Juries

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:38 pm

You know, I've been thinking about the American justice system recently. There are a lot of things wrong with it, corrupt judges, judges with social agendas, and let's not even go into the problems with lawyers!!

But one thing keeps coming back to me. No matter what your crime, no matter how powerful the attorney you are facing, no matter how corrupt the judge...

In the end, you will still face 12 regular men and women from your community. They will have the final say. Now ...these people are picked from the registered voter list, and from my experience (and I vote in every election, no matter how small) these are decent, hardworking, responsible people.

That gives me heart and restores my faith. Especially considering how legal-savvy the ordinary person is these days thanks to TV shows like "Law and Order." Most people can see through to the truth, no matter how technical or savvy the lawyers are, (at least that's what I believe.)

Still...I have never served on a jury yet. (And it's only a matter of time in a town as small as mine, even with our low crime rate.)

So has anyone here served on a jury? What was it like? How did you view your fellow jurors? What advice would you give to others who are picked for jury duty?

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:12 pm

Jives wrote: Most people can see through to the truth,

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:13 pm

Is it not possible that all jurors are vetted properly?

for all we know, there may have been someone on BR's Matt's jury that were anti gun!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:20 pm

Yeah Jives I was on a jury about 4 years ago. It was for 2nd degree murder and I ended up being the foreman. We convicted the gang banger and he got 10 years I believe.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:23 pm

Speaking of some one possibly being anti-gun on BR's husbands jury. We had a woman so liberally left she wanted to aquit this guy because she hated that one little mistake on one night was possibly going to ruin his life. She wasnt near as worried about the guy he killed because it was a guy who sold liquor illegaly.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:38 pm

I in no way meant to tarnish Bullets rep. I was mearly pointing out that you never know what agenda a juror may have. I understand that bullet was acting in self defense. This guy that we convicted was not. He went to this man's house wanting to steal his money and booze. The man was in bed asleep. Four out of seven shots hit him. He actually tried getting out of bed while being shot to defend himself. I must have worded somrthing wrong in that post but I want to make it clear I was not actually comparing each case to the other. Just making a statement about possible jurors. This gal said she wanted to aquitt because "What If it was my son or grandson who had made this mistake I would'nt want their life to be ruined over one mistake" I kid you not.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:44 pm

On another note. I will try not to offend anyone with this post. I also was very enrapt in our judicial system. It was one of the most interesting things I have done. After the trial the jury had a meeting with both sides lawyers. Both the D.A. and the defense mentioned to me that I was the most attentive juror they remeber ever having. They said they were not surprised I was voted foreman. Of course most of the others were scared of being foreman worrying about possible gang retribution.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:46 pm

I turned down the offer due to pressure of work - and they gave me a permanent exemption.

Somewhat upset me as I'd love to sit on a jury - just not at that moment.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:48 pm

"Most people can see through to the truth"???

My husband is living breathing proof, that that's a big, huge, fat, falacy and myth. Don't fool yourself. Lots of jurors are idiots.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:51 pm

BabyRider wrote: "Most people can see throught to the truth"???

My husband is living breathing proof, that that's a big, huge, fat, falacy and myth. Don't fool yourself. Lots of jurors are idiots.

Or have their own agenda despite seeing the truth?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:56 pm

Pinky wrote: That's what was said later on, that some people get self -involved and don't look at it objectively.

I can only assume that the Jury on Bullet's case were a bunch of total spanners.

I hope they choose people with at least one brain between them next time.

Would it help if we did a petition to the judge, BTW?

Hmm. I think I was going a bit further than that.

Take a person with a good brain who can see the truth but vote the other way to support their own objective.

Very difficult to defend against other than weeding them out at the outset.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:10 am

Let me be VERY clear on a couple points here:

A) The man that was killed, that we were claiming shot at Bullet first, NEVER had a gunshot residue test done on his person or his clothes.

B) The prosecutor, in his infinite stupidity, convinced the jury that any 9mm clip can fit into any other 9mm gun. (The clip they found in our car was Slick's, NOT Bullet's and cannot be loaded into Bulley's gun. Slick's clip is a side-by-side, Bullet's is a stacked. Slick's clip is too wide to even begin to fit into Bullet's gun.)

C) If Bullet's intention was to go there to shoot someone, he would have shot the guy Slick identified as the guy who mugged him, when he was 6 feet from the car, thinking he had a crack customer to sell to, and Bullet would not have even needed to exit the car.

D) The blood they found on the floor mat of Bullet's car was simply identified as blood, it was never typed against any of the people involved.

There are so many holes in this case it looks like swiss cheese. The prosecution's star witness, the man who ran, was brought into the court room in shackles and prsion browns because he was serving a 2-year stint for armed home invasion.

The .38 slug that was removed from Slick's ankle....that gun has never been accounted for.

How much resonable doubt does a group of "normal everyday hard-working citizens" need to have before they see the truth???

The tiny, miniscule amount of faith I had in our justice system is completely down the shitter now. Maybe some of it will be restored on the 28th.

And not to sound too dramatic, if Bullet was going there to kill this guy, he would have taken the AK-47 and plucked the guy off from 2 blocks away. He never would have seen it coming and no one would have had any idea who did it.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:51 am

I did Jury service in 93.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:36 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com wrote: I did Jury service in 93.
What type of case? Did you enjoy it? I, too, have always wanted to serve on a jury.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:44 am

I have had jury summons before, but have never been chosen to serve yet.

I like the "jury of peers" idea...if it was really the peers of the person on trial.

Hey, BR, out of curiosity, what was the make up of Bullet's jury? Do you feel it was a "jury of his peers"...meaning people who would not look at him and maybe see a stereotype, and not the man? Am I making sense here?

Back in 1980 my uncle (age 84) was killed by a man who broke into his house. Luckily the guys girlfriend turned him in, and testified against him. He was found guilty. My dad went to the trial every day.

I told you that so I could tell you this...about a year later my dad was called for jury duty. When he went, on the first day of chosing the jury, he saw that the defense attorney was the same man who defended the man who killed my uncle. The attorney took one look at my dad, spoke with the judge, and the judge excused my dad immediatly.

My dad later said that he would have voted to convict if he was on the jury. I asked why, and he said because it was the same defense lawyer. I did not agree with my dad's reasoning, but it shows you have to be careful.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:51 am

Actually, after jury selection, we were quite happy with the results. The jury was made up of 3 black women, 2 white women, and 4 white men.

The "biker" thing didn't really come up, so that probably wasn't an issue if you are referring to that particular stereotype. My husband is very likeable, very well-spoken and articulate. What went through their minds to convict him I cannot begin to fathom. It's simply beyond my comprehension.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:55 am

Yes I was thinking of the Biker thing. Unfortunatly some get a bad rep, and it us probably not justified. I worked with a "biker" once, and actually kinda thought he was a pretty cool guy.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:01 am

I've been summoned twice to the local courthouse, and once to I guess what would have been a federal hearing in Amarillo. But I always check off the box saying I have children, and no childcare.

I should of gone to the one in Amarillo though, it was right at the same time the trial was getting underway when all the ranchers in our area sued Oprah. :-2

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:04 am

A former supervisor of mine once served on a Grand Jury. They are the ones who get cases and make the determination of whether or not there is enough of a case to indite someone. She could not give us alot of specific information about the cases, but said she found it very interesting and was glad she got to participate.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:16 am

Pinky wrote: I see your point, but to my mind, if anyone goes to Jury service without an objective outlook, they shouldn't be doing it.

I couldn't agree more, Pinky. If you are going to serve on a jury, your mind should be wide open. I think I'd also take notes so that I could go over stuff that I didn't understand the first time.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:19 am

Jives, you should read that book by Nancy Grace called Objection! Its all about the corrupt part of the judiciary system.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:21 am

Taking notes was not allowed when I served. The Judge said in his experience between all the jurors you pretty much get total recall. Also you can ask to see the evidence and transcripts if you like while deliberating.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:24 am

Just remembered. The judge also said another reason for not allowing notes was that if one juror wrote a note about a point, another juror may read the note and something he/she did'nt think was important or vital would then maybe become more important.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:03 am

I was called for jury duty two years ago. It looked like it was going to be an interesting case. It involved medical malpractice against a physician; an infant died just a few days after it was born.

When both lawyers grilled me as a potential juror, they discovered that I worked for a doctor and am married to a lawyer.

That pretty much eliminated me immediately. Too bad; I knew that I could be fiercely objective on the subject and truly wanted to be a part of the jury.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:38 pm

DesignerGal wrote: Jives, you should read that book by Nancy Grace called Objection! Its all about the corrupt part of the judiciary system.
Now there's a book I've got to check out....

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:43 pm

Isn't Nancy Grace the lady from Court TV..or CNN or something like that?? The name is familiar, like she is a lawyer or something.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:44 pm

Yes she is.

You either like her or hate her.

I don't like her much.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Thu Jun 22, 2006 12:47 pm

BabyRider wrote: What type of case? Did you enjoy it? I, too, have always wanted to serve on a jury.

I enjoyed it immensley, we had three short cases the first was a simple theft - a guy had ordered a meal in a restaurant and tryed to walk out without paying .The facts were relatively simple and we found him guilty . When they read out his prevous form we found out that he had only just been released from from prison and this offence was his "speciality" he was known all all over London for trying his luck, he would order a meal then tell the staff he had lost his wallet and couldn't pay , i think the total value was about Ã‚£60 pounds. The case lasted 1 day and to be honest was pretty cut a dry - and YES I KNEW HE WAS GUILTY.

The second case involved a couple who were accused of stealing Ã‚£1,000 pounds worth of radiators from their council flat, the facts were quite simple so again we found the couple guilty and again we found out their previous included theft ,stolen goods , fraud the list was endless and yes I KNEW THEY WERE GUILTY . The third case was about a young woman who had been seen selling Methadone by an off duty PC after all the evidence had been presented we retired for what seemed like hours but we couldn't come to a unanimus verdict so the judge said he would accept a 10 - 2 majority and even that we could not agree on. On this occassion i was the jury foreman and i think because it was a friday evening and we had been deliberating for hours without reaching an agreement the judge decided to discharge the jury and the defendant would face another - so that was it for me two weeks jury service not that exciting . I was called again in 97 at the old Bailey but wasn't allowed to do it because of my job and i'm exempt for 10 years.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:02 pm

cherandbuster wrote: Yes she is.

You either like her or hate her.

I don't like her much.

I love her. She is from my hometown. I cant wait to read her memoir. She put herself through law school after her fiance was murdered (still unsolved) and she graduated at the top of her class. She is prosecutor for Fulton County and handles only extreme felony cases. Her best friend was the court reporter who was shot in March of last year. She also knew the Judge Rowland Barnes.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 1:34 pm

Wow, DG, now that you mention it I remember hearing about her fiance. How terribly sad. How does someone get over that? And go on to lead such a productive life? Good for her.