My Jury Duty Rant

[justgin]

Well, I have the next best thing. For my reading today, I brought:

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

Time Has an End (by Harold Camping -- says the world will end this May)

Of course, I don't have to tell them that I am reading these books as one critical of their views...let 'em think I'm a fire and brimstone fundy who thinks the world will end in 2 months. That'll sure endear the judge and attorneys to me.

Might not help, unless you are wearing hillbilly teeth too.

[jpholding]

Eh, my teeth are nearly perfect. But I can effect the hillbilly accent if need be...

[jpholding]

Oh, made it past the fourth call BTW. Also already finished with the two books I brought...they were mostly stuff I didn't need.

[Teluog]

I'm not sure I understand what's going on. How does this jury process selection work?

[jpholding]

Here at least, here's what happens...and BTW, made it past the fifth round...

A bunch of us got a summons by mail -- they called way, way more than would be needed. I'd say there were maybe 300 people here to start.

They then call people up randomly in groups of 22 and 40 -- I guess for juries of 6 and 12, respectively. These groups are taken up to a courtroom where you do the voir dire (and I do mean "dire") crap. Everyone else continues to wait until either they get called, or the need for jurors is done for the day.

If you don't get picked for a jury from one of these calls, they keep putting you back in the pool until the day ends. Theoretically you could get called (and rejected) for 2-3 juries in one day. Now wouldn't that be a hoot.

***

Crazy thing on these computers, too. They all have the wrong date on them. Mine says 10/19/2010 but I was on one with a 2002 date earlier.

[jpholding]

Made it to lunch, which is farther than last time. Back later...maybe.

[jpholding]

Back after lunch. Went down to a downtown Mexican cantina and had buffalo wings, pork quesadilla, and chipotle chicken soup.

With any luck, if I DO get called, I can take an elevator ride with the judge and pull a NoSCo.

[jpholding]

Just been told I'm done. Dodged a bullet. Now to assess the time damage and go home...

[Teluog]

so all that for nothing?

[Hamster]

See this is where it pays to have a chronic disorder

[jpholding]

so all that for nothing?

More or less.

Well, no. It did satisfy some circuit judge's innate desire to be kowtowed to by peons and interrupt their unimportant, insignificant lives. That's about it.

[jpholding]

See this is where it pays to have a chronic disorder

Well, if I had to I suppose I could play the kidney stone defense.



I'm back home BTW...assessing the damage. It's minimal. I just won't spend any time on blogs of the E-Block tomorrow...all on TektonTV.

[ukchristian28]

Greetings from the United Kingdom!

I haven't served on a jury but my mother was called a few years ago. My dad and I were a little envious because we are both really interested in true crime and court cases and would love to serve on a jury. My mother by contrast is not interested at all in that kind of thing and she really didn't want to do it. In fact she was very worried and upset when she was called. She did find however that it wasn't as bad as she thought it would be and although she is still wouldn't be enthusiastic about it, she wouldn't mind if she was called again. I'll have to ask her about it again sometime. She told me about the case she tried but not much about the selection process.

A few comparisons between the British and US system that I observe.

In this country cameras are not allowed in court so you wouldn't have the playing to media you had in the Simpson case. Also, witnesses and relatives are not allowed to comment to the media because of the danger of it prejudicing the case. So Fred Goldman ranting in front of TV cameras before the case was over would not happen here. I think that is good.

Of course that doesn't stop tabloid newspapers spreading gossip from random people who claim to know things about someone who is accused or under suspicion. For example:

http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2011/01...rial-by-media/

J.P would probably be pleased to note that recently certain people who were previously not allowed to serve on a jury now may be called. These include judges, lawyers and police officers.

However, there have been a few developments in recent times that are not good in my view.

1. In recent years the right to silence has been undermined. When arrested you are now told:

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be used in evidence."

If you do not give evidence in your own defence that can now be used against you.

2. The hearsay rule has been done away with. Second hand information can now be considered if certain 'interests of justice' tests are met.

3. A trial can be tried by a judge sitting alone if there is danger of jury tampering. Also, a trial can be tried by a judge sitting alone in a complex fraud case.

4. The double jeopody rule was repealed a few years ago. If someone is found not guilty the prosecution can now try them again if new evidence comes to light. This only applies to serious offences (those which carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment).

So, what do you guys think?:).

[Mountain Man]

I learned recently that the Miranda warning are not given with the intent of informing you of your rights but with the intent that you might voluntarily give them up.

[One Bad Pig]

I learned recently that the Miranda warning are not given with the intent of informing you of your rights but with the intent that you might voluntarily give them up.

That may be the case with the British statement above, but the Miranda warning itself is given to inform you of your rights. In the Miranda case itself, incriminating evidence was thrown out on appeal because Mr. Miranda's lawyers successfully argued that he was ignorant, at the time of his arrest, of the fact that he was not required to answer the questions posed by the police.