So here is a contentious issue. Do you support the State’s ability to draft you into servitude? Or do you look forward to rectifying justice in your corner of the world?
Up front I’ve got to say that I am a proponent of the justice system of the US in theory. Defendants are assumed innocent (stop laughing) and justice is supposedly blind (no, really!).
Of the power available to the individual it seems, to me, that the only check on the power of the police state is the option of jury nullification. If not specifically prohibited by the individual states then it is a legitimate way to put a check on government overreach.
The common cliché is that no one wants to sit on a jury. If you could make a change, would you do jury duty? OK, even if you couldn’t make a change, would you sit in justice over laws that you might agree with?
On the sixth day God created the firsters. And first among those who are first was Brochetttaward.
Who?
Not first, since you didn’t reference the topic of the post.
Your phrasing makes me not waht to answer your questions.
Same here. “Servitude” seems a little contentious. A juror isn’t a servant of the state, not really.
You must not had some obnoxious judge tell you that you are there at her mercy and she will come down on you hard if you do jury nullification of any kind, cause the state wants their end result to be what it wants…
I told her I had a really goo lawyer, and I would likely get some serious pro bono help taking that shit to the supreme court if they felt like keeping me on and forcing me to sentence in a case I didn’t feel should have even been in front of the court.
Judges in their own courts have an outsized view of their role. I’d say power, but the shit weasels in robes are basically unchecked.
Sure, I would sit. I actually got picked for a jury once in a firearms criminal case, but the prosecution dismissed me. Most likely because I answered the written jury pool questions honestly. And also the questions the Judge asked in her chambers as the individual jury members were being selected.
I was dismissed from a case where the defendant violated parole for a drug case by having a firearm. This was his third strike. I told them I thought drugs (yes, all drugs) should be legalized, and got the boot.
Yeah, I told them I thought firearms laws were not only ineffective but unconstitutional. There was no way the prosecutors were going to let me stay on the jury after that.
Whycome they don’t like us?
Harder to get convictions with people on the jury that understand the constitution.
I love the looks I get from people when they ask, “even heroin?”. I always ask if laws are keeping anyone from getting it now. They can’t even keep it out of prisons.
I answer when called and am not terribly offended.
My philosophy says it is a aggression to compel me: violence.
My practical side doesn’t lose a lost of sleep or get its nose out of joint over processes that as a practical matter are not far different from the consequences of my theoretically pure processes. I could be convinced that there is some much better way that would never involve me, and, with that new information, I could easily move to the deeply offended column . . . . but not all the way to the molon labe column. I’m not looking for hills to die on unless I’m pretty sure they will enslave my grandchildren.
Jury duty. If you refuse to accept that your citizenship comes with some degree of duties, then I suppose you can complain. But I’m with Don on this – this one is pretty trivial even if offensive on philosophical grounds.
Now, let’s consider how would the judicial system work, to guarantee a fair trial before an impartial jury, without demanding that some people must be that jury?
I’ll take a crack. The justice system is a complete farce, so compelling me against my will to participate won’t change that.
If there is any system of laws you will have some form of administering them and judging both violations and torts. If there are no laws, then good luck.
I find that most people who would sit on a jury are retired, unemployed, or have a low-paying job. For me, it wasn’t worth burning PTO to sit on a jury and be paid a pittance for my trouble. I also hate taking unplanned time off work because it usually means I’ve got a stack of things waiting for me when I get back. So in principle I wouldn’t mind sitting on a jury, but like most people I find it’s not worth the trade off.
I get paid my full job rate for jury duty days.
I did as well, but I had to sign my massive $25/day (IIRC) jury pay over to my company. The downside is needing to pay for parking downtown instead of going to my suburban office, and sitting there all day for a week minimum.
I, too, get paid my regular rate for jury duty days. At my end of OH, the pay is $10/day to show up, $20/day if you’re seated as a petit juror. Technically, I think we still have it in our policy to turn over jury duty pay, and I had to do so when our thankfully-departed HR harpy was still around. The last time it came up, though, and a newer Senior VP asked if one of his reports had to hand over the money, our characteristically-laid-back CEO said, essentially, “Pfft! Don’t bother!”
I think of occasional jury duty as the price one pays to retain the right of “trial by jury” for oneself should you ever need it. My impression is that if serving will cause someone genuine hardship, the court officials will usually dismiss them.
And I do believe in jury nullification for unjust laws.
I believe it’s the other way around here. The state won’t pay your $10/day if you’re collecting pay (salaried/PTO/jury leave). Which strikes me as involuntary servitude nonetheless.
Stealing from your employer is just as bad as stealing from you.
The issues up here are that you need to show up every day, and sit in the justice center. There was no phone in system like all of the other counties/cities around here have. The strange thing to me was that out of the entire jury pool there, there were three of us from the same high school class in attendance.
Even with phone in, I had to go in a few times only to be sent home before lunch.
That is funny about the impromptu class reunion.
Especially as my high school had a class size of ~200 students.
“I find that most people who would sit on a jury are retired, unemployed, or have a low-paying job.”
This. While my employer will pay for a few days, I am not wasting my PTO to do this stuff. Especially when I am certain I will never get a jury of my peers cause my peers are faced with the same reason/rational for avoiding said duty in the first place.
I’ve gotten a summons for jury duty once in my life. Went down to the courthouse, signed in, and about 15 minutes later they said they had all the jurors they needed and the rest of us could go home.
My wife and I have both lived in the same jurisdiction for 20 years. I’ve gotten called at least 5 times, while she only got called once and didn’t even have to show up.
I’ve been called 6 times in the last 10 years.
Same but they waited 2 hours to tell us.
Jury duty – we don’t have that gay shit in civilized continental Europe
I would probably take jury duty if it was a thing.
Do you have juries at all? How do they get constituted if not by sortition?
Do you have juries at all? – no
Also
Joe was about to learn, that in the future, justice was not only blind, but had become rather retarded as well.
the future and Romania
It is aggression to compel people to serve on a jury, but, on the other hand, it is an opportunity to throw a monkey wrench in the works.
I’d imagine there are enough people willing if not eager to sit on a jury that it could be entirely voluntary. It may be a good way to eliminate bullshit trials, if the state can’t find 24 people willing to sit in judgment of your case you go free.
if the state can’t find 24 people willing to sit in judgment of your case you go free.
That’s not a bad idea.
My only worry is “professional Juries”. The benefit of a jury is in part that it is a lay system, not populated by people who have been indoctrinated by law school, etc.
Counterpoint: Juries are made up of lay people who have been trained to revere Judges and Lawyers as experts in the law, and therefore morality, and so are likely to listen to whatever they say.
I was thinking about that, jurors should be called randomly but you should be able to trade or sell or pay someone to take your spot, to avoid ‘professional jurors’ you could limit people to one case every two years or so.
Yeah. I think you are right that it could be voluntary. And having limits on the amount of time served is (two years between cases) is a good one.
There are a lot of people who are eager to sit on a jury. Sitting in judgement of other is a power trip, particularly for those who otherwise feel powerless.
It’s also a form of “reality tv” for some. There are some people who attend trials just for the drama.
Heck, there are weirdos who attend funerals just to see people weeping.
I think those people are weird.
I’ve been to two funerals in my life. One was for the Mother of a very young family, and it was perhaps the most heartbreaking thing i’ve ever had to watch, seeing her teenage daughters get up and speak at the funeral.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067185/mediaviewer/rm2314012416
(Uh, meant to reply to HS, not Leon. Now I look insensitive.)
You did.
On your phone, huh?
Yeah, phone.
Also a good a time as any to link Doug Stanhope bit on jury duty (jump to 8:50). Found it rather funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Rm87cqnUI
You.Bastard.
I was waiting for that.
I’ve never gotten called for jury duty. They also only send me the sample ballots for upcoming elections about half the time. I wonder to what extent the state of Maryland has a consistent notion of where I live.
I have heard stories of jury duty from hell but most of the stories I’ve heard comport with what has been said so far: called in, waited, sent home. I think the state demanding potentially months of your time away from your job, family, and the culture at large is a bit much but I also know it’s pretty rare for the commitment to last that long.
My wife had a three year federal grand jury “vacation” – one day a week mandatory attendance.
I served jury duty. It was civil case though.
The way jury duty is sold to the citizens is that you get called and you sit on a jury.
The reality is you get called, and then you get interviewed to see if you meet some undefined/unwritten standard the two teams of attorneys come up with. Which is not the same thing that was sold to the citizens.
It’s hard to support a system sold on a fraud.
Yeah, the theory is that sortition gives you a simple random sample. In reality, exemptions and voir dire exert a strong selection bias.
I do have the underlying principled opposition of “you can’t force me”, but am such a fan of jury nullification that it doesn’t actually bother me. Have been summoned about 3 times, and actually on a jury once, as foreman in a double-defendant murder.
For one of the defendants, the prosecution abandoned the case during closing arguments, which was a good move because there was 0 evidence. I think they were just included so the other one couldn’t say they were let off in return for testimony.
The other was definitely guilty and went for life.
“Earlier today the NYPD shut down a Yeshiva conducting classes with as many as 70 children. I can’t stress how dangerous this is for our young people. We’re issuing a Cease and Desist Order and will make sure we keep our communities and our kids safe.”
https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1262509072051470340
Do you know who…
Of course it is not dangerous for young people since they are hardly affected.
Those children will be traumatized when the mayor tells them they are responsible for the murder of their beloved grandparents.
He “can’t stress how dangerous” it is for the children because it simply isn’t that dangerous, so stressing it just shows how ludicrous it is.
I’m not registered to vote so I will not get called. If one is over a certain age in MN (maybe 70?) one can beg off. Mrs Fourscore wants to sit on a murder trial jury. She’s watched too many TV movies. She cancelled out the last time, about 6 months ago, that she was called.
I was jury foreman on a carjacking/firearm case in Californistan.
I don’t agree with the compulsion, but I do regard participation in the judicial system as a civic duty.
^^^That.
Also, I like having something different to do.
The last time I was called, the judge gave the “thank you in advance for your service, you true Americans, you” speech, told a few stories of his Mexican grandmother’s cooking, and genuinely seemed grateful, but I’m a sucker for sentiment regardless of my intent to try to be fair.
Good to have a Wise Latino on the bench.
Do you support the State’s ability to draft you into servitude?
I’m pretty opposed, but then i do find some cases to be…. thinkers. Jury duty is one, and i could possibly see some cases of a conscription strictly for a militia form of immediate defense.
I find jury duty mostly a nuisance. In principle, I wouldn’t object (since theoretically, it’s tied to registering to vote, and not a pure conscription). But, I’m utterly appalled at what a colossal waste of time the whole ordeal is. On a given day of jury duty, a person spends an average of, maybe, five or ten minutes of actual productive activity toward the justice system. The rest of it is spent sitting around waiting for something of some note to happen. They should either let one serve jury duty remotely (at least part of the time) or set up the means to telecommute from the courthouse.
. The rest of it is spent sitting around waiting for something of some note to happen.
The vast majority of what any group that is in government service is doing. Somewhere in Afghanistan there is a group of 1 star generals and Colonels throwing rocks at Humvee’s waiting for orders to come down from Higher Headquarters.
Increasing the compensation of each juror could force the courts to be more efficient. When they are paying you a whopping $6 for the first day of jury duty (in Texas anyway), there’s not much incentive to use resources wisely.
I wouldn’t object (since theoretically, it’s tied to registering to vote, and not a pure conscription).
I don’t know about the entire state, but in Marion County (Indianapolis), you don’t have to be registered to vote to be called. I believe they pull the data from tax records, voting records, and state issued ID’s ( not just driver’s licenses, but state issued ID’s as a whole). Essentially you are conscripted here.
Okay, now that’s objectionable. I think the sensible thing is to keep it tied to voter registration. Then you have a basis for demanding service. If people want to decide on the system of government, they should be responsible to help run it. They can opt out of service by not voting.
I was under the impression that most states have given up on jury summons based on voter registration. I think using the tax rolls is fair – after all you are paying for the govt, not just voting on it.
That’s how Michigan does it. Driver’s license (and likely all the rest) and you’re in the pool
While I’m no fan of the state, period, this is one of those areas where I’m comfortable playing along. Mostly because nullification is a delicious concept.
Yes. I don’t like the state, but the power to be on a jury is way more beneficial than the right to vote. It is the spot you have to actually have input on the law, and in a meaningful way. Essentially a final check on state power.
I see jury duty as one small way to hold the justice system accountable. I have no issue with being called, but I might feel differently if my employer didn’t pay full salary.
I did wind up on a 3 day criminal trial a few years back for a guy accused of molesting his nephew. He was definitely guilty, but I was amazed at how many jurors were ready to vote guilty without a moment’s discussion. Emotional reactions rather than informed discourse seem to be how the majority of Americans process information nowadays.
In connection with a malpractice case, I am currently in the process of explaining to my boss that people cherry-pick facts to support the outcome they desire. It doesn’t really matter much that the mother of a disabled baby had uncontrolled diabetes, blew off prenatal appointments, didn’t report spasms by the fetus followed by a cessation of movement, etc., all of which point to pre-birth injury rather than birth trauma. The jury is going to get a good look at a severely disabled kid, and somebody’s going to write a check. A big one. Basically our only hope is that the mother really shows her ass on the witness stand, which isn’t unlikely, but still . . . . .
Something bad happened. Some nameless entity or insurance company with lots of money should pay.
That’s the way it works unfortunately. There is no understanding of responsibility or that we all pay.
Which reminded me of a great piece from George Friedman. I love this part most of all:
I had an uncle with severe diabetes. That disease alters personality and judgement. The situation you describe sounds like victims all the way around, hospital included, the opposite of the usual “I hate everyone” stories we are accustomed to.
I am very sorry to hear that.
This is an aside, no judgment intended:
So with XX, about 2 days before she was born, there was a flurry of activity. I mean, this baby would NOT SLEEP. Then…nothing. Not one bladder bounce, not one eyelash twitch for about 24 hours. I called up the ob/gyn in a panic. They had me come in.
“She’s sleeping. But we’re going to induce you. Be here tomorrow at 6:00 a.m.”
“WTF?”
“Babies often settle down before they’re born. It’s like they’re resting up for the trip.”
Oh well okay then.
Anyway, the flurry of activity was unusual. The complete stillness was also unusual.
In my case, we believe the cord kinked, which in turn set off a stroke in the baby. Apparently, when the cord kinks, the fetus will thrash around to get it unkinked. While its kinked, the fetus is starved of oxygen. When it unkinks, there is a spike in the fetus’s blood pressure, which can cause strokes.
The mother described it as “spasms”, which is not a good sign. This happened several days before delivery. If she had done what you did, we probably would have induced the next day. Which probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome, but who knows?
https://twitter.com/LevineJonathan/status/1262782900799524864
LOLWTF?
I love the SNP Eyes
Did Baked Penguin make this ad?
I’ve been called three times in the last five years. I did two stints and got the third cancelled since it came only eleven months after the second. I sat through three sessions of voir dire. Only during the first was I asked a question. The second was nixed after a woman admitted to knowing the defendant from work. “What’s your job?” “Probation officer.” Everyone out of the pool. I don’t remember anything about the third except the fifty-something woman sitting in front of me cursing loudly when she was selected.
I was relieved to be dismissed but I don’t think I’d mind serving. What would be the alternative to the jury system, or to the jury system as it currently works? I wouldn’t want a pool of volunteers. I can only imagine the copsuckers, Karens, student activists, and other nutters you’d dredge up from a bunch of self-selected jurors. What are the alternatives to a jury? En banc judgements? Confucian judges like Judge Fang in Diamond Age? Judge Dredd? Judge Reinhold?
The second was nixed after a woman admitted to knowing the defendant from work. “What’s your job?” “Probation officer.”
Oh Geeze. Did the Judge have her stay behind? I imagine he’d be pissed.
She was asked to stay behind. IMO she sounded like she wanted to demure, but the judge or prosecutor pressed her (I forget who), and she spilled the beans.
“What are the alternatives to a jury?” – This is more of a refinement than an alternative, but as is often proposed for voting, I could probably support some version of:
– net taxpayer
– real property owner
– positive net worth
After COVID we’d never have enough people to seat a full jury ever again with your plan.
Combine that with, “if you can’t fill a jury, it’s a mistrial” and you have a feature, rather than a bug.
You really want that for the trial of say Charlie Manson?
Honestly, I’d say the qualification should be voting. If you want to have say over the government you should have to put in some labor tax.
I am opposed to compelled labor on any level – including jury duty. I have received jury duty notifications in various states and successfully petitioned to be excused twice. I’ve never served or even been called to show-up; also no summons when I was employed in corporate.
Like seat belts, I think jury duty is a good thing but the state should have no power to compel any free man to perform such as a duty. I also think they need to pay for such duty and not beer money. Neither the prosecutors nor judges would stand for being roped into doing their jobs for free. Neither should I.
Got the letter many times but so far have always been excused as not needed. I’m sure that will change someday.
The most egregious case I saw was a period of time when not enough jurors were showing up so one of the judges turned the sheriff’s deputies out to ask the first people they came across the juror qualifying questions (over a certain age and not a felon, resident of the county) and if they answered yes, to take them back as potential jurors. Note that he didn’t direct them to offices of the city or county that were next door and rope those people into working for free.
Well, of course not. Those people were doing important work.
Thank goodness. “Your employer the State has made its case against these aggressors against the State. How do you find?” I’d rather have random passersby shanghaied by cops to serve as my jurors.
I have had jury duty twice, I have sat on one jury. I was the foreman. We were hyper-efficient, caused problems due to how quickly we reached our decisions.
We found guilty on two misdemeanors, not guilty on the one felony charge (one of the misdemeanors was the lesser charge available to that). 1 year on jail, $1000 fine. We joked that with time served, he beat us to his car.
They were trying to nail him on a felony to put him away a long time as a multiple felon. He deserved it…but not for that charge.
I looked up info afterword, he was originally found guilty on two felonies, but the state supremes overturned and one was so egregious they didnt even allow it to be retried.
https://casetext.com/case/barefield-v-commonwealth
Take jury duty:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1k4fYIUuAP8
The jury system is practically dead in this country, at least for criminal cases. What percentage of cases actually go to trial? 1%? It’s tiny, I know that. And in most cases, the defendant is convicted.
And if you push to exercise your right to a jury trial, you’ll pay. You can beat the rap (maybe) but you can’t beat the ride.
My gut reaction is whatever is offered as a plea bargain must be the ceiling for punishment at the jury trial.
The right to a speedy trial has also largely been thrown by the way side. It takes years today to resolve cases that took months or even weeks a decade or century before.
“The right to a speedy trial has also largely been thrown by the way side.”
It’s going to be interesting watching the courts deal with the due process appeals that come up in jurisdictions where trials are being delayed because of Covid.
There’s been a mad dash to get bail or OR granted so as to avoid getting infected by muh-muh-mycorona. It worked quite a few times.
If by “deal with” you mean “FYTW it is what it is plebe”.
Unless you’re the governor of Oregon, in which case your appeal goes directly to the state Supreme Court.
The difference between a justice system and a legal system.
The State shouldn’t be allowed to delay. If they bring a charge at 9AM they should be prepared to start the trial before noon.
I got called to jury duty and was disappointed in two ways:
1. The accused was caught red-handed keeping women he kidnapped in a makeshift torture chamber
2. I had to beg out because my wife broke her foot and I was the only person to look after her
Thus I could not engage in jury nullification serving or not serving
The parish wrote me a check. I took it back to the Police Jury.
“Why are you giving us the money back?”
“Louisiana has the lowest property tax in the United States. I want to keep it that way.”
The only jury panels I was ever retained for were several Courts Martial. Because of my former profession and telling the truth on questionnaires I have never even lasted long enough for a prosecutor to dismiss me in person.
I would not fear being judged by a true jury of my peers. But since the government and defense both actively try to dismiss jurors who can, and will, think and examine evidence I would be seriously scared to be judged by a jury as comprised today.
I thought I had zero chance to end up on a jury for that reason. But when they started the voir dire process, I heard the questions they were asking, looked around the room, and mumbled “fuck, I am on this jury” under my breath.
This right here! I cannot trust the people who will be impaneled to even care about the truth, much less seek it out.
Why are you on trial if you are innocent? Wake me when it is time to convict.
I served on a civil case, we found for the defendant. My hunch was that the plaintiff lawyer was a real ambulance chaser.
I’m never thrilled to get the jury summons in the mail, but I can’t really think of a better system so I go along. I wouldn’t want my fate decided by a single judge or a handful of judges. Professional juries would probably be highly biased.
What I do object to is being called every single year because we have a high percentage of non-citizens in my county who can’t serve on a jury. I’d also object if I were on one of those trials that lasts months on end.
When I retire, I want to go sit on a bunch of juries and take a box of monkey wrenches each time.
I think my pay was $7 per day, of which $5 went to parking, reduced to $4 if you parked in the deck with the special deal with the courts.
I was called a couple years ago. It was a drugs and guns case (the defendant was probably selling cocaine with a gun on him). during voir dire I was asked questions about legalizing drugs. I answered honestly since I was sworn in, so I already knew the prosecution was going to nix me. The defense asked me something blah, blah blah “would you already think they are guilty.” Again I answered honestly, that in America you start with the presumption of innocence. I knew at this point I was talking to the other potential jurors, as I could see the prosecutions eyes roll with every answer I gave.
The prosecutor at some point after that asked me what “would you call a house with lots of cocaine in it”? He was looking for “crack house,” I was getting perturbed by this point so I just answered “a good time.” It provoked some laughter.
Finally I was asked, despite my stance on legalization could I convict someone for drug charges since it was illegal. I answered, “I don’t believe in locking people in cages for crimes that don’t even have a victim” and slid in a reference to juror nullification. Again, I was talking to the other potential jurors at this point since I knew I would be asked to leave.
Surprisingly, I was asked to leave. I wonder what happened when the trial began. Hearing the background of the case. I have no doubt that the defendant was a troubled young kid who would probably end up in prison regardless. But I really hope he beat the wrap on that one, because, looking at him, he was still young enough and clean enough that he might be able to turn his life around, unless he got slapped with a felony for things that shouldn’t be a crime.
Nice
Question for you lawyer types: Is it supposed to be a jury of your peers (whatever that means in U.S.) or a jury of impartial people willing to hear the evidence and then render their judgement?
Is it supposed to be a jury of your peers (whatever that means in U.S.) or a jury of impartial people willing to hear the evidence and then render their judgement?
It’s the genius of the and, not the tyranny of the or.
The “jury of peers” language is anachronistic, and refers back to ye olden days in England where there was nobility, and the rest. The idea was that (a) nobody who mattered wanted to have a bunch of peasants deciding whether they committed a crime and (theoretically) (b) the peasants should have their cases decided by somebody other than the nobility,
Juries are supposed to be impartial people, etc.
I heard once (but never followed up on it) that the original common law juries were actually supposed to be literal peers – as in people who know the defendant. The rationale was that people that knew the defendant might let said defendant off on minor charges, but would certainly be keeping an eye on that person in the future (or possibly mete out some private justice if called for). I think there’s some merit to that logic, but I can see where a state system dependent on fines and such would frown on it.
In eighteenth-century Britain-and at least some of the American colonies-it was not unusual for juries to find their neighbors not guilty. Some of these cases were women charged with infanticide and the juries let them walk. As you note, it seems to have a lot to do with local relationships.
I believe the original jury, way, way back in the day, was a group of people who knew the accused and were willing to swear he was telling the truth.
Lots of appeals are won because the jury was made up of peers, or was not impartial. If you can say “lots” in regards to winning appeals in the same sentence.
* sorry, NOT made up of peers.
I have an issue with the mandatory nature of jury duty, but I will not actively try to get out of it. I will answer all questions asked of me honestly which is a recipe for being rejected. I was rejected from every jury duty I was called for except for one, but that case was settled before I could participate.
Engineer with libertarian overtones is not an ideal juror apparently.
I unfortunately was robbed as a bank teller, which makes me the “victim” of a felony, which pretty much bars me from jury duty. Though i’m of half a mind to not mention it, since i don’t consider myself a victim. The guy didn’t take my money.
I answered truthfully. I just have different definitions of some things than they do.
Engineer with libertarian overtones is not an ideal juror apparently.
Reason and logic have no place in a jury box.
I’ve been to Law School (though I never obtained the degree).
That alone has always disqualified me from jury duty anywhere in Canada. Heaven forfend that there be any member of a jury who actually has some training/understanding of criminal law.
I’ve been surprised that I’ve never been struck from a jury because I’m a lawyer. Even the grand jury.
I ditched every jury summons I ever got until I went to work for the city government. If you ignore them completely, they leave you alone. As a self employed individual, it’s extremely expensive to not show up for a week or so. Besides, the court has been used as a hammer against me all my life.
Now, I work for the city and they pay full pop. I served last year. I was the foreman and one of two holdouts for acquittal. Some poor slob was on trial for MISDO child molest because he gave a kid a titty twister during a basketball game. The “victim” testified that he was not really affected by it at all and that he just thought it was kinda weird. He also testified that the defendant was trying to get a date with one of the moms of the other players. 10 people were chomping at the bit to convict. 10! Me and a civil atty. were the only hold outs, and I’m convinced that without me, they atty. would have folded. The experience left me even more afraid of the system than I was before ( and I harbor a substantial amount of fear of it already!)
Most people want to punish somebody for something.
They think ( and actually said, in the jury room) that the police wouldn’t arrest him if he hadn’t done SOMETHING!
In the case I was involved in, the suspect was pulled over in the car he had jacked from a homeless woman. She had refused to leave the car so she rode with the carjacker for a few minutes until he threw her out.
She pulled him out of a lineup after he was picked up.
His very sorry defense was that it wasn’t actually him, but he knew who it was and that he had borrowed the car from the actual carjacker in order to go to Burger King.
His final mistake was giving the full name of the supposed real carjacker when he couldn’t come up with the full names of anyone else he knew, including his roommates.
Additionally, he was trying to avoid the firearm charge addon in case he was convicted by testifying that the real carjacker told him that he used a toy gun. That didn’t play well with the jury at all.
In short, the public defender never should have put his client on the stand, the prosecutor ate him alive. I told the attorney as much after the case when he asked me what went wrong for his client.
The thing that bothered me the most about it all was the rest of the jury fawning over the prosecutor in the hallway after the case was over. The prosecutor was soaking it up like a celebrity. I thought it was distasteful at best and an insight into the prosecutor mentality.
he asked me what went wrong for his client
Carjacking, for a start.
Reminds me of the cop who was asked “how do i get out of speeding tickets?”. “Stop Speeding”.
Similar cop line I heard . . .
Guy: Why’d you pull me over, everyone else was going the same speed.
Cop: Have you ever been fishing?
Guy: yeah
Cop: Did you catch ’em all?
Yep.
Had to drain the whole lake, but I caught them all.
No, officer, but I caught some naked cheerleaders!
To your point, I found the rest of the jury fairly malleable.
We took an initial vote and it was roughly split 60 guilty/40 not-guilty on the carjacking charge.
The next day I went thru the evidence in detail on the provided chalkboard and convinced the not-guilty voters in about 15 minutes flat with barely any pushback at all. All they needed for themselves was somebody else to make the decision for them.
The odd part was nobody voted against the firearm charge after the split on the carjacking.
Yes, it’s pretty easy to sway them towards guilty. IMO, you lucked out by having a guilty defendant. Try advocating for acquittal even with an innocent defendant. Much harder.
I would imagine that to be the case.
The only time I served on a jury, we let the defendant walk. It was pretty close to a nullification — the state brought felony assault charges against a guy who had brushed his girlfriend away when she was shrieking at him while he was on the phone. The prosecutor could have built a stronger case, but the early consensus was no way the case amounted to a felony. One hold out, who had issues with *any* laying on of hands, but she folded in the face of the unified arguments from the rest of us. Basically she agreed it was wrong of the guy but not felony wrong.
I got charged, in absentia, no less, with misdo battery for spilling coffee on a table at sbux. Some of it dripped into the lap of the guy I was yelling at to leave me the fuck alone. Sbux kicked us both out and he called 5-0. Three years later they arrested me during a traffic stop. They offered me 100 anger management classes. Eventually, the judge dismissed the whole case after I completed 30 days probation. The law he used makes it such that it’s as if I was never charged. Crazy story that could only happen to me, lol!
I’ve been called for a couple of juries that I kind of wanted to be on.
One was a criminal cartel case. I missed being on the jury because I was the 15th remaining juror.
The other was a grand jury, which I got selected for and was interested in doing, but the time commitment was just too much – 2 or 3 days a week for months. I begged off by saying my sainted employer couldn’t do without me, and the prosecutor bought it. She was pretty good-looking, too.
Yeah my case lasted almost three weeks, and look how pathetically minor it was.
I don’t have an issue with it, other than the lack of voluntariness, making sub-minimum wage, and being treated like a mushroom. I’ve never made it past voir dire, probably due to answering honestly about such things as knowing the non-alcohol related reasons that people’s driver’s licenses might be suspended. For another one the arresting officer was there and we had to state whether or not we knew them, and it turned out she had let me off with a warning a few months before when she had me dead to rights going 15 over in a 35 zone because I was eating a sandwich and not paying attention. I stated that I was grateful for that and was let go.
Sorry I didn’t phrase the question well. I was trying to be flippant and “glib” and it came across wrong.
Thanks for all the responses and discussion.
Jury duty is one thing MA does pretty well. Go in on the morning you’re called and by noon you’re seated on a jury or on your way home until the next time you get called.
I was on two criminal trials. In each another juror and I convinced the rest to aquit. In both cases we we obviously denied important information. I get the need for rules of evidence, but I’m not locking someone in a cage if you won’t let me know the whole story. In both cases the truth seemed to be that project/bar justice had been served, no need for the trial.
High point of one trial was Nadine the bar fly. In her fifties maybe – ridden hard and put away wet, but still trying hard. She held the entire courtroom in thrall during her testimony. At 25 she must have been a total smoke show. It was clear why violence had been done that night.
Jurors get the usual BS that you’re the only to judge the facts. The don’t tell you the MA SC has said Jurors don’t have to apply the law if the feel it would result in injustice.
When you live in the People’s Republic of NJ in both a crime ridden a litigious county you can count on being required to serve every 3 years.
So I’d also ask how folks feel about how many times one should be required to serve.
To me every 3 years is excessive.
I live in Passaic County NJ, which has Paterson, and I get jury notices every three years more or less for the last 20 years. My wife on the other hand only got one jury notice in all that time and didn’t even have to show up, so it seems pretty random.
Here in Essex County you can basically set your watch on one coming every 3 years.
In Atlantic County where I used to live it was much longer.
I was in a Voir Dire for a gun case, and the Judge asked the pool if anyone owned a gun (Wholly innapropriate IMO), With the amounts of hands raised, you wouldn’t be able to fill a jury without a sizable amount or Gun owning jurors.
That is a direct attempt to sway the jury pool by the judge. In a rational world, he’d be thrown off the bench.
I forgot about that . . . in the scenario above they also asked if I owned guns and how many and I told them that I don’t give that it would be irresponsible for me to give out that information to a room full of strangers. I was actually very appalled by it.
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2020/05/nj-gym-owners-issued-more-tickets-supporters-ordered-to-disperse-in-2nd-day-of-coronavirus-lockdown-defiance.html
Arrested for not talking to the cops?
You have a right to do as they demand.
There goes the last remnant of the rule of law.
This contact tracing bullshit is going to go nowhere good.
The article mentions a GoFundMe but doesn’t include a link to the GoFundMe. I did a little digging, and I think this is the one.
Half the people out there (general population) are below average.
Half the people out there are below median. It’s possible that more than half can be below average.
/pedant
Slightly less than half, possibly, depending on how many people are exactly at the median.
/even more pedantic
I was going to add that, but I wanted to be more edgy 🙂
Since the distribution cuts off at zero but can go over 200, it’s more likely to be bunched at the low end, hence more below.
Well, I’m doing MY part to raise the average. ; )
I would serve on a jury if called, and I hope if I am ever tried by jury that I have a jury of thinking people like you guys.
It would be nice if they processed things more efficiently so it doesn’t feel like an all-day DMV run.
I felt good about my experience and wished I’d have been more able to have served in the past.
It would be nice if they processed things more efficiently so it doesn’t feel like an all-day DMV run.
Just spitballing, but why couldn’t they pre-assign the pool to different trials. Have you fill out a voir dire questionnaire from the defense and prosecutor beforehand, and then only call a small number who qualify?
I would serve on a jury if called, and I hope if I am ever tried by jury that I have a jury of thinking people like you guys.
It would be nice if they processed things more efficiently so it doesnt feel like an all day stint at the DMV.
The court system does their best to keep thinking people like us off of juries, so you’d probably be out of luck.
There was a great episode of Becker that covers that very thing…cant find a clip sadly
I have no problem sitting a jury, but have never advanced past voire dire.
My brother being LAPD is as far as I got.
They accepted me, even though my wife is a defense attty.
Which Supreme Court Justice was it that got jury duty recently? I want to say Scalia about a year before he died, but maybe someone else.
John Roberts, 2015.
About 20 years ago I was in a federal jury pool for over 6 months, served on 2 juries and was foreman for one. One case was for perjury, one was a female cop suing the department because she lost her “drive police car home” privileges when she was 6+ months pregnant.
It was an eye opening experience, I guess I was naive and had an unfounded faith in humanity. It was one of the worst experiences of my life, but perhaps an overdue wakeup call. I was called for metro jury duty about 10 years ago, and told the judge my previous jury duty was a terrible experience, and I was relieved from that pool.
I guess everyone should do it once, but I have served my time and will never do it again, if I can get out of it.
Not all heroes wear capes…
https://preview.redd.it/fcrtlncxypz41.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=87f70dcafcbd388c49b6cae92205a173aa0e2a84
Teabagged Mao Zedong. That’s righteous.
Another hero:
https://preview.redd.it/zipd7ptkmpz41.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=8bb0844a4c406dc583c7b801ce36310e4624d159
I just got my haircut…professionally (well, Great Clips, so semi-professionally).
VICTORY!
Striking a blow for liberty. Well done.
As a former trial lawyer, I’ve been summonsed several times and actually sat on a criminal jury. The defendant was acquitted. He likely violated some law, but not the one they charged him with. I was impressed by my fellow jurors and think justice was done.
My sense of the obligatory nature of it is (1) there’s no other game in town – meaning we don’t have Libertopia and competing market adjudication systems, therefore… (2) I see jury duty as a chance to put my money where my mouth is and try to do some real justice in a specific case. To be more pointed, libertarians spend a lot of time complaining about “the system” and can point out all of its many problems, but when there’s an opportunity to actually participate and trying to see justice done in an individual case, suddenly everybody’s got something better to do.
This phenomena unfortunately reminds me all-too-well of a certain “other” group of people (*cough* SJWs *cough*) who are incessantly talking about inequality or poverty or homelessness or some other societal ill in the abstract, but when it comes to actually going to help another human being, they’re really hard to find. Some talk it and walk it and they have my respect, but most people have grand ideas about fixing society’s ills through some intellectual exercise that doesn’t require them to actually do anything other than bitch and sit on their asses and pontificate Solomon-like from their recliner.
I agree…but if you refuse to participate because you think it is involuntary servitude then you are also walking the walk.
I vote, but people who refuse to because to because they think voting is immoral are okay by me.
…as long as you waive your right to a jury trial should you ever find yourself in that position.
Yes, that too. And refuse to run for office.
And opt out of the entire criminal proceeding too? 😉
Well, the judge is there voluntarily, and presumably is getting paid, so if you’re willing to have your fate to rest in those hands…
ANARCHY!
And opt out of the entire criminal proceeding too?
Ah, an old school outlaw, as in, somebody who outside the law.
Meaning anybody can steal from you, assault you, rape you, or kill you without legal consequence.
I’ve heard it said the criminal justice system exists less to protect us from criminals, as to protect criminals from us.
I’m not trying to piss on anyone’s principles or antagonize someone just for the sake of being contrarian, either. It’s that I can’t conceive of any other, better way of adjudicating the guilt or innocence of a person than by trial by jury. Whether that is run as efficiently as it could be, or whether there are aspects to it that are seemingly arbitrary or inane, is all an aside. I doubt anyone here “opts out” of the DMV or using the roads because of the “principle” of it. Or has decided they’re not paying taxes on principle. (If you have and need a lawyer, however…)
It seems to me that the arguments against doing jury duty are conveniently principled, while we accept all manner of govt inefficiencies and hassles elsewhere in our lives – yet here’s the one chance to truly make a (potentially) life-changing difference for someone else and suddenly, everyone’s got a reason why they can’t. I get the small business owners who simply can’t shut down for a week or two, that’s a legit hardship. Same for daycare and many, many other legitimate reasons – but the system allows for that. But the “jury is the 12 people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty” line is the ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy. People bitch about how fucked up the justice system is, but they’re quoting that line or telling a story about how they got out of jury duty. Gee, I wonder why the system is fucked up…?
Preach it. I guess trial by jury, like democracy, is the worst system except for all the others.
I like GT’s idea of telling people that they can opt out of jury duty, if they sign a waiver of their right to trial by jury. Although I suspect the vast majority would sign it, we might end up with a better quality jury pool.
Of course, I bailed on the grand jury I was selected to. If that had the been the price of bailing, I think I might have sucked it up and sat on the jury. As it was, the prospect of being entertained by the prosecutor (who was definitely courthouse-hot) was a temptation.
The Seventh Amendment was considered an absolute necessity as a bulwark against the power of the State, both in the form of *ahem* overzealous public servants and shitty laws. I think the reasons why are well evidenced in Bushel’s Case. In fact, three huge parts of US Con law come directly out of that case: no double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment, Right to a Trial by Jury is the Seventh Amendment, and the right to a habeas corpus hearing.
That is probably why I have such a hard time understand that any pragmatic libertarian (my term) – or Constitutional libertarians if people will allow that – would not be 100% in support of juries at least in principle. AnCaps and the like? Okay, fine, you’re against all of it, the whole thing. But anyone else who cares about keeping the forces of the state at bay? You want a trial by jury in its purest form. And at the point at which I can’t get enough on a jury of 12 to acquit me of whatever throughtcrime the govt throws at me, then I’m probably not long for this world, anyway.
I get it: a fellow citizen is in the dock and the govt is trying to throw them in a cage and everyone’s time is more important. I know – it’s the abstract nature of jury duty, but I guess having been in that system for two decades, I’m invested in it.
Hopefully all the liberty-minded people won’t be at home on the internet pwning the Libs! when my trial comes and I can find at least two or three to vote no and at least hang it.
Part of it is incentive. Not everyone is going to be “selfless” enough to be motivated to participate in something seen as “civic duty”. For example, last summer I had the opportunity to participate in a mock jury that was part of an “alternative resolution” between a Very Big Company and former stockholders. It paid around 500 dollars a day for two days of work. Yes, you had to sit through about 12 hours of deposition for it, but they managed to get about 50 people willing to do it. (There was more than one jury, of course).
I wish it paid better, too. Truly, seriously, but you’ll have to talk to the teacher’s, firefighter’s, and cops’ unions because they all seem to mysteriously wind up with a lot more of the state’s resources than the courts ever do. Odd, that.
Ooh, and I lit the Ted S lamp hard.
I did, at one time, opt out of the DMV. It did not go well for me. The law won.
The one time I was called to jury duty, the whole thing irritated me.
It was on a Friday. The following Monday, I was supposed to have my first full hearing in front of a judge about my ex’s kidnapping of our kids.
I show up, and the room is uncomfortable, and someone is coughing up a storm (I ended up catching it too).
We wait for an hour, then the judge come in and gives a speech. She quotes John Adams, and very carefully leaves us with the impression that she does the law, we do the facts while not actually saying anything against Jury Nullification. That pissed me off.
We wait for hours. They tell us to go to lunch.
We come back and they announce the trial will be two days. I start planning what I’m going to say to the judge about my Monday hearing. It was a really emotional and angry speech.
They bring us all into a room. It’s a witness tampering trial. All the witnesses and the defendant are there. We’re asked to raise our hands if we know any of them. The defendant looks like the caricature of an irish brawler. Hes trying really hard to look mild-mannered. He’s failing. Every witness is a police officer in uniform.
Then they start asking us questions, instructing us to raise our hands if the answer is yes.
One question “do you not trust cops”. I was so tempted to ask “If we know what cops mean by the word ‘testilying’ are we supposed to raise our hand?” I kept my mouth shut.
The only time I raise my hand is for the question “is there a reason why you don’t think you can serve on the jury”? The speech in my head is even more emotional and angry, verging on swivel-eyed or unhinged.
Then they start calling people up. I was number 14. The case was for a jury of 6. Each person goes up and the judge and the attorneys quietly talk to them and amongst themselves. If selected, the newly minted juror goes to sit in the box. Otherwise they leave the room. More people are being struck than seated. I think #12 became the alternate. They dismissed the rest of us.
I sat and listened to coughing guy hacking up lung. Around 3PM, they told us we could all go.
Looking back, I know that once I told the judge that on Monday I was scheduled to attend a hearing in the probate court in a case that I was a party to, she’d have dismissed me automatically. So it was a wasted day. And I was exposed to a cough that made my life miserable for the next seven days.
I was called for jury duty for the first time a couple of years ago. The first case was a drug case. When the judge called my name and asked me if there was any reason I couldn’t serve, I answered “yes” and was asked to approach the bench. I explained that I have a sincere belief that all laws concerning the prohibition of narcotics and other substances were immoral and in my role as an academic, I have made public pronouncements as such. Both the judge and the prosecuting attorney thanked me for my honesty, the defense added that I had to be let go because I was “better dressed than the attorneys.” I was told to leave and come back next week. The next week was an assault case. I was chosen and passed voir dire. However, before we were led into the courtroom, the accused agreed to plea bargain.
I had to be let go because I was “better dressed than the attorneys.”
Oh, please tell me you were dressed like your avatar.
When I have reported for jury duty, its always in a coat and tie.
I wish.
It was summer, so a light blue linen sport coat, a crisp pair of dark khakis, a white button-down collar shirt, bow-tie, pocket-square and panama hat.
*fans self*
Well, you can always ask your man to play dress-up!
::ponders why HM’s bow-tie needs suspenders. Decides not to worry pretty little head about it::
I fixed it cuz it looked weird to me too.
[Note to self: never point out such things to Glibs with editing privileges.]
Very spiffy.
Shoes?
I don’t remember, but if I had to guess, I guess they were my light brown Allen Edmonds derbys.
Excellent choice. That outfit calls for lighter shoes. You could probably have even gotten away with two-tone saddle shoes, but they would have to be just the right color combo.
That was the other alternative pair in my mind. It could have very well been them.
*fist-pump*
I do miss Gilmore. His sartorial commentary was always on point.
No suspenders?
Yes, I wore “braces” as the Brits are wont to call them.
I was hoping for more of a Morris Day vibe.
I won’t wear a suit until double-breasted comes back around.
I only wear ties to church.
I wonder how the other parishioners feel when you walk in wearing only a tie.
Heh, I wore a jacket and tie to traffic court a couple of years ago.
I think I was the only one in the courtroom who bothered.
It probably helped. I got a 6 month probation/dismissal on following too closely after I pleaded no contest.
Wearing my military uniform to my 85 in a 55 mandatory court appearance resulted in the DA calling me back and handing me a letter.
“Don’t do it again.”
Not even any court costs.
because I was “better dressed than the attorneys.”
HM moonlights as a pimp named Upgrayyedd.
A double-dose.
The local joke in Hawaii is:
“What do you call somebody wearing a suit downtown?”
“The defendant.”
Via c-milk, YouTube is apparently auto removing comments with wu mao, commie, or communist bandit in Chinese.
https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/gl6xrd/youtube_is_now_autoremoving_any_comments_that_say/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=comments_view_all
Not all that surprising. Google just hired an actual Nazi.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-cloud-hires-industry-vets-telco-push/
Heh. I remember 15 years ago when Google was doing the dirty work of the Thai monarchy, removing any videos critical of the (now) former monarch. (There was a meme that he looked like a monkey.)
“Don’t be evil”, my ass.
Free speech clearly doesn’t extend to lèse-majesté. No one should be allowed to yell “dork” in a crowded throne room.
Well duh. The problem with america is that we’re all a bunch of provincials. Descendants of poors and landless from Europe. This is why we have to put up with things like free speech. Because we are not graced with the Good Blood of Royalty here.
I spent a year on a federal grand jury. One to three days a month. I told my employer about the pay and offered to give up my jury pay since they paid me full wages during the time I was paneled. He said don’t bother. It would cost the company more to process the paperwork than the money I turned over.
I can tell you that I’ll never look at a US attorney the same way again.
I’ve known a handful. They range from utter mediocrities to first-rate.
The first-rate ones tend to wind up in cushy Big Law white collar defense positions. Making the big bucks, as Allah intended. Unfortunately, the mediocrities spend their careers as AUSAs.
But only the special few become Preet…
In Minnesota, potential jurors are drawn from the state’s registered voter list. I haven’t been on that list for more than a decade and never will be again. Voting is for the foolish.