Trial by Jury

[kandrathe]

Last week I was summoned to jury duty for my County. This was the third time I have been summoned in my life, but the first time I was able to serve. The prior two times they called on me just after I had moved out of their jurisdiction. I don't mind serving if I'm able, as other than running for office, voting, or paying taxes, its one thing a civilian can do to participate in the government.

Monday was very boring. I didn't know what to expect, so I came unprepared for sitting all day in the jury pool room with 120 other bored people. 3 or 4 groups of people (~24 individuals) were assembled for jury panels, but all of those cases settled before the panel even arrived to the court room. I was not in those groups. So I caught up on Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker. If you've ever been to a Zoo and seen a predator just pacing mindlessly in his cage, you get a good idea about how I felt after that first day.

Tuesday was worse. I came prepared for another boring day. I called my office Monday afternoon and had them prepare a laptop for me to use while in my cage, and my wife had run over to pick it up. So I had a long list of items I could work on while trapped in the jury pool room. I got to use it for an hour, then I was called to be on a jury selection panel. Here is where it got bad. They give you assigned seats, and I was seated next to a guy who ignored every norm of personal hygiene. Clothes, hair, breath, feet, pits, etc. You could distinctly smell every part of this guy from 10 feet away, never mind being seated next to him. I never thought of myself as judging or intolerant, but I found that I have my limits. Mind you, I was raised on a farm, I've butchered animals, I practiced taxidermy on roadkill at times, and I've never smelled anything as repulsive as this person. So, for the remainder of the day Tuesday this persons emanations kept me nauseous, and saturated even my clothing. 18 of the 24 potential jurors went up for Voir Dire, each taking 15 to 20 minutes. Then we were released for the day. I went home, put my clothes into the washer, and showered for 45 minutes. At one of the breaks I over heard a conversation he had with another juror where he said something to the effect "I wish this were at 9PM rather than morning, since I'm a wolf man." Then something else about legions of vampires and undead... So I nicknamed him, Wolfman.

Wednesday was a brief repeat, but there were only 6 people left to Voir Dire, including myself and the Wolfman. During his questioning it became pretty clear this guy was about 10 sandwiches short of a full loaf. So he didn't make it to the jury, but I however did. It was about 10am, and the trial began. Since the trial began it has been an interesting experience, and I have enjoyed the process. Thursday morning I had to get up at 6am to make a 7am dentist appointment where I had a wisdom tooth extracted. That made Thursday difficult to bear without any pain medication, but it seemed to help to keep gauze on the wound until I got home and could treat it properly and take the Tylenol 3 to relieve some of the pain.

It is a criminal trial and pretty interesting, so I'll post a follow-up once it is over and can discuss it.

[Taem]

Last week I was summoned to jury duty for my County.

Heh, now I have something to look forward too. I just got a jury summons and have never had a chance to serve in the jury before (personal issues). The date for me is 01/03/07, still awhile off, but I'm a little antsy. I hope there are no "wolfman" types sitting next to me ;).

[Munkay]

Heh, now I have something to look forward too. I just got a jury summons and have never had a chance to serve in the jury before (personal issues). The date for me is 01/03/07, still awhile off, but I'm a little antsy. I hope there are no "wolfman" types sitting next to me ;).

Just be sure to bring lots and lots of reading materials. The amount of time you will spend sitting around and doing nothing is absolutely mind boggling. I probably did about 20 minutes worth of mild activity in the course of about 8 hours of waiting around.

Cheers,

Munk

[Griselda]

Just be sure to bring lots and lots of reading materials. The amount of time you will spend sitting around and doing nothing is absolutely mind boggling. I probably did about 20 minutes worth of mild activity in the course of about 8 hours of waiting around.

Cheers,

Munk

I, on the other hand, got called to the first jury trial that was scheduled. The trial lasted half a day, and I was done by 1:00.

[kandrathe]

Ok, it's over. Whew. ... and we deadlocked. 9 not guilty, 1 guilty and 1 mostly guilty unless he was the last one.

The history of this case was about a junkie guy who was trespassed from co-dependent wifes apartment complex who let him sleep in their van down the street. One day, after his enabling mom gives him some cash(June 2006), he hot wires the van and takes off with it. The distraught (and emotionally battered wife) calls the police and reports the van stolen. The day (in Sept 2006) of the van theft trial came he wouldn't cut a deal with the DA to go into inpatient drug treatment, so the trial was held over another day. That night on his prepaid calling card (note: recorded conversations and stored) he called his wife and berated her about possibly testifying against him.

Our case, was this. Witness tampering. The prosecutor was trying to convict him of 1st degree witness tampering, which required proof he made contact (admitted), that he tried to dissuade or coerce her testimony (which we all eventually agreed he did do), and that he did this by use of "force or threat of injury to persons or property" -- that last part was where the DA failed. There was no threat made during the phone call other than to dump the wife and run off with another women. There was no history of any domestic violence other than his verbal harangues and debasement of her.

The guy was a pretty despicable. We ended up as 11 jurors on the 2nd day, due to one person going home and doing his own research so he was dismissed and we continued. At the end there was one guy who still had no reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and another guy who felt he was guilty but would go with the majority.

I feel that the one guy held on so hard to guilty because he wanted to see the wife protected and the scum bag suffer. Unfortunately, that would not be justice. So now the DA can choose to try again if she wants, but really the case was way too thin.

[ima_nerd]

Our case, was this. Witness tampering. The prosecutor was trying to convict him of 1st degree witness tampering, which required proof he made contact (admitted), that he tried to dissuade or coerce her testimony (which we all eventually agreed he did do), and that he did this by use of "force or threat of injury to persons or property" -- that last part was where the DA failed. There was no threat made during the phone call other than to dump the wife and run off with another women. There was no history of any domestic violence other than his verbal harangues and debasement of her.

It seems like wording really decided the case. I could be wrong, but isn't witness tampering, regardless of any threats, illegal?

Sometimes it's a shame justice doesn't line up with what seems right.

[Rhydderch Hael]

It seems like wording really decided the case. I could be wrong, but isn't witness tampering, regardless of any threats, illegal?

Sometimes it's a shame justice doesn't line up with what seems right.

Wording does become a hurdle (I don't say obstacle because a hurdle implies that you can find a way to a reasonable solution). My first (and so far, only) jury duty case concerned a guy charged with both being under the influence and possession with intent to sell meth. Conviction on the influence charge (misdemeanor), mistrial on the felony possession with intent. It was the "intention to sell" that deadlocked the jury, as the simple possession had been made out and agreed upon. But as per judge's instructions and advice, we could not convict on simple possession (in lieu of possession with intent) because that specific charge was not filed.

Juror misconduct was blatant. In order to pursue their argument, the jurors who were leaning for acquittal on the intent-to-sell angle were presenting hypothetical explanations as to why the defendant had his cache of meth doled out into individual packets (that he may have acquired or even stole the drugs in that form from his supplier, for instance). All cut-and-dried, if it weren't for the fact that no evidence of the kind was ever presented in trial.

[TaMeOlta]

You had your Wisdom removed before the trial ?!? :blink:


(:whistling: )

[Sir_Die_alot]

Wording does become a hurdle (I don't say obstacle because a hurdle implies that you can find a way to a reasonable solution). My first (and so far, only) jury duty case concerned a guy charged with both being under the influence and possession with intent to sell meth. Conviction on the influence charge (misdemeanor), mistrial on the felony possession with intent. It was the "intention to sell" that deadlocked the jury, as the simple possession had been made out and agreed upon. But as per judge's instructions and advice, we could not convict on simple possession (in lieu of possession with intent) because that specific charge was not filed.

Juror misconduct was blatant. In order to pursue their argument, the jurors who were leaning for acquittal on the intent-to-sell angle were presenting hypothetical explanations as to why the defendant had his cache of meth doled out into individual packets (that he may have acquired or even stole the drugs in that form from his supplier, for instance). All cut-and-dried, if it weren't for the fact that no evidence of the kind was ever presented in trial.

Sounds like you either had some meth heads in your jury box or the defense lawyer did a great job of stretching the word "reasonable" in reasonable doubt. Maybe meth is the aliens way of tracking humans and he is a high interest target so needs multiple tracking devices. :rolleyes:

[kandrathe]

It seems like wording really decided the case. I could be wrong, but isn't witness tampering, regardless of any threats, illegal?

Sometimes it's a shame justice doesn't line up with what seems right.

The DA chose to go for the felony 1st degree offense which included the use of force or threat of injury to people or property. The 2nd degree offense a gross misdemeanor, did not include the physical threat aspect and would have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We weren't given the option of considering the lesser charge.

[kandrathe]

You had your Wisdom removed before the trial ?!? :blink:
(:whistling: )

1/4 to be specific. I only ever had 3 of 4 of them.

[Lissa]

One of the most interesting things you can do is end up on a Grand Jury. You see a lot more of the Justice system through the Grand Jury then you will ever seen on a Trial Jury. I was chosen for one back when I was 25 (over 10 years ago now). In the time I was there I got a chance to appreciate some of the aspects of the Justice system as each person accused of a criminal act really goes through a lot of due process where a group of individuals first determines if the evidence is strong enough to have the person face a court date and then the actual Trial Jury to determine if the person is Innocent or Guilty of the charges. It is this first part, the determination of evidence that the Grand Jury performs.

Due to how it works, the members of the Grand Jury get a better feel for the laws and how they are applied due to the evidence that is brought before them to first determine if the Prosecution has a chance at proving guilt in the first place. In all my time on the Grand Jury, and a couple hundred cases I dealt with, there were only a couple where the Grand Jury overall felt that there was not enough evidence and as such said no to the indictments handed down. Once the Grand Jury says that there isn't enough evidence, that's pretty much it, the case concludes and the person is effectively listed as "innocent" (think of it as innocent with prejudice as the Prosecution didn't have enough evidence to prove guilt even if the person is guilty).

Also, Grand Jury service differs for all levels ranging from Municipality, County, State, and Federal. I ended up serving on Federal and in terms of service you are empanelled for a year where you come in once every other week for one day to hear cases, usually 10 to 15 with each taking on average 20 minutes. On occasion you will also have cases that take far more time and you may hear them for several sessions and could end up getting called in on an off day to hear more about the case (I dealt with 4 of these types of cases).

There are some perks as well to Grand Jury service. In the case of Federal Grand Jury, after serving you are allowed to nix any further Federal cases you might be called on. In effect, I am exempt from ever serving on a Federal Jury again unless I wish to serve. Now, this doesn't exempt me from Municipal, County, or State level cases, but I can nix the Feds wanting me to serve on another Jury for them.