Grand Juror selection

[yoink 321]

I'm currently sitting in a standard juror selection room and they've been giving a presentation on the Grand Jury and getting people to apply to it.

The position is 4 days a week for a commitment of 1 year, from 9am to 3pm, with 15 days vacation.

They've used the word 'diversity' 6 times so far in their description and then stated that 'surprisingly the current 19 members are all senior citizens'. I WONDER WHY that could POSSIBLY be? Who the fuck else has that kind of time? Even unemployed folk aren't going to write off looking for a job for a whole year.

 

It's great talking about diversity n'all, but when you stack the deck so that it's impossible to achieve it, why bother?

Edited November 13, 2019 by yoink

[gowlerk 1,901]

From what I know of the Grand Jury system, they may as well just have trained monkeys sitting on it. They will almost always just do what the prosecutor wants them to do anyway.

[ryoder 1,380]

I didn't know being on a Grand Jury was practically a full-time job.

Speaking of jury duty, I got yet another jury summons just a few weeks ago. And once again, they told me I had been dismissed, when I called the informational number the night before.

[kallend 1,619]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

From what I know of the Grand Jury system, they may as well just have trained monkeys sitting on it. They will almost always just do what the prosecutor wants them to do anyway.

Well, the defendant doesn't get to call any witnesses or make any rebuttals or cross examinations  as I understand it, so what else can the jurors really do?  I really don't see the point except to give the prosecutor a trial run.

[yoink 321]

 

 

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

From what I know of the Grand Jury system, they may as well just have trained monkeys sitting on it. They will almost always just do what the prosecutor wants them to do anyway.

Certainly for juror selection there are a bunch of articles suggesting that Lawyers preferentially select uneducated jurors and dismiss those with strong opinions or higher education more than not. Because obviously if you’re a trial lawyer you want someone who’ll simply go with whatever you tell them rather than thinking.

It’s making me question the process.

 

I see the value in having a juror selection phase but I kinda feel like the selection part should be done by the judiciary, with support from a 3rd party lawyer. Make sure people understand the responsibilities and gravitas of the situation, confirm they’re not biased in any way and check they’re competent in logic, but I don’t think I approve of these thinly veiled questions that directly relate to the case you’d be sitting on.

 

The prosecuting and defending attorneys can’t help but have a conflict of interests so shouldn’t be involved in the selection.

 

I’m fully expecting to get instantly dismissed because of stuff like this. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by yoink

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

19 minutes ago, yoink said:

Because obviously if you’re a trial lawyer you want someone who’ll simply go with whatever you tell them rather than thinking.

Hi Will,

I disagree.  My son started as an Ass't DA, then went into criminal defense.  Now he works for the State of Oregon DOJ, in their Litigation Section.  He just won a case in which he chose a ret'd lawyer to serve on the jury.

IMO there are no 'cut & dried' things about jury selection.

He & I talk about this type of stuff a lot.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Though called twice, I have never served on a jury.

[yoink 321]

46 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Will,

I disagree.  My son started as an Ass't DA, then went into criminal defense.  Now he works for the State of Oregon DOJ, in their Litigation Section.  He just won a case in which he chose a ret'd lawyer to serve on the jury.

IMO there are no 'cut & dried' things about jury selection.

He & I talk about this type of stuff a lot.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Though called twice, I have never served on a jury.

Hi Jerry, 

 

do me a favor? The nect time you speak with your son about stuff like this can you ask a couple of questions for me? I'd be really interested in his responses, from his perspective but also what he thinks the industry would respond as a whole.

 

1) When selecting a juror do you select based on who you think would be best for the LAW, or who would be best for your CLIENT? I guess this only applies to the defending side (hypothetically).

 

2) Any qualified attorney should be able to ask questions to determine if a potential juror is COMPETENT to sit on a jury without knowing specifics of the case.

It follows, therefore, that if there are specific questions only a defending or prosecuting attorney would ask then those questions must necessarily relate directly to the case at hand and as such MUST NOT be asked in the selection process.

I simply don't see how the law firms involved can't have a preferential bias to the jurors selected. I'm certain they have all sorts of data on the voting habits of various genders, ethnicities etc.

Edited November 13, 2019 by yoink

[mbohu 77]

51 minutes ago, yoink said:

It follows, therefore, that if there are specific questions only a defending or prosecuting attorney would ask then those questions must necessarily relate directly to the case at hand and as such MUST NOT be asked in the selection process.

Maybe my understanding of the US legal system is completely wrong, but I thought that is the very point of the system. It is not about anyone wanting to find the truth, but it is purposefully set up to be adversarial: Both sides are supposed to ONLY care about winning, and somehow in the end that should magically make the truth emerge.
Similarly to the belief in selfishness as the only valid driver of the "free market": If everyone only cares about their own personal advantage and nothing else, somehow, magically, the best and fairest outcomes will emerge.

[purevl 1]

On the Grand Jury thing...yeah, they're useless. As Sol Wachtler, former chief judge of the NY State Court of Appeals, said in 1985, "District attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that, by & large, they could get them to indict a ham sandwich."

As for jury selection, here is a series of videos showing the jury selection process in an open carry trial. The defendant was open carrying a rifle in WA, where open carry is legal, yet ended up being detained at gunpoint & arrested for unlawful handling or display of a weapon.

Judge's questions to the jurors, 15min - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8FRBzHHzhA
Prosecution's questions, 21min - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5666orF71nc
Defense's questions, 23min - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Uhi36Psmo
Jury selected, Judge's brief, 12min - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWKeRSKx5iE
Conflict of Interest, Juror dismissed, 6min - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNxsUzRd1J0

[wmw999 2,114]

I have a college degree, and have been selected for four juries, and was wanted for another (as in they called me up to the front to talk in private, to make SURE I really couldn't go for the max penalty). So there isn't an automatic ban on educated people. Maybe I look dumb.

Wendy P.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 hours ago, yoink said:

1.  The nect time you speak with your son about stuff like this can you ask a couple of questions for me? I'd be really interested in his responses, from his perspective but also what he thinks the industry would respond as a whole.

2.  I'm certain they have all sorts of data on the voting habits of various genders, ethnicities etc.

Hi Wiil,

1.  My personal email is:  jerrybaumchen(at)gmail(dot)com

Send me your questions.  Be very specific, if you can; I do not want to waste his time.

2.  I think you've be watching too much BULL.  https://www.cbs.com/shows/bull/

Whoops, I see it has been cancelled.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bigfalls 110]

I was on Grand Jury for 4 months this year.  It was once a week from 9:30 to 4:00.  Several weeks, it was not held.

We were finished before noon every day except one which went to 12:30.  I live in a sparsely populated county so there weren't many cases. 80% of them were from a maximum security prison.  In those cases, there was video of the incident.  We did throw out a couple of the other cases.   So now that I have done my civic duty, they won't call me for 6 years.  I am glad I don't live in a big city, I am sure it would be worse.

[turtlespeed 212]

On 11/13/2019 at 10:47 AM, yoink said:

I'm currently sitting in a standard juror selection room and they've been giving a presentation on the Grand Jury and getting people to apply to it.

The position is 4 days a week for a commitment of 1 year, from 9am to 3pm, with 15 days vacation.

They've used the word 'diversity' 6 times so far in their description and then stated that 'surprisingly the current 19 members are all senior citizens'. I WONDER WHY that could POSSIBLY be? Who the fuck else has that kind of time? Even unemployed folk aren't going to write off looking for a job for a whole year.

 

It's great talking about diversity n'all, but when you stack the deck so that it's impossible to achieve it, why bother?

My Brother in Law has GJ duty.

He goes 5 days a month for a year.

He works from home, and travels, so, its not a huge burden on him.

Then he is exempt from jury duty for 5 years I think.

 

The requirements in your area are pretty ridiculous.