|
Gothmog1065 posted:The biggest problem with the grand jury was people could NOT get it out of their heads we weren't trying to determine guilt or innocence, we were determining if there was enough evidence to try the case and that's it. In light of the recent high profile police cases it amazes me how many people think that a grand jury returning a no-bill is the same thing as being found not guilty in an actual trial. Content: I've been summoned for regular jury duty three times (2003, 2010 and next week) and I received a federal grand jury summons twice (2007 &2009) but was never called the first time and requested (and received) a deferral on the second because it would have coincided with my wedding. I'm sure my number will come up again soon... The first normal summons I was called in on a Tuesday and ended up sitting in a waiting room for two to three hours, the first case was delayed and the defendant in the second plead out but the judge had the court report that we were held all day and were released for the rest of the week as a result. I was called twice the second time and just waited around all day without ever being interviewed and was released after the second day. Not sure how next week will shake out, my group number is pretty high so I may not be called in at all. I'm not sure if I'm just unlucky or if once you report for duty they cling to you like cold death.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
Geoj posted:Content: I've been summoned for regular jury duty three times (2003, 2010 and next week) and I received a federal grand jury summons twice (2007 &2009) but was never called the first time and requested (and received) a deferral on the second because it would have coincided with my wedding. I'm sure my number will come up again soon... This leads to something I've been wondering........ I've never been called for jury duty. Nor have many people I know. But it seems like anyone who has been called has been called multiple times over a few years. Anyone ITT know how that works? Is this selection really completely random? Because anecdotally it doesn't seem like it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Motronic posted:This leads to something I've been wondering........ Are you registered to vote? If so you're in the pool (unless there was some technical mishap somewhere). I'm sure it depends on each jurisdiction, but it's certainly supposed to be random. Anecdotally there was one guy in my group who had served three times in the past nine years which means he was incredibly unlucky and was summoned each time his name was available in the pool, and a 70+ year old lady who told anyone who would listen that it was her first time serving and she hoped to send some criminals to jail, bygolly. So at least in my jurisdiction it seems to be random.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
freebooter posted:How does this work? Wouldn't you lose your job? I guess the state could bar your employer from letting you go, but even then, that's a hassle for them to have a space to fill for a year. Sorry, should have been more specific (and less in a rush). We only went 6 times throughout the year (6 days total). Could have been more if the case loads were heavier, but it wasn't that bad. $12 a day, now that's a living. (and my employer didn't pay poo poo either).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
A little bit more on the above, most states have laws that bar employers from terminating employees who are selected for jury duty. In regards to pay, some employers will continue to pay you while on jury duty and the courts will give you a financial hardship exemption if your employer does not. It could therefore be argued that juries do not have a true cross-section of society as you can pretty much eliminate any low wage earners from the potential jury pool, as low wage earners' employers likely do not pay their employees for jury duty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Hi friends, my jury service ended today, so I will now briefly post some descriptions and thoughts about my experiences. I first reported for jury duty on Monday, January 26th. I arrived around 8 am, and I just sat around in the waiting room all day until being dismissed around 4 pm. So I was not selected to serve as a juror for a case on Monday, but I was also instructed to come back the following day. I've attached a selfie that I took in the waiting room on Monday to this post. This photo is pretty amusing to me, mainly because of the eye-rolling woman sitting behind me. On Tuesday, January 27th, I arrived back in the waiting room around 9 am. Shortly thereafter, my juror number was called out. Around 25 other jurors and myself were told that we had been selected as prospective jurors for a civil case that was about to be tried in the courthouse next door. So we were all taken to the next-door courthouse and we were then taken to the courtroom where the judge and the bailiff and Team Plaintiff and Team Defendant were all waiting for us. The lawyers for Team Plaintiff and Team Defendant asked a bunch of questions to all of the prospective jurors while we were sitting together in the courtroom. I kept quiet during this process and only spoke one time: when the prospective jurors were asked if anyone knew one of the paralegals on Team Plaintiff. I knew this paralegal because I went to the same high school as her, though I also acknowledged that I had not interacted with her at all since graduation from high school. After the lawyers asked all the questions to the prospective jurors, we waited outside the courtroom for a little while. Then we were called back in, and the 12 jurors who had been selected were announced. It was surprising to me that I was selected as one of the 12 jurors, though I was also happy about this because I knew that sitting on a jury would require way less effort than the current job I'm working. The trial then began, and it lasted until deliberation began yesterday, on Thursday January 29th. Plaintiff was a brain-damaged man who is recovering from alcoholism and has previously been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Plaintiff by Plaintiff's Sister. Defendant was a man who used to own a residential building, where he was the landlord of Plaintiff and several other tenants. Plaintiff lived with Defendant for about 5 years. Before meeting Defendant, Plaintiff was living in homeless shelters because he can't hold down a job and apparently none of his immediate family members are willing to take care of him. Plaintiff was on food stamps and received Social Security disability money, but he was routinely beaten up and robbed by other homeless people before he met Defendant. Defendant invited Plaintiff to become one of his tenants, and Plaintiff accepted the offer. Members of Plaintiff's immediate family knew about this arrangement, and they were apparently okay with it for ~5 years. Defendant also had Plaintiff sign paperwork so that Defendant would become the designated payee for Plaintiff's disability money. Several of Defendant's other tenants were also entitled to disability payments, and they made similar arrangements with Defendant. In addition to being his landlord, Defendant also took it upon himself to become Plaintiff's caretaker. Defendant fed Plaintiff and took him to doctor's appointments and to AA meetings, among other things. Defendant regularly spoke over the phone with Plaintiff's mother, and all of Plaintiff's immediate family members seemed to be okay with this arrangement for several years. But Defendant also discouraged members of Plaintiff's immediate family from visiting Plaintiff very often. After the death of Plaintiff's mother, Plaintiff's Sister visited Plaintiff one day. According to Plaintiff's Sister, Plaintiff told her during this visit that he was afraid of Defendant and wanted to leave Defendant's home. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's Sister removed Plaintiff from Defendant's home. Plaintiff's Sister then placed Plaintiff in a residential facility for people who can't take care of themselves, where Plaintiff is still living today. A lawsuit was then filed against Defendant shortly thereafter. I thought Plaintiff's Sister seemed like a really unpleasant person and my sympathies were definitely with Defendant. I thought it seemed pretty objectionable that none of Plaintiff's immediate family members were willing to take care of Plaintiff, but they were very much willing to sue a guy who was willing to take care of Plaintiff. But other jurors were more sympathetic to Plaintiff's Sister and thought Defendant seemed like a bad person. So the verdicts we reached were mixed. All of the verdicts were delivered earlier today, on Friday January 30th. Defendant was sued for negligence because Plaintiff lost a lot of weight while living with defendant. Team Plaintiff accused Defendant of not properly feeding Plaintiff. But the doctors who had seen Plaintiff testified that Plaintiff's BMI was normal, despite the claims of Plaintiff's Sister that Plaintiff looked like he had been rescued from a concentration camp. I thought this charge of negligence seemed like a crock of poo poo, and I'm very glad that we ruled in favor of Defendant on this charge. Defendant was also sued for false imprisonment because of claims that Defendant kept Plaintiff confined in his room against his will. Team Plaintiff tried really hard to portray Defendant's residence as a spooky prison-fortress, but I thought the evidence that Plaintiff was being confined against his will was very weak and unconvincing. It seemed that Plaintiff lived in Defendant's residence for several years, with nobody protesting against this arrangement. And Plaintiff and other tenants regularly left Defendant's home for appointments and for recreational outings. Again, I'm glad we ruled in favor of Defendant on this charge. Defendant was also sued for battery because of claims that Defendant stripped Plaintiff down and paddled his rear end and claims that Defendant violently grabbed Plaintiff by his shirt on one occasion, ripping Plaintiff's shirt in the process. We ruled in favor of Plaintiff on this charge. One witness (another tenant) cried while he testified that he saw Defendant stripping Plaintiff and paddling him. This testimony created a very amusing mental image in my head, and it was very challenging for me to suppress my laughter during this testimony. Perhaps this is something that I should be ashamed about. Anyway, Team Plaintiff also presented a shirt with a small hole in it. They claimed that this hole was the result of Defendant violently grabbing Plaintiff while Plaintiff was wearing the shirt. Defendant was also sued for conversion because of claims that Defendant improperly took control of Plaintiff's finances. We ruled in favor of Plaintiff on this charge. I suppose this was an appropriate ruling, but I felt super biased against Plaintiff's Sister and was kinda hoping that we could rule in favor of Defendant on all of the charges. Like, Plaintiff is not currently managing his own finances and he's not going to get any of the money that Defendant has to fork over due to this lawsuit. Other jurors thought Defendant really seemed like a Mean Manipulator, but I thought Plaintiff's Sister seemed like way more of a Mean Manipulator. Anyway, Defendant was also sued for negligence with infliction of undue emotional distress (or something like that). This charge was similar to the first charge of negligence, and we also ruled in favor of Defendant on this charge. So, altogether, we ruled in favor of Defendant on 3 of the 5 charges and we ruled in favor of Plaintiff on 2 of the 5 charges. Plaintiff was awarded some of Defendant's money, but not as much money as Team Plaintiff was pushing for. So that was my jury duty experience! Serving on this jury was definitely preferable over going to work, and I found it to be fairly enjoyable. Thanks for reading my post!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Defendant was also sued for conversion because of claims that Defendant improperly took control of Plaintiff's finances. We ruled in favor of Plaintiff on this charge. I suppose this was an appropriate ruling, but I felt super biased against Plaintiff's Sister and was kinda hoping that we could rule in favor of Defendant on all of the charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
photomikey posted:What was your motivation to cave on this charge and not hold out for Defendant? I suppose I just wasn't feeling strong-willed enough or emotionally invested enough in the case to make the effort to argue in favor of Defendant against the majority of jurors who wanted to rule in favor of Plaintiff on the charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I suppose I just wasn't feeling strong-willed enough or emotionally invested enough in the case to make the effort to argue in favor of Defendant against the majority of jurors who wanted to rule in favor of Plaintiff on the charge. But yet you were proud enough of your jury service to post a faggish little selfie at the end of your play by play recap and here you are admitting you didn't stick up for what you thought was right when you were actually in the deliberation room. Why post at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:But yet you were proud enough of your jury service to post a faggish little selfie at the end of your play by play recap and here you are admitting you didn't stick up for what you thought was right when you were actually in the deliberation room. Why post at all I posted because I wanted to tell the OP about my time on jury duty, per the title of the thread. Perhaps I should be ashamed about the way that I conducted myself in the deliberation room. I've conducted myself poorly many times in my life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I posted because I wanted to tell the OP about my time on jury duty, per the title of the thread. Perhaps I should be ashamed about the way that I conducted myself in the deliberation room. I've conducted myself poorly many times in my life. Take your masochistic weak willed bullshit out of here. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I suppose I just wasn't feeling strong-willed enough or emotionally invested enough in the case to make the effort to argue in favor of Defendant against the majority of jurors who wanted to rule in favor of Plaintiff on the charge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Take your masochistic weak willed bullshit out of here. Lol what's this ban about? M. Debater is a 'tard and should be called out AOAP (as often as possible)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
opus111 posted:Lol what's this ban about? M. Debater is a 'tard and should be called out AOAP (as often as possible) I don't think anyone should have been banned. I also don't think anyone should be called out for sharing their experience. The point of this thread is to share stories about jury duty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Dude didn't take his jury duty seriously then acted like a little schoolgirl about it hoping someone would tell him he was naughty. So we ban for calling spades spades now? I don't even bother contesting though, I'll just pay up, it's fine. Slo-tek shoots first and asks questions later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
You also weren't there to hear evidence, maybe the things the Defendant was found guilty for he was actually guilty off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:You also weren't there to hear evidence, maybe the things the Defendant was found guilty for he was actually guilty off. Well yes but it has more to do with what Math Debater thought about the case and if he was willing to stick up for it against opposition. It was a civil case so less was on the line, but caving like that and then being proud of your jury experience and taking a grinning selfie? Wtf. Have some contrition. He didn't say he was convinced by the other jurors, just that he didn't want to rock the boat. But he takes the time to write an indepth review afterwards? Also taking his ridiculous SE Asia thread posts into account where he is fired from a english teaching job for being a self absorbed eccentric pushover from what I can gather. Also tried really hard to get people to yell at him there and elsewhere, posting incriminating and embarrassing emails that were not asked for. Was strange and even annoying that someone like that was teaching kids, and now has responsibility over someones future as a juror. Maybe its better his opinion wasn't heard, but that wasn't my point, it's that you need to take it seriously in order to be proud of it. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Maybe you should start a separate thread titled "The Heinous Internet Crimes of Math Debater: How One Poster on SA Sent Me into a Nerd Rage"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
SubjectVerbObject posted:The other weird part was that as far as I know, the defendant was there for all of the private conferences. Which means that some people may have had to discuss their past sexual trauma with a person charged with a sex crime listening in. I've never sat for jury duty, so I'm clueless as to how it might work. About this particular point, can a jury candidate choose not to answer a question? Can you say that it's a private matter in response to being asked about past sexual trauma?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I recently finished serving on a jury for a criminal trial. What I learned from the experience is: if you ever find yourself defending yourself from criminal charges and you don't have a slam-dunk open-and-shut defense, plea out. Don't let a jury of 12 idiots decide your fate. My service went like this. About 200 potential jurors reported to the courthouse where we went though security and then filled out a bunch of forms. It was mildly entertaining to watch the jury coordinator get pissed and yell at the room because apparently following instructions like "Put the yellow form here" is too difficult for a lot of the people who report for jury duty. We watch a thrilling 30 minute video about jury duty starring a live action Burger King Kids Club-esque set of actors. They shuffled the deck of cards with our juror numbers on it and called 60 of us to report for jury selection for a criminal trial. Once we got to the courtroom (like 2 hours later) we were seated in a specific order and the attorneys asked us all kinds of questions about our opinions. I made a few smart-rear end comments to both of them and still somehow ended up seated. They chose 12 jurors and 2 alternates for our case. We heard opening arguments that afternoon and then left for the day at 4:30. In our case, the state was bringing charges against a former high school basketball coach for sexual abuse and luring a minor. The case itself was moderately interesting but complicated and fairly depressing. I was frustrated that neither side was able to provide some key piece of evidence that would let me say "OK, he's definitly guilty/innocent". The facts, was we were able to determine, were as such: the coach was hired as a part-time assistant boys coach. He was 30 years old. Through his coaching, he met the victim, a 16 year old girl working as a manager for the team. They more or less immediately began to text each other quite often. He started going to all her softball games. He spent enough time with her that the school investigated the relationship, ultimately firing him for it. They continued to see each other outside of school, frequently with her mother present. She kissed him multiple times and he kissed her once. They texted about "moving in with each other", "making out" and he called her "sexy" and his "booty". She told the police that they had talked about having sex in his bed (when she turned 18). The victim was very upset that the guy was being charged and wanted the whole thing to go away, as did her mother. Her mother though, was a real piece of work. She asked the DA if her 16 year old daughter could just marry the 30 year old ex part time basketball coach and the whole thing would end. Age difference aside (as if you could even put it aside), her child daughter had only even known the guy for like 6 months at that point. The state brought 2 charges for sexual abuse in the 3rd degree and 1 charge of luring a minor. His defense was ridiculously thin. He claimed that one of the kisses was him "mimicking a bat", not a real kiss on her neck. The other was a "french kiss" that she initiated but somehow took him several seconds to stop. Oh and they were seated alone in his car "listening to music". It took 3 days to hear all the evidence. It was interesting to see how it really works compared to what you see on tv or in in movies. We were shuffled in and out of the courtroom quite often as the lawyers would ask to discuss things without us present. I would have liked to find out after the fact what was going on during those times. I also didn't realize that during closing arguments, the prosecution gives his argument, the defense gives his, and then the prosecution gets to go again. Deliberations started immediately and lasted about an hour before we went home for the day. We returned and deliberated for a full day again before we reached our verdicts. Our jury was a fairly good cross-section of people. We had the guy who barely understood English, the immigrant from some middle eastern hell hole who was only interested in voting "not guilty" no matter what, the guy who told everyone he was a writer, and by writer he means dishwasher who wants to be a writer. I found deliberating to be a frustrating experience. We would take a vote on a charge, discuss the evidence and exact working of the charge and vote again, then spend an hour trying to persuade 1 or 2 hold-outs to vote one way or the other. 2 specific jurors, Mr. Writer and Mr. Immigrant, seemed to think that "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" means "guilt beyond any conceivable possibility of an imagined doubt". We argued in circles with those guys for hours. Luckily we only needed to vote 10-2 or greater to convict or find innocent. We ended up convicting the guy of all three charges. Uncomfortably, they polled the jury, making us each say "guilty" or "not guilty" in the courtroom for each charge. After that, the judge came into the jury room and let us ask him questions about the trial, which was nice. After my experience, I hope I never get called again. It was a frustrating, mildly boring and disturbing time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Infinotize posted:Maybe you should start a separate thread titled "The Heinous Internet Crimes of Math Debater: How One Poster on SA Sent Me into a Nerd Rage" Take a look at his rap sheet though Economic Sinkhole posted:I recently finished serving on a jury for a criminal trial. What I learned from the experience is: if you ever find yourself defending yourself from criminal charges and you don't have a slam-dunk open-and-shut defense, plea out. Don't let a jury of 12 idiots decide your fate. Yea that doesn't sound like a good time at all. Just sounds like having to be the state's henchmen to be honest. A victimless crime, although I probably would have voted the same way because it seems like he did knowingly break the law and that is all that is relevant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Economic Sinkhole posted:It was mildly entertaining to watch the jury coordinator get pissed and yell at the room because apparently following instructions like "Put the yellow form here" is too difficult for a lot of the people who report for jury duty. Two, the number of people in this country that have suffered sexual abuse is terrifying. I've been to voir dire twice and every time it seems like 3 out of the 12 have to go outside to answer questions about their sexual past. (And you go through several seatings of 12 each time.) I know the rhetoric is "it's the best system we've got", but once you've participated in this process I don't see how you would entrust 12 people to order lunch, much less decide the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Economic Sinkhole posted:
1. What evidence was there besides the text messages? I was under the impression that the prosecution has to definitely prove guilt. 2. Are these types of cases that involve sex and/or people underage open to the public? If not, then who sits in the stands besides family? 3. How do you pass the time while away from the courtroom? Do they serve food in the waiting room? 4. Do you ask him questions in a relaxed setting or do you still have to refer to him as "your honor?" Are you allowed to ask him as many questions as you want?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Jubs posted:1. What evidence was there besides the text messages? I was under the impression that the prosecution has to definitely prove guilt. Evidence includes witness testimony, which made up just about all of what was going on in court each day. We were allowed to take notes and use them during deliberations. What I meant by that is that we were forced to look at all the evidence as a whole and try to determine motivations/facts using circumstantial evidence and witness testimony. There was no "smoking gun" so to speak, nor was there anything that could exonerate the guy. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not prove completely. There's a big difference there and I think that all the frustrations I felt during deliberations were related to that. This trial was open to the public and there were a lot of people there, including a TV news camera on one day. The judge assured us that he would not be filming the jury though. On the last day, there were probably 30 people not directly involved with the trial in the gallery. We could bring things and keep them in the jury room. I spent the time reading a novel on my iPad. Several people had laptops, Kindles, etc. We got 90 minutes for lunch and could leave during that time. On the day we were deliberating, they brought us pizza. Good pizza, too. If we had had to stay past 5, they were going to order us dinner. The Q&A at the end of the trial was informal. The judge answered all of our questions, but it was the end of the day so I doubt he would have stood there for an hour in the jury room. I was especially ready to get the hell out of there because I wanted to punch a couple of smug idiot jurors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
I got selected to serve on a jury for a guy who assaulted another guy at an Applebee's. They let me off when I told them that I was starting a summer internship later that week. Hey, you asked, I told.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
I served on a jury for a DUI trial a few years ago, which was interesting. The jury was only seven people, and I was the youngest person (mid 20's) they seated by probably 20 years. During voire dire, it was pretty clear that both lawyers were pretty leery of jurors with higher education for some reason, and I think only myself and one other juror had anything beyond a GED or diploma, and one of the other jurors barely spoke English, so I'm not completely sure how they got selected. The case itself was kind of bizarre, since the officer who arrested the defendant only pulled her over because she hit his motorcycle with a cigarette butt tossed out her car window, and her BAC was considerably less than the threshold for DUI. Since Arizona law allows for someone who is "impaired to the slightest degree" to be charged with DUI, the prosecutors case was based on the officer's claims she was wandering in her lane a little, her eyes were bloodshot, and she wobbled a bit during one of the field sobriety tests involving balance. Since police motorcycles didn't have any kind of cameras on them, it was basically a case of "he said, she said". During testimony, it came out that the defendant had just broken up with her boyfriend and was having a generally lousy day before she got arrested, so the jury essentially had to decide whether the state managed to prove she was intoxicated rather than just having a really bad day and being a little distracted while she was driving. It only took us about a half-hour to decide that since the cop who pulled her over only did so because of the cigarette butt (he was behind her car for a while prior to that, so he had plenty of time to stop her earlier), and the state couldn't prove that the other evidence was anything more than the result of someone crying after a lovely day and not completely focused on driving, there was more than enough doubt to find the defendant not guilty. The fact that the arresting officer generally came across as a pompous rear end on the witness stand certainly didn't help, since it sounded like he was mostly pissed about the cigarette hitting his motorcycle, and I had the distinct impression that the DUI arrest was done more out of spite than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
