Printable View
I have served on jury duty twice. Each time I was summoned, I was genuinely glad to have the opportunity. If that makes me stupid in anyone's eyes, I don't care. Jury duty is interesting to me. If it isn't interesting to you or you have better things to do than sit and return a verdict, that's fine by me too, I care even less about that. Now that I have answered this all important thread maybe I will sleep better.
-Rob
Touchy, aren't we? You forgot to mention "not registered to vote".Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys
As for villification and generalizing ... please, anyone who says "Yeah, they should've let the bears eat her" is anti-social and barbaric, if they really believe that. On the other hand, I think it's mostly posturing to be "one of the guys," something that I never was and never will be. It reminds me of Romans going to the Coliseum to watch Christians being thrown to the lions while their empire is crumbling around them. Oh my God! A historical analogy!
As for avoiding jury duty, does anyone really deny that most people try to get out of it?
"not registered to vote" in most state no longer matters. there are so few registered voters anymore they cull the list from the dmv... if you have a license you might get called for jury duty.
in 25 years been selected 3 times... excused the first time out... i was working for a radio station... members of the media are automatically excused, the next time i spend all day waiting in the jury pool, they seated 10 juries and thanked the rest of us for our time... the last time the trial took 4 days, it was about cruelty to horses... the man was convicted and sentenced to 3-5 years.
I didn't know about using the DMV. I was also called three times, but served on two juries. The first was the case of Frank, who paid to have his SUV stolen ...Quote:
Originally Posted by syslight
After the testimony from his friend, Frank testified. His attorney asked, "Why are all these people saying such terrible things about you?" And Frank said, "I don't know."
Frank's attorney asked that the insurance company be ordered to pay for his stolen car and the insurance company attorney asked for Frank not to be paid for his stolen car and, in addition that he be required to pay back what he received from his previous claim and punitive damages. Then the case went to the jury.
The first juror to speak said that Frank was obviously a scum bag and should get the death penalty. We answered that this was not a criminal trial. The second juror to speak said that all insurance companies are crooks and that Frank was a heroic Robin Hood who was striking a blow for us all and should be rewarded. We talked about it for the good part of a day and, in the end, decided as follows: The insurance company did not have to pay for Frank's truck. "No" to punitive damages. He lost the value of his truck plus attorney fees and that was punishment enough. Plus he had to pay back the money he received for his phony claim, plus interest. I though it was a reasonable and fair verdict and I understood the value of the jury system.
First, I would like to say how much I really want to be on a jury. Unfortunately, the odds of me actually being chosen are ridiculously small. Stupid discrimination against lawyers and future lawyers...
Second, I really enjoy hearing about how things work in foreign countries. Its very interesting. I believe all of Europe with the exception of Britain has a civil law system and that intrigues me. No judge made law would make legal studies easier(well I think it would anyway). Unfortunately I cannot comment on any of your procedural issues regarding juries.
I'm surprised none of our attorney friends have posted in this thread. :shrug:
I'm sorry, but some of your misconceptions about juries and judges are quite funny to me. Or maybe its sad people have little faith in the justice system.
A judge can overturn a jury ruling through the common law ruling of judgment non obstante verdicto. This is only used when the jury's findings are not supported at all. Today, judges give juries instructions consisting of questions the jury must answer. Its only guilty/not-guilty in very simple cases. Statistically, a judgment from a judge and one from a jury are very similar. A jury's job is to determine questions of fact. A judge's job is to determine issues of fact and law. You do not have an inalienable right to a trial by jury in all cases.
1. where i live, if you have a driver's license, you are automatically registered to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
2. anti-social and barbaric by your standards, perhaps, but perfectly fair and reasonable by other people's standards. i happen to think that letting her get eaten is a beautiful example of natural selection, but let's not get off topic.
3. sure, most people try to get out of it. most people would rather listen to brittney spears than mozart. most people are flat-out stupid. i'd like to think the members of this forum are a cut above all that.
Judges aren't stupid people. Most of the time they will know if your lying to try and get out of jury duty....
The only sure way to get out of jury duty is if you have a conflict. Ie, you know either party personally. Knowing the judge or one of the attorneys may get you out, but its no guarantee.
Saying things like "he's guilty as sin!" may get you struck, but the defense attorney is the one making that call. Each attorney only has a limited number of jurors they can "axe" indescriminately; thus they would want to conserve their strikes for jurors they really feel will not be impartial.
Its really not finding the best jury for your client, its about finding a jury that is in the middle. Remember, theres another attorney for the other side with just as much strikes and arguing power. They even have specialists who specialize in jury selection.
I of course am with Jockeys' point 2 above. anti-social? not at all, I love socializing, with intelligent, interesting people with similar interests. shunning the fellowship of the stupid is not anti-social. and it is not barbaric, it is no more barbaric than people that supported Kavorkian and his assisted suicides. she was attempting the same thing, albeit in a much more painful manner, who are you to say she doesn't deserve to have her wishes fulfilled. The saddest thing about the attempt is the subsequent information that they were going to shoot the poor bears if they hadn't got her out when they did.
Most jury boxes are not filled with our best and brightest, why, because most of them do try their damndest to get out of jury duty. Most people can't afford to be on jury duty, and most people that are sharp prefer to do their work and get their money than to go through the hassle of serving on a jury and taking the loss in income.
for instance, where our courthouse is here in town there is no free parking within a mile, jurors have to park far far away and get tram rides to the courthouse. if you're not familiar with the area you don't really know where the places to eat around there are, the whole process is a nightmare.
Now, I get my full pay if I am on a jury, and have to turn in whatever the piddly amount your compensated by the court. and my office until last summer was across the street from the courthouse. but the couple of times I've been called and made it ot the actual reporting I was dismissed before selection even began. I wouldn't have tried to get out of it, but every other person I know does.
Red
Let it go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Red
Is this true? When and where did that poll take place?Quote:
Originally Posted by jockeys