Locally a gun store had two guns stolen by people that rented them to shoot on the range, and when they were done, they just walked out with them. Excellent surveillance video, played on the local TV outlet, and they were soon arrested, by the feds.only time I got picked for jury duty was for a fed case of a felon in possession of a firearm, got picked, lasted less than a week and was literally across the street from my work location, ask why this wasn't on the state level and was told there were no state laws prohibited a felon from carrying.
I'm mostly fine with Jury nullification. I was going to mention that as a reason why he should still do. If he does find a case where his conscious was that troubled, I rather have him in the Jury room, and if it meant a hung jury or jury nullification so be it.Kind of sounds like he's echoing my point about jury nullification, which is a right any member of a jury has. Eg famously used by northerners finding people innocent who were prosecuted under the Fugitive Slave Act, also famously used by racists in Mississippi to let Emmet Till's murderers go free. But the fact you cannot be legally questioned for why you found one verdict or the other implies you can base your decision on anything you want and like in the Fugitive Slave Act cases, you'd be a monster to follow judge's orders that you have to judge the defendant on whether you think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt the law was broken.
My wife was summoned on a capital murder case, two highway patrolmen murdered in the breathalyzer room. At the time, our daughter was two, and the wife was a stay at home mom.
Huge jury pool, due to the notoriety of the case. Finally, on the third day of just sitting, the group she was in was called for their voir dire process, and the first thing the judge asks her is "mama, do you have small children at home" to which she answered yes, and she was dismissed.
What do you mean not base your decisions on the evidence presented? Would you do outside research?
Yes, sometimes it takes me a while to finish a post for any number of reasons, and while echoing your post, I did not see it. One example I had in mine is that as a liberal, I am not very enamored of the idea that punishment is the answer to bad behavior in our society. In my high school English class Le Miserables was required reading. It got me thinking a lot about politics and sewers.Kind of sounds like he's echoing my point about jury nullification, which is a right any member of a jury has. Eg famously used by northerners finding people innocent who were prosecuted under the Fugitive Slave Act, also famously used by racists in Mississippi to let Emmet Till's murderers go free. But the fact you cannot be legally questioned for why you found one verdict or the other implies you can base your decision on anything you want and like in the Fugitive Slave Act cases, you'd be a monster to follow judge's orders that you have to judge the defendant on whether you think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt the law was broken.
I can certainly empathize with the giant waste of time that is the most likely outcome of being selected for Jury Duty.
But I still think your attitude sucks, and adjusting it can also affect the attitude of those around you. It is massively important that the Constitution guarantees all of us the right to a jury trial. Everyone should respect that…………………….
It was the judge, my guess is, to speed things up in the selection process. Hundreds of people were summoned for this trial. She would have gotten dismissed anyway, as the brother of one of the state troopers murdered ran a service station in our neighborhood, and we knew him well.Who dismissed her? Was it the judge or peremptory challenge? Seems odd if it were a judge.
The one case I went through voir dire for and didn’t get picked seemed to be for a case to pad the prosecutors numbers.I sat for a case once. The defendant's main witness was a friend who was (supposedly) in a bar with him when crimes were committed. On the second day the judge found out the witness was on probation for DUI and wasn't allowed in bars, and asked if he still wanted to testify for his friend. He replied in the negative and defendant pled guilty. Good times.
It was the judge, my guess is, to speed things up in the selection process. Hundreds of people were summoned for this trial. She would have gotten dismissed anyway, as the brother of one of the state troopers murdered ran a service station in our neighborhood, and we knew him well.
I didn't think I could have any less faith in our courts, but here we are. Had jury duty today and had to show up at 8:00AM and literally all we did the first half of the day was take roll and alternate sitting in the court and sitting in the hallway while the judge processed maybe 30 requests for exemptions from jury duty, almost all of which were denied. Broke for lunch at 12:30, came back and the judge told us about the fifth amendment, then the prosecutor for the case spent 45 minutes telling us reasons we'd have to convict, didn't ask any of us any questions but just had a big discussion all at once with the 100 or so people in the pool, probably 85 of which never spoke a word. Then the defense coached us on all these reasons we had to find his client not guilty for 40-45 minutes, then same discussion format. Then go sit in the hall for a hour before coming back to find which 12 people got chosen. And most of them hadn't said a word the entire presentation from the two counsel. I was so bored to death another member of the pool and I made a pact to go rob a liquor store if we got chosen so we wouldn't have to show up tomorrow. The highlight of my day was complaining to the defense attorney how unreliable witness testimony was.
So a woman with a 2-year-old should serve on a sequestered jury which would probably last a week or so?Not a lawyer but that seems odd the Judge would dismiss woman with young children.
That's pretty much how jury duty always goes. It isn't really meant for people's entertainment.
So a woman with a 2-year-old should serve on a sequestered jury which would probably last a week or so?