Jury Duty

[tbrown 26]

If the system were reformed to make efficient use of people's time, rather than use them as the free resource they are, it might work rather well. For starters, rather than randomly pick a date and say 'call the night before and see if we need you' (which is still an improvement on the prior BS), why not send people notification and have them pick a good week in the next 3 months when they can do it? The technology of today makes this quite possible.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury.. they want 12 rubes who they can convince their arguments are more valid than those of their opponent.

You're simply wrong.

MY EXPERIENCE IS WRONG????

Spare me the game-playing.
You're wrong about "lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury."

That being said, I'm not going to argue about this, or repeat or re-phrase myself, any further; and I have no interest in rebutting semantics or spin, or endless tit-for-tat. I've now put several carefully explained posts in this thread, and I stand by them. You can either accept them or line your birdcage with them, I really don't care.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Spare me the game-playing.
You're wrong about "lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury."

I know you hate having your words challenged by non lawyers, but you will have to qualify your remark with "SOME lawyers want intelligent juries." The tendency of many plaintiff lawyers to do venue shopping (Eastern Texas seems to be the most popular right now) suggests many have other criteria in mind.

The weaker the case, the more likely they want morons on the panel that can be swayed by bullshitting expert witnesses or logic along the lines of 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.' One certainly wouldn't want me in such cases, as I resent that sort of transparent manipulation.

[Lindsey 0]

I have served on other juries though, including two juries where I was elected foreman.

Okay...so either Zenister's wrong or you're an imbecile. Which is it? (Somehow I'm betting Zenister's wrong....imagine that.)

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Spare me the game-playing.
You're wrong about "lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury."

I know you hate having your words challenged by non lawyers, but you will have to qualify your remark with "SOME lawyers want intelligent juries." The tendency of many plaintiff lawyers to do venue shopping (Eastern Texas seems to be the most popular right now) suggests many have other criteria in mind.

The weaker the case, the more likely they want morons on the panel that can be swayed by bullshitting expert witnesses or logic along the lines of 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.' One certainly wouldn't want me in such cases, as I resent that sort of transparent manipulation.

Venue-shopping, judge-shopping and juror-shopping are engaged in with equal vigor, and equal frequency, by plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases, and prosecutors and defendants in criminal cases. So is expert-witness bamboozlement. (Howzat for a word?) It's all a zero-sum game.

As an aside, don't underestimate the capacity of some intelligent people - the kind who are almost as bright as they think they are - to let their egos make them gullible. Feed them something complex that's just slightly above their ken - to which they'd never admit aloud - and convince them that they have the rare ability to "get it", while the "average guy" doesn't, and they'll do your work for you in the jury deliberation room.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury.. they want 12 rubes who they can convince their arguments are more valid than those of their opponent.

You're simply wrong.

MY EXPERIENCE IS WRONG????

Spare me the game-playing.
You're wrong about "lawyers don't want intelligent, self thinking individuals on a jury."

That being said, I'm not going to argue about this, or repeat or re-phrase myself, any further; and I have no interest in rebutting semantics or spin, or endless tit-for-tat. I've now put several carefully explained posts in this thread, and I stand by them. You can either accept them or line your birdcage with them, I really don't care.

nice lawyering..

so simple question then:

Do you or do you not want the jury you believe you are most capable of persuading to your point of view?

If that means you DO want intelligent jurors, because the parameters of the case and your argument rely on their ability to understand highly technical points that is certainly fine, and not knowing the cases you work on i will not presume to say you are incorrect. But you cant convince me the majority of lawyers care more about the average intellect level than they do about the ability to convince the jury to believe them vs their opponent, and my experience and that of the people I work with who have been called to jury duty indicates that the more gullible you appear, the more likely you are to be selected.

I stand on my point as well, juries are composed of the lowest common denominator each side believes they can convince.. Intellect is entirely secondary to the goal of seating a 'sympathetic jury'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I have served on other juries though, including two juries where I was elected foreman.

Okay...so either Zenister's wrong or you're an imbecile. Which is it? (Somehow I'm betting Zenister's wrong....imagine that.)

there is ofc the 3rd option that he managed to slip thru the cracks as an 'intelligent' individual (the fact he was elected foreman twice tends to indicate this) or the 4th option that he met the desired criteria for both sides... and the 5th...

but never mind i keep forgetting there are only 2 options when it comes courts and lawyers..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[TheBachelor 4]

Quote

google 'jury nullification"

I used that to get out of one stint on jury duty. Still, it took a day and a half of my time before I got to the point where I could claim it.

The last time, I got quickly excused by the defense when I wore a "NRA Lifetime Member" jacket. Once again, I had to wait around the courthouse for more than a day until I got in front of the lawyers and the judge.

There are battered women? I've been eating 'em plain all of these years...

[jumpinfarmer 0]

I'm going in the morning. I'm sort of excited since it's something differant from the nornal routine.

[billvon 2,400]

>I know a number of people who cannot pay their bills if they miss even
>a few days of any pay period...

Then they cannot afford to live in the US. Jury duty is as much a duty (and is arguably more important) than paying your taxes. "I can't pay my bills if I pay my taxes, so I won't pay any taxes" gets you fines and/or jail time; jury duty should be no different.

[kelpdiver 2]

Taxes are known, predictable, and based on earnings. You only pay if you earn that week.

Jury duty is none of these - it's instead an unfunded mandate. Many white collar employees are paid (or for the first week) for this, many blue collar and all contractors are not. This should be covered by a deduction.

[billvon 2,400]

>This should be covered by a deduction.

I'd go along with that. It would remove one of the more popular reasons to shirk it.

[tdog 0]

This is why I don't like jury duty (the way it is currently run):

ME Dear Clerk, I got this summons for jury duty. I already have airfare the next day to Europe. I want to serve, but can we postpone the service until right after the trip?

Clerk No... Here is what you do. You show up. You wait until they pick the jury. If you are selected, the judge will ask if there is any reason why you cannot or should not serve on the trial. At that point you tell him you have airfare, bring your tickets, and you will be dismissed.

ME Is that not just a waist of everyone's time? Why not have me show up when I can serve?

Clerk Just do what I say....


THE DAY OF THE SERVICE

ME SHOW UP ON TIME. ET. AL. 7AM

THEM Dear Jurors, thanks for showing up today. Right now there are no trials on the books that need new juries. As long as I have been doing this, the likelihood that we will need you is zero. However there are procedures we must follow. You must wait until 1PM. There are a few rules. First, you must wait in this room. If you leave, even just to walk down the hall, you will be in contempt of court. The fines are strict. The bathrooms are located in the back right corner. The coke machine is in the back left corner. Second, no use of cell phones. In 5 hours, you may leave.


Clearly - the solution to this "problem" would have been to let us all leave and come back in two hours. Why? The room was not air conditioned, 150 people were sitting in 75 chairs, and the weather outside was 100+, and I was wearing "presentable clothes". (I so wish I took my friends advice to wear the shortest bathing suit possible and "legalize smack" tee-shirt with a guy smacking his wife FOR smack - just because of the heat).