminal trial and the defendent struck a bargain so we were let off. When in high school and under the age of 18 I volunteered for youth court where kids who had plead guilty for cigarettes or drugs or alcohol had the opportunity to go to this special youth court where they were represented by another kid, and another kid argued for the government. Since the offender had already plead guilty it was mainly arguing about what type of sentence was appropriate. Then a jury of 12 kids( by kids I mean 15-17 year olds) and we would go back and deliberate. The offender is sentenced, the real judge who is governing the whole precedings can accept the sentence or alter it. Was kind of fun, though I was always the guy arguing for leniency in jury deliberations since I'm not a particularly heavy handed individual.