Jury Duty: My review

[RearAdmiral]

I had a 2 day Jury Duty experience which is pretty short, probably 6 or so hours of actual court type things going on. Overall I really enjoyed the experience. It was both my first time actually not getting cancelled the night before and being selected as an actual Juror. The proverbial dog and pony show aspect of it was fun, with all the formality. Contrast that to the often comical levels of informality/stumbling around with witness testimony, questioning/cross examining. In this case we did a simple assault charge, the prosecutor was having a challenging time overall proving his case and we acquitted after deliberations.

There was some whining about being selected from some jurors, but most seemed to be appreciative of the opportunity and learning about how the system worked. Getting two days off work to participate in this was overall such a great experience. Two thumbs up from me!

The funniest part for me was during jury selection a question was asked about if you had any police in your family. I have an "uncle" and a "cousin"(eyyyy badda bing bucca di beppo) who were/are police in some sort of capacity and I didn't really know how to describe lol

 

[brianmanahan]

I have an "uncle" and a "cousin"(eyyyy badda bing bucca di beppo) who were/are police in some sort of capacity and I didn't really know how to describe lol

uncle vinnie and cousin vinny?

so how would you rate jury duty on a scale of 1 to 10

 

[Scarpozzi]

So did he do it?

 

[RearAdmiral]

uncle vinnie and cousin vinny?

so how would you rate jury duty on a scale of 1 to 10

Basically a bunch of Vins, yea. It was definitely up there on the scale and also a bit nerve-wracking to be in a legitimate seat of judgement over someone/the situation. According to the Judge the Jury is the defacto judge of the facts of the case which might seem basic but it is kinda profound. I'd give it a 9/10 overall. The charge wasn't wildly exciting, but the testimonies were interesting enough to try to put together the pieces of what happened. It felt important to contribute to part of what helps our society be reasonably fair.

 

[RearAdmiral]

So did he do it?

The glove did not fit in this case.

 

[kn51]

I enjoyed it for a murder trial I was on. I was on another one for domestic abuse before the murder trial but the DA made a blunder and it ended in a mistrial after it got started.

Funny thing was several people couldn't stand to be there. For the domestic abuse one, a guy gets called up and basically says he doesn't trust cops, yada yada trying to get the boot and he did.

For the murder trial, he said he had no issues with cops, never had a problem, etc. Apparently he felt this case was more interesting. DA pulls out his juror questionnaire, says "It looks like you wrote down here you hate cops and the justice system is a farce along with a mention of the OJ trial." Just shredded the idiot in front of everyone.

 

[Paratus]

I got picked as a jury foreman one time. It was an eyeopening experience.

The case was a domestic abuse case where an african-american woman alleged that her african boyfriend had struck her after a fight and ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call 911 - which is also a chargeable offense.

During voir-dire the prosecutor wanted to know if we agreed that a person could be physically abused without leaving a mark on the body. That would come up later. He then kicked off every african-american in the jury pool, while the defense attorney kicked off a woman who worked on a domestic abuse hotline. I was the last one picked.

It was also fun hearing a couple of people say they believed if you were arrested then you were guilty.

The defendant and the victim both took the stand along with the officer who took the call.

The story was they had a fight when the woman decided to take their 6month old on her afternoon run. It was in the upper 90's and the boyfriend thought it was too hot for the baby. The woman disagreed and was adamant about going for a run. The guy was getting ready to leave for one of his three jobs so he couldn't stay to watch the baby.

The woman said he struck her and then ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call 911. She then ran over to the apartment of a relative. She had no visible bruises or injuries.

The guy broke down crying on the stand and said he never hit her or pulled the phone out of the wall.

The officer testified that, yep he was called out and yep they were the couple he talked too. That was it.

The relative she said she went to after the incident was NOT called as a witness.

We also listened to her 911 call which was inconclusive. We heard her and we heard her stop talking and the line go dead but we never heard him.

When we went back to deliberate a couple of the women on the jury were vehemently convinced she was lying and just trying to get him deported which surprised me. I'd been trying to be neutral until we had a chance to hear all the evidence and talk about it.

In the end we found him not guilty due to reasonable doubt. With the lack of evidence it was a straight he said - she said case. I'll also say that the relative that could have corroborated a portion of the story not being called as a witness made a difference.

It was eyeopening seeing how potential jurors were dropped for stereotypical reasons and how the lawyers both preferred jurors who they thought would be more emotionally manipulable.

 

[Scarpozzi]

The glove did not fit in this case.

I'm pretty sure that means he did!!!!

 

[brianmanahan]

I'm pretty sure that means he did!!!!

no, it means you must acquit

 

[dasherHampton]

I just got called for the 4th time in 11 fucking years.

I know people who haven't been called in over 20 years.

 

[dullard]

the lawyers both preferred jurors who they thought would be more emotionally manipulable.

I had a few lawyer friends (one is a public defender). They said the easiest way to get kicked off is to say you are a scientist. They absolutely do not want a juror who uses facts. They want someone they can persuade. They'll only take you if they must (i.e. they already booted off anyone of the race that might be sympathetic to the opposition party and ran out of people to veto).

 

[Paratus]

I had a few lawyer friends (one is a public defender). They said the easiest way to get kicked off is to say you are a scientist. They absolutely do not want a juror who uses facts. They want someone they can persuade. They'll only take you if they must (i.e. they already booted off anyone of the race that might be sympathetic to the opposition party and ran out of people to veto).

Yup I said I was engineer working for NASA but they had burned through their vetos by the time they got to me and probably just wanted to move on.

 

[brianmanahan]

I just got called for the 4th time in 11 fucking years.

I know people who haven't been called in over 20 years.

none of my grandparents have ever done it, in 60-70 years of eligibility

i'm hoping for the same streak because jury duty would suck

i got better stuff to do

 

[highland145]

County grand jury, 1 day a month for 2 years.

 

[Muse]

Basically a bunch of Vins, yea. It was definitely up there on the scale and also a bit nerve-wracking to be in a legitimate seat of judgement over someone/the situation. According to the Judge the Jury is the defacto judge of the facts of the case which might seem basic but it is kinda profound. I'd give it a 9/10 overall. The charge wasn't wildly exciting, but the testimonies were interesting enough to try to put together the pieces of what happened. It felt important to contribute to part of what helps our society be reasonably fair.

I think the one time I was actually asked questions (there may have been another), the case was pretty nasty. I think there were two, actually. I mean, the description of the crime was appalling. I didn't want to be selected in either case and was not.

 

[Paratus]

County grand jury, 1 day a month for 2 years.

In my current county you get sworn in on a Monday and have to be on-call for a week. If you end up on a jury then they remove your name for a couple of years. Otherwise they can call you again the following year.

I got sworn in one time for a case which appeared to be a registered sex offender who was 3 days late submitting his change of residence paper work. The entire jury pool was pissed that they needed to screw up the schedules of 45 people for what should have been a slap on the wrist.

They settled out of court before we were seated.

 

[highland145]

In my current county you get sworn in on a Monday and have to be on-call for a week. If you end up on a jury then they remove your name for a couple of years. Otherwise they can call you again the following year.

I got a 3 year reprieve but that's over now so they can suck me in again.

 

[brianmanahan]

I got a 3 year reprieve but that's over now so they can suck me in again.

just when you thought you were out

 

[BoomerD]

I just got called for the 4th time in 11 fucking years.

I know people who haven't been called in over 20 years.

I get the jury summons...fill out the questionnaire, and am immediately dismissed. Who would have thought that having a lengthy felony record almost 50 years ago would still be such a benefit?

 

[shortylickens]

I just got called for the 4th time in 11 fucking years.

I know people who haven't been called in over 20 years.

I got called at 19 and 41.

 

[Captante]

the lawyers both preferred jurors who they thought would be more emotionally manipulable

SO .... what your telling us is that you are "emotionally manipulable" ??

 

[RearAdmiral]

I was hoping to get the 1-on-1 grilling for jury selection, but we only got questions asked to the entire pool of candidates in which we just held up our number if we were applicable or had something to say. My wife expected me to get booted as I am quite detail oriented and in higher level IT, but I am also a public servant, familiar with bureaucracy and I also give a hoot about contributing.

They really only booted people who had previous experience with domestic violence, or obviously made it clear that they couldn't remain impartial. Or the one guy who went on a 5 minute pontification on how we can think we are impartial but can get emotional. Once we were selected we basically went right to business and started the intro to the trial.

 

[RearAdmiral]

I think the one time I was actually asked questions (there may have been another), the case was pretty nasty. I think there were two, actually. I mean, the description of the crime was appalling. I didn't want to be selected in either case and was not.

I have a relative who was a court reporter and she has heard some ROUGH stuff, especially related to children. Some of the reporters just give up on those cases and beg others to take the case for them eventually.

 

[RearAdmiral]

I got picked as a jury foreman one time. It was an eyeopening experience.

The case was a domestic abuse case where an african-american woman alleged that her african boyfriend had struck her after a fight and ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call 911 - which is also a chargeable offense.

During voir-dire the prosecutor wanted to know if we agreed that a person could be physically abused without leaving a mark on the body. That would come up later. He then kicked off every african-american in the jury pool, while the defense attorney kicked off a woman who worked on a domestic abuse hotline. I was the last one picked.

It was also fun hearing a couple of people say they believed if you were arrested then you were guilty.

The defendant and the victim both took the stand along with the officer who took the call.

The story was they had a fight when the woman decided to take their 6month old on her afternoon run. It was in the upper 90's and the boyfriend thought it was too hot for the baby. The woman disagreed and was adamant about going for a run. The guy was getting ready to leave for one of his three jobs so he couldn't stay to watch the baby.

The woman said he struck her and then ripped the phone out of the wall when she tried to call 911. She then ran over to the apartment of a relative. She had no visible bruises or injuries.

The guy broke down crying on the stand and said he never hit her or pulled the phone out of the wall.

The officer testified that, yep he was called out and yep they were the couple he talked too. That was it.

The relative she said she went to after the incident was NOT called as a witness.

We also listened to her 911 call which was inconclusive. We heard her and we heard her stop talking and the line go dead but we never heard him.

When we went back to deliberate a couple of the women on the jury were vehemently convinced she was lying and just trying to get him deported which surprised me. I'd been trying to be neutral until we had a chance to hear all the evidence and talk about it.

In the end we found him not guilty due to reasonable doubt. With the lack of evidence it was a straight he said - she said case. I'll also say that the relative that could have corroborated a portion of the story not being called as a witness made a difference.

It was eyeopening seeing how potential jurors were dropped for stereotypical reasons and how the lawyers both preferred jurors who they thought would be more emotionally manipulable.

Reasonable doubt is a pretty amazing subjective way to view the case.

 

[Eno Safirey]

I was summoned to serve on a county grand jury. I was excited thinking that I was going to be involved in some juicy investigation that would be big news locally.

They were interviewing a middle aged woman who was not happy to be there and when they asked her what she did for a living she revealed that she was a councilwoman in a nearby suburb. She thought that her serving would be a conflict of interest and might harm her political ambitions. The attorney assured her, (in front of a group of fifty people), that her identity would not be revealed because grand juries convene privately.

In spite of her opposition she was chosen and the rest of us were excused. The attorneys knew what they were looking for and got the people they wanted.