I have never been called for jury duty before in my not so short life.  Between my real name and career I am apparently just not what an attorney wants on a jury.  I have been called to testify and joked with the prosecutors a few months ago about never serving on a jury......  There is no guarantee that my group will even be called up but the instructions that came with the notice are vague.

Make me smart on jury duty, please. 

Tags: court, jury, lawyers, murder, service, suits, ties

Views: 677

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Defense attorneys reject me as a juror: I served on a Grand Jury; my father-in-law is a retired detective; I have a cousin who was a C.O.; that same cousin served time for bank robbery; my brother-in-law was murdered; I'm a teacher, so I'm excellent at figuring out a person's character quickly; I'm a scientist, so I I've been train to evaluate evidence objectively.

Engineer here, and the victim of 3 burglaries 1 assault, and 1 fraud.  Between the occupation hazard of being analytical to a fault, and my somewhat draconian views toward criminal behavior, the defense attorney couldn't get rid of me fast enough.

Just a couple days before my month of jury duty was over I was called in.  I was not one of the main or alternate pool but so many people had made plans to travel right after their month on jury duty and this trial was expected to run into May that the pools were thinned out.  Then the lawyers started asking VERY pointed questions of each potential juror including:  Has a police officer ever treated you or yours rudely or unfairly?, Do you own firearms?, Has suicide effected you closely?, How do you feel about people who overcome disabilities?, and What are your rules on gun safety? 

I was pretty much last but so many people were dismissed and I kid you not the prosecutor skipped the police/rude question for me(?)  I have some bad stories. 

The case drug out a few days.  The short version now that it is public is that the fellow could not pay his mortgage on a nice little house, used up every possible option, and was being evicted.  He broke out all of his guns and threatened to shoot himself.  His girlfriend threw a fit, called everyone (except 911), and tried to talk him down for hours.  Finally she decided to buttstroke him to sleep with another gun.  He ended up shooting her in the collarbone. 

The evidence was compelling and the defense became apathetic.  The jury tried to make me the foreman but I was much more comfortable with a retired doctor who had been on a jury before.  We could not come up with any probable scenario where he was not guilty of the main charge although one charge needed thrown out due to no real evidence (don't know what the police were thinking).  The scary part was the former girlfriend testifying that he had not only threatened to commit suicide (for sex) before but that is how he shot his leg off.  Despite most of us looking for some other explanation for the shooting it was not a long deliberation and seemed to slightly surprise the prosecutor and judge.  Hopefully his sentencing will include some long term help for him. 

I feel like I deserve at least 3 credit hours for philosophy after that.  Definitely a learning experience. 

I'm glad you got to serve after wanting to serve, and I'm glad you felt it was a worthwhile experience.  On behalf of the system, I thank you.

Jury Duty is a responsibility that people should take very seriously. Just remember that some laws and some punishments for breaking laws are unjust an that you have the right of jury nullification. All you have to do is vote not guilty.

Something to remember that a criminal law professor told me:

If all the smart people find ways to escape jury duty instead of manning up and serving, in whose hands will you be if you are ever on trial? Think about it.

Called to jury duty again.  This is too small of a town sometimes. 

I was not randomly selected for this trial: http://juneauempire.com/local/2015-06-11/former-rayco-sales-employe... 

I would probably have been eliminated since I shop at this store.  The trial might be over tonight and we are going camping with the reporter. 

I am still on call for possible jury selection for the rest of June. 

It would exist as the opinion of my possession that which is of paramount import for jurors shall find no mention about the court. That would exist as jury nullification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification. In essence, the jury possesses the ability to fail to convict regardless of guilt, in the event that such would exist as contrary to the conscience of their possession. Such a system requires the law and its application to exist in consensus with the will of the populace. In the opinion of my possession, said act exists as the major reasoning for the existence of the jury. Else, the judiciary would exist entirely capable of ascertaining guilt.

Such a right should fail in its execution lacking in reason of significance. The responsibility thereof exists as something of awe, upon reflection. In addition, knowledge thereof should be secreted, as both the judiciary and the barristers—whilst acknowledging the existence thereof—do exert attempts of significance in order to prevent such an outcome.

RSS

Latest Activity

Sir replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"What a reasonable response!"
1 hour ago
Sean replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Technical point:  "extramarital" means "outside marriage".  So for the single person the act may not be cheating, but it is still, strictly speaking, extramarital."
2 hours ago
Daniel replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't considered it "cheating" or "extramarital" for the single one, since a single person has no commitments to cheat against, hence the distinction between extramarital vs…"
8 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
9 hours ago
Sir replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Cashing in on men who fear their wives are stepping out? Or -- based on the "change in relationship paradigm" thing -- men who want to be the ones doing the stepping. "
9 hours ago
Sir replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Play with it a little.  First, imagine that in your universe, nobody ever cheats.  So that's 0 hetero extramarital/amarital sex acts for women, 0 for men. Uh-oh.  Somebody did one.  It's hetero, so there's 1 man…"
9 hours ago
Michael D. Denny replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"It is obvious. Liberals just refuse to accept that water is wet."
9 hours ago
Daniel replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Valid point. And I suppose it's still "extramarital" even if he's not married? Or perhaps it would be "amarital"... Anyway, the statistic does seem off, but I wouldn't know."
9 hours ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service