Thread: Jury Duty, The Bedrock of our Democracy

I've never served (never been called) but I always found it strange that the jury is not allowed to ask questions.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've never served (never been called) but I always found it strange that the jury is not allowed to ask questions.

If you could see how clueless many of these people are, I'm not sure you'd want them asking questions.

Originally Posted by 12stones

I had to report to jury duty last Monday, and while I wasn't picked for the jury, the whole voir dire process was interesting. I was part of a panel of which those selected would hear a first degree murder trial. I wouldn't say that it gave me a renewed faith in democracy though, as what I saw were a bunch of people who were either trying to get out of jury duty or were truly too dumb to understand the basic questions the lawyers and judge were asking.

There's a whole lot of truth to that. On the other hand, I think you need to experience the whole process to appreciate it. There are people who aren't particularly intelligent that have a lot of common sense. Unfortunately, there's almost no one of average intelligence, in fact, statistically speaking, half the people have below average intelligence. But they are your "peers".

Would you trust your life to 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty?

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've never served (never been called) but I always found it strange that the jury is not allowed to ask questions.

If you mean during the trial, like the attorneys, I think that would be very dangerous and unproductive. The function of the jury is to evaluate the evidence, as presented. Allowing them to ask questions would create twelve little Sherlock Holmes investigating the case.

The jury can ask the judge questions during the deliberations, usually about how to apply the law but I hope that some of our lawyers will join the discussion.

Originally Posted by oldblades

Would you trust your life to 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty?

Isn't an old lawyer rule to ask for a judge if you're guilty and a jury if you're innocent? In my experience, juries are a lot more sympathetic to the defendent because they identify with his plight, if they think he's innocent, and want to string him up, if they think he's guilty.

Originally Posted by oldblades

Would you trust your life to 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty?

To be honest, I'd rather be judged by 12 average citizens instead of 1 judge who might be having a bad day because his wife didn't give him any the night before.

Juries also have the ability to say 'not guitly' in circumstances where the letter of the law would have been guilty. A famous case here is a jeweler who shot a running thief in the back with a shotgun, on the street.
The letter of the law indicated that he was guilty of manslaughter (since self-defense was no longer applicable as defined by the law) but the jury thought differently.

Originally Posted by Bruno

A famous case here is a jeweler who shot a running thief in the back with a shotgun, on the street.
The letter of the law indicated that he was guilty of manslaughter (since self-defense was no longer applicable as defined by the law) but the jury thought differently.

you know, in some places it's perfectly legal to shoot a thief in the back even if you're not in danger.

After the two policemen, they put Frank's friend on the stand.

He testified that he went over to Frank's apartment one day and found that he was very upset. He said he had paid someone $300 to steal his SUV but that, after 3 days, it still hadn't been stolen and he was afraid that he was being cheated. Then, the next day it was stolen. He also testified that, several years ago, he went over to Frank's house, when he was still living at home, and he was taking parts off of his car. He asked him why and he said he was going to file an insurance claim.

Why did he come forward now? Because, the idea of this guy continuously ripping off insurance companies was making him sick and he couldn't take it any more.

To be continued...

Originally Posted by jockeys

you know, in some places it's perfectly legal to shoot a thief in the back even if you're not in danger.

I know. Over here it isn't. And that illustrates my point.
Even though the law says it isn't, the jury can say 'I don't care. Not guilty'
Whereas the mandate of the judge is to apply law as it is written.