Support NeoGAF

[lt519]

So after watching Making a Murderer, and we can leave discussion about that topic to the actual OT thread, I wanted to see what other people's experiences on Jury Duty were.

I was called in this year for a civil suit, pretty basic, and was fascinated by the whole process. I ended up jury foreman and I actually got stressed for a few nights about making the right decision as a lot of money was involved and it was a very fuzzy case. The things that stuck out to me most were:

1. Voir dire is a total bullshit process. The lawyers were already sending subliminal messages and prepping the potential jury members to have biases. The judge was not present during this process.
2. The actual trial is long and tiring to listen to. Listening to depositions, testimonies, expert witnesses over the course of several days is exhausting. I'm a very focused and intelligent individual and I have a hard time listening to someone drone on for 6 hours a day for a full week (granted that is some of the lawyers fault for not being engaging)
3. People just can't pay attention to a trial. One member of the jury fell asleep (c'mon lawyer keep the jury engaged). Others had no clue how to interpret certain aspects (especially code related terminology). Others were to busy trying to be human lie detectors staring at the witnesses Adams apple instead of hearing what was said (which is actually entirely acceptable method according to our judge, but still being that narrowly focused is bad).
4. Deliberations were a joke. Trying to keep, and sorry to say, some really unintelligent people on-track with the facts presented during the trial was next to impossible. Biases crept in, people compromised just to get out, people dragged it out just to get another day off work, and worst of all people just ignored the law. Not to mention, it was incredibly easy to sway people to my opinion, even being the youngest person there. I knew I could make that jury rule either way, and it bothered me a lot that I could do that. I lost sleep over it and the only solace was that my fiance told me that they put in your hands and willingly did so. Right or wrong they signed up for that.

I talked at length with some lawyer friends about this. They agreed it's an entirely flawed process and that if two parties want to take it into trial they know they are going to the mercy of a jury that may not be capable of making an intelligent decision. They had a chance to settle and are willing to go all or nothing.

My problem with this, and also my fiancee's (attorney in public sector), is that this works for civil lawsuits but for criminal lawsuits it's much easier to convince a jury to convict than to let someone go. It's much harder to settle for 14 years of jail when you are innocent than it is to cough up $30k and be on with your life in a civil suit. There's that lingering human response of "oh my god what if he did do it and I'm letting a murderer/rapist/assaulter go," and they err on the side of caution and convict someone.

My experience left me with a love/hate for the jury process. I like to feel involved, but at the same time I felt totally unequipped and inadequate to make a life altering decision for someone else. Much less so for a lot of the general populace (yes I know I sound like an ass)

 

[N.Domixis]

I got called and told the judge I busy with my school work and that was it I was let go. I still had to be there for awhile though. And it was during mid terms so I had an extra day to study.

 

[adamsappel]

I think it's one of our few mandatory civic duties and I am ashamed that people complain and work so hard to shirk it. Was it Carlin who said juries are comprised of people too stupid to get out of jury duty? Though I wish more of them were like you and took it seriously. I've been called a few times, but dismissed early.

Going to a jury trial is a crap shoot, but it's not all convictions (sometimes unfortunately). I overheard someone walking down the street in front of me on his cell phone. "The jury acquitted my client! He killed those people!" He was pretty flabbergasted.

 

[dity]

I received a letter in the mail last year saying I was on call but never ended up being needed. That's my experience with jury duty. Like damn, I was kind of excited too.

 

[platakul]

venn diagram of the people who won't register to vote so they don't get called for jury duty and people that will need a jury to be merciful one day

 

[zerotol]

Waiting. A lot of waiting. It was awhile ago, but I remember going to the courthouse early in the morning. We were all eventually sent into a room and seated around a table, where we sat in awkward silence for an hour and a half. Then a judge walked in and apologized that something had gone wrong and told us we could all go home.

 

[dukeoflegs]

I just got done going through jury selection. My first time and it was really interesting. The voir dire process was different for us than what I've heard about. The attorneys would ask questions to the group and we would raise our juror sign in agreement or disagreement. We then could talk and respond to other jurors comments or questions. It was really interesting hearing how people interpret questions.

The county I'm in only pays $10 for each day. If it paid better I wouldn't mind doing it more often.

 

[lt519]

I just got done going through jury selection. My first time and it was really interesting. The voir dire process was different for us than what I've heard about. The attorneys would ask questions to the group and we would raise our juror sign in agreement or disagreement. We then could talk and respond to other jurors comments or questions. It was really interesting hearing how people interpret questions.

The county I'm in only pays $10 for each day. If it paid better I wouldn't mind doing it more often.

Interesting on the Voir Dire. They asked simple yes or no questions as a group but if they heard a response they didn't like they also asked pointed questions to specific potential jurors. It was also a contract case and one lawyer asked everyone what their definition of a contract was and at the closing arguments he read back everyone's responses. It was actually a pretty slick move considering he was defending based on pure contractual technicalities.

 

[adamsappel]

The county I'm in only pays $10 for each day. If it paid better I wouldn't mind doing it more often.

I actually wish it paid really well, so more people would try to do it. I think it's a good use of tax dollars.

 

[Neuromancer]

I would love to be on a jury someday but I never will since I'm a law enforcement officer. If you have any respect for our judicial system I think it's something you should take seriously.

My only experience with a jury is testifying in court a few years ago. As far as I could tell they were all paying attention even though it was a 3 day trial. I think they found me credible (as well as the other witnesses for the prosecution) since they found the defendant guilty of both counts.

 

[Tevious]

I was summoned to Jury Duty when I was 18 for a DUI case. It was an unpleasant experience. First of all, the bitch at the counter when you sign in was complaining about my pants not being appropriate enough for the Judge. So I had to have my mom come pick me up, take me back home to change them, and then go back. Then I had to be sworn in, and I was really uncomfortable with "God" being name dropped in there, as a firm believer of separation of church and state.

They sat us all in a court room with a judge and the two lawyers. The judge gave us a lecture on how it's our civic duty and payment for the "privilege" to have a license to drive. For fuck's sake, I only had a learner's permit at the time because I couldn't afford my own car.

During the group interview process with the lawyers, I pretty much kept my mouth shut, but raised my hand when they asked for people who don't drink (I was only 18 and even now, I'm only an occasional drinker). For whatever reason, the defense lawyer really wanted me, so I got picked first. Then the next girl who got picked whispered something to the judge and she got off the hook, so I inquired to the judge if I could get off the hook too. I told her I didn't have any opinion on drinking and that I would just vote what everyone else did because I don't pay attention that well. Instead of letting me off the hook, she had me be a backup juror, so if any of the jury members couldn't make it, I would vote in their stead. I still had to go to the trial and watch.

So I go to the trial and listen to them go on about whether the guy was legally drunk or not. Technically, the cop wasn't able to get a readout over the limit on the breathalyzer cause the guy refused to take it until the cop was able to take him into custody at the police station. By then, he was under the legal limit. Once they were done with the trial and the jury had to make a decision, the judge dismissed me. So I left, not caring what the outcome was. I didn't think it was any of my business.

I don't think people should be sent to jury duty until they're at least 21.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I've been called for local three times and once for federal and haven't yet been needed. My experience thus far is roughly the same as my experience trying to get out of a ticket for having a burnt out headlight. I am perfectly amenable to serving, but am somewhat concerned I'm gonna be on a murder trial and will have to see shit that will stick with me for a long while, especially with my OCD, not to mention potentially having someone's life hanging on my judgement.

 

[pelicansurf]

You just reminded me that I have jury duty coming up. Shit.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Seems pretty flawed. It's really easy to come up with some reason to be rejected. One time I decided not to say anything crazy and got picked, everyone just wanted to return guilty and be done with it. There where literally people that went "well the cops arrested him he is probably guilty" really made me NOT want a jury trial if I ever get in trouble. People really don't get that the state has to prove you guilty, they say it like 500 time but it seems like everyone leaned guilty from the start to me. Maybe he prosecutor just nailed it in the selection in my case IDK.

 

[Butane123]

I served on a child abuse/murder case.

It was the week before my last semester in college started, and I couldn't get them to completely dismiss me due to being called during the prior semester. Anyway, that was the most stressed out I have ever been. I didn't sleep much that week, I had two separate panic attracks. One was during the weekend right before school started and I had to move some stuff down to my apartment, but the case wasn't done, so I had to drive back (around 6 hour round trip) afterwards. During the trip back, I caved. The second time happened as I was driving back to my parants after the case was over. It was about 11:00 at night, and my tire blew on the highway. I didn't care about anything, I just wanted to get the fuck home.

Anyway, we convicted the person, and they got a life sentence. I hope I never get called again because it literally messed me up for about a year and a half.

 

[Darth Karja]

I went for a murder trial, after a few hours was not chosen to be part of the jury, and took the next 3 days off work saying I still had jury duty.

 

[LiK]

i got a summons for late Feb. i had to go to jury duty a few years ago for the first time and got chosen. it was an awful boring experience. some boring ass litigation involving two businesses. it lasted a few days, iirc. i dread being chosen again for the one coming up.

 

[Brakke]

I never served on a jury before but if I was called up I definitely would do it unless like someone in my family was actively dying or something. That said, I've gone to court a few times just to watch. It's a really valuable experience, to see the system in action. Everyone should get in a court room at least a couple times.

 

[Damaniel]

I served on a jury about 13 years ago - it was for attempted murder and assault, and the trial went nearly two weeks. I actually thought the process was really interesting, though nowhere near as dramatic as courtroom dramas would make you believe. The defendant was obviously guilty, and we returned a verdict in less than an hour. The jury foreman was awesome - he brought freshly ground expensive coffee beans to the jury room every day so we could have something besides the slop that was normally available.

On the other hand, my girlfriend's dad was a police officer at one point, so she'll pretty much never have to serve on a jury - she wouldn't make it past the first couple questions during voir dire since being related to a cop - even a former one - is grounds for bias for most attorneys.

I haven't received a summons since then, but I'll go if I get one. The legal system doesn't work if everybody tries to wiggle their way out of serving, and people should be willing - if not proud - to take part in a pretty damn important civic duty - one that's a major foundation of our government.

EDIT: Also, I was selected as an alternate for the trial, but one of the jurors had a family issue and was dismissed, and I ended up taking his place.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

I was on a jury for a murder case but didn't really pay much attention because I was playing ace attorney on my ds and fell asleep a lot. Just voted guilty at the end because I wanted to get home and catch up on Law and Order.

Experiencing the true legal system was too boring for me.

Spoiler

None of this happened.

 

[i_am_ben]

I was on the jury in a child rape case.

It was very interesting. Everyone took it very seriously.

BTW, people should be mindful what they say here as many jurisdictions have rules about what can and cannot be said regarding what took place in the jury room.

 

[Tubobutts]

I've only been summoned once and was dismissed on the second day. I did get $13 though.

 

[Drazgul]

Everything I know of jury duty I learnt from that Pauly Shore movie. Seems like fun.

 

[vocab]

I have gotten the letter once or twice, but I'll never go. Waste of my fucking time. I'm very anti jury, and the incentive is a fucking joke.

 

[SliceSabre]

First time I was selected for jury duty the accused plea out so we weren't needed. The second time I was called for jury duty the suspect ran from the cops who came to pick him up and there was a manhunt for him so again we weren't needed.

Personally I don't mind jury duty because my job pays us for it.

 

[obin_gam]

I'd rather important decisions like life or death things came from educated adults than random plebs picked out from whereverville.

So I'm against the very existence of a jury to begin with.

 

[Althane]

I've been summoned a few times, and served once (other times I was in school out of state). It was an aggravated battery case (i.e., beating someone up to the point of major bodily harm).

I took it pretty seriously, tried to discern as much as I could. End result was a verdict of not guilty, due to lack of evidence of intent.

It's funny that this topic came up, since I was at lunch yesterday, and I just about freaked out when we were talking about jury duty, realizing that I was one of the people who voted on guilty/not guilty, and that someone could be in jail because of my decision. It's very sobering.

And after doing it, I would do it again, because I would rather be responsible for that decision than some of the people I've seen talking about jury duty. It's a serious responsibility, a civic duty. It's the average citizen's biggest input into the justice system.

 

[Weckum]

I'd rather important decisions like life or death things came from educated adults than random plebs picked out from whereverville.

So I'm against the very existence of a jury to begin with.

This.

Also, having people vote for judges is stupid.

 

[buy teh haloz]

I got to serve one day but the jury was disbanded because of a conflict of interest or something. It was interesting to see the process, but I'm kind of glad it didn't drag on.

 

[redmetal86]

Been summoned twice, only gone once last year. I was able to get out of the first one because of school. I had to be there around 8 or 9 in the morning, and didn't leave until around 3, with a long lunch break starting sometime near 12. It wasn't so bad. There was a lot of down time while waiting to be divided up and waiting for the attorneys to ask us questions about our lives while the judge watched. I was glad that I didn't get picked for the final jury, but I part of me wanted to get picked because of the extra money. It was a battery/false imprisonment case.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

As a non-american law graduate, I always wondered why such a thing like the jury even exists. None of the people have any clue about certain corpus delicti, so how can they even "judge" the accused.

Our professor in american law basics (LLM in america) told us that the judge usually follows what the jury decided, even though he himself should judge himself. I mean since these are normal people, they have biases (lets say against black people) and so, while the accused might be innocent, the jury is convinced he commited a crime because they are biased in a way as everyone actually is.

 

[vern]

I've always wanted to serve, but I think that I'm pretty well educated and normal eliminates me from the pool quickly each time. Lawyers seem to want only the dumbest to serve on juries, from my experience being summoned.

 

[sik witted]

As an attorney who has had several jury trials, I have to say that I agree with most everything you said.

The jury selection process bites. Its my least favorite part of the process. I compare it to going to the dentist. The patient (jury pool) doesn't want to be there. The dentist (attorney/judge) doesn't want to be looking in your grubby mouth. Nobody wants to be there, but its just something you've gotta do.

You are kinda right about the "subliminal messages" thing - we can't talk about the case itself, so we try to use similar hypotheticals to get someone's likely feelings on the case and expose biases on the subject. But at the same time, good lawyers use jury selection to plant the seeds for the themes of their case. It works, if it can be done in a crafty fashion. But more often than not, it comes across as hamfisted attempt at trying to send subliminal messages.

The selection process can be entertaining if the attorney gets the jurors relaxed and talking. I try to keep things short and upbeat. But nothing is more painful than an attorney that sucks at it. They take forever and ask really dumb questions, or treat the jury like a bunch of buffoons. There is one attorney that always asks, "is anyone on this jury a racist?" I cringe everytime I hear it - who is going to jump up and say "MEEE! I AM A RACIST!!!" Its really insulting to everyone and goes nowhere besides awkward silence.

There have been interesting times where jurors say something hilarious or are completely candid about something. A good attorney that can roll with the punches can make the whole thing a decent time. But more often than not, its a sterile process with an attorney just reading off some questions from a list. I almost wish they would just draw some names out of a hat and be done with it.

As for the trial itself, I feel your pain. They are exhausting, slow and mostly boring. Say I have a witness that is going to tie a whole case together with DNA evidence. GREAT! This is going to be exciting! But then the rules of evidence come in - you've got to spend time talking about the person's qualifications, then you've got to spend time laying foundation (aka describing how they were trained, the scientific process, the tests they used, lab standards, etc.). By the time to get to the kicker - the actual result - most jurors eyes are glazed over or nodding off.

To add to the problem, we are up against "TV/Movie court" where things are quick, interesting, and to the point. If you think about it, most TV court last about 5 minutes, unless its a courtroom movie, and in that case we are seeing things happening behind the scene to motivate the viewer and get the viewer interested in the people involved. There is rarely a case where there is a "gotcha" moment or a witness cracks on the stand and admits they are a dirty, dirty liar. Most of the time, you get a nebulous scenario with mixed up facts and the jury has to sort it out. Most people come in expecting My Cousin Vinny, and end up sorely disappointed.

Again, a good attorney will use techniques to keep it interesting. But here's a dirty secret - many attorneys are not good and/or just don't "get it" when it comes to people.

Sorry for the rambling post. Let me impart some knowledge about jury duty.

#1 tip to get off a jury! GET NOTICED AND GET TALKING!

After the lawyers do their thing on jury selection, they go back and get to "strike" the jurors they DON'T want. They are thinking, "well I don't want that guy, did you hear what he said about X?" THE WORST thing you can do is just be silent because the attorney is not going to think anything about you. Those jurors don't get struck and end up sitting in the box for another couple of days for a trial.

I'm not saying to say something insane or to lie about anything. That can get you in trouble if a judge finds out you are just trying to get out of jury duty. Instead, find an angle with the case and talk about how it relates to your life. For example, if it's a criminal trial, talk about how you have cop friends, how you talk about their job and you are just tired of criminals and how most people don't get charged unless there is a good reason (if this is true). If its a civil case involving an insurance company, talk about how you hate insurance companies, how they try to get out of paying claims, and talk about a negative experience you or a family member had. (again, if true). The insurance co. attorney is going to be thinking of you like a stinky fart that needs to be wafted out of the room as quickly as possible. Just find some way to talk about an aspect of case and how it relates to you, and be honest about your biases on the subject. Don't worry if it makes you look like an ass - you aren't likely going to see these people ever again.

I've heard that a jury is really just a group of people that are too dumb to get out of jury duty. I hate that because it is really disparaging to smart people that care about the justice system and want to do a good job. But I offer this tip because the last thing I want is someone on the jury is someone that absolutely does not want to be there.

Its easy to throw your hands up and say, "The system sucks! Its fucked" but consider the alternative - just having a judge make the call on everything can be unfair and removes the "human element" from the scenario. It's an important job, and it should pay more.

Objection! Rambling Answer. Sustained! Take a seat counselor!

 

[Aureon]

Its easy to throw your hands up and say, "The system sucks! Its fucked" but consider the alternative - just having a judge make the call on everything can be unfair and removes the "human element" from the scenario. It's an important job, and it should pay more.

Like, uh, the rest of the world?

 

[TheYanger]

So after watching Making a Murderer, and we can leave discussion about that topic to the actual OT thread, I wanted to see what other people's experiences on Jury Duty were.

I was called in this year for a civil suit, pretty basic, and was fascinated by the whole process. I ended up jury foreman and I actually got stressed for a few nights about making the right decision as a lot of money was involved and it was a very fuzzy case. The things that stuck out to me most were:

1. Voir dire is a total bullshit process. The lawyers were already sending subliminal messages and prepping the potential jury members to have biases. The judge was not present during this process.
2. The actual trial is long and tiring to listen to. Listening to depositions, testimonies, expert witnesses over the course of several days is exhausting. I'm a very focused and intelligent individual and I have a hard time listening to someone drone on for 6 hours a day for a full week (granted that is some of the lawyers fault for not being engaging)
3. People just can't pay attention to a trial. One member of the jury fell asleep (c'mon lawyer keep the jury engaged). Others had no clue how to interpret certain aspects (especially code related terminology). Others were to busy trying to be human lie detectors staring at the witnesses Adams apple instead of hearing what was said (which is actually entirely acceptable method according to our judge, but still being that narrowly focused is bad).
4. Deliberations were a joke. Trying to keep, and sorry to say, some really unintelligent people on-track with the facts presented during the trial was next to impossible. Biases crept in, people compromised just to get out, people dragged it out just to get another day off work, and worst of all people just ignored the law. Not to mention, it was incredibly easy to sway people to my opinion, even being the youngest person there. I knew I could make that jury rule either way, and it bothered me a lot that I could do that. I lost sleep over it and the only solace was that my fiance told me that they put in your hands and willingly did so. Right or wrong they signed up for that.

I talked at length with some lawyer friends about this. They agreed it's an entirely flawed process and that if two parties want to take it into trial they know they are going to the mercy of a jury that may not be capable of making an intelligent decision. They had a chance to settle and are willing to go all or nothing.

My problem with this, and also my fiancee's (attorney in public sector), is that this works for civil lawsuits but for criminal lawsuits it's much easier to convince a jury to convict than to let someone go. It's much harder to settle for 14 years of jail when you are innocent than it is to cough up $30k and be on with your life in a civil suit. There's that lingering human response of "oh my god what if he did do it and I'm letting a murderer/rapist/assaulter go," and they err on the side of caution and convict someone.

My experience left me with a love/hate for the jury process. I like to feel involved, but at the same time I felt totally unequipped and inadequate to make a life altering decision for someone else. Much less so for a lot of the general populace (yes I know I sound like an ass)

My experiences were very different than yours. I've been called 3 times and gotten out due to hardship twice (The third time was last year and I was happy to get to do it as a change of pace).

1. How can the judge not be there? Is that legal? What state was this.
2. If anything I felt the amount of time in the courtroom was a lot lower than I would've liked. I feel like this is also on the judge, ours gave us constant breaks, lunch is long on top of it, etc.
3. If someone fell asleep the judge DEFINITELY should've noticed and done something about it. Didn't have this issue at all, but I will say the jury I was on was super cool and we all got along very well too.
4. Deliberations sometimes felt like beating my face into a wall, where I didn't expect that to be the case going in, but that's what happens when you've got 12 different people with different perspectives and lives. That said, nobody was intentionally drawing it out and nobody just gave in early out of desperation that I could tell. We deliberated for something like two weeks almost. Even in our most heated moments we got along well, and the jury room was comfortable with nice chairs (that helped), we would bring in cookies and donuts and coffee and such every day and even exchanged some emails after the trial, again I got along great with everyone on that jury even when our viewpoints were wildly different and I was stubbornly arguing a point (And boy, do I stubbornly argue until you understand what I'm getting at).

So aside from what I specifically felt was vastly different than what you said, I'll go into general stuff here. I thought it was a super positive experience and I was glad to be a part of the process. I think it's entirely possible another jury would've sent someone to prison for life that I didn't think deserved it, and simultaneously I felt we let someone off that did (two defendants) but I feel very good about it all the same. Making a Murderer really made me look back and think about the case I was on, which was also a murder trial, and how we let the evidence really guide us in our decision and not our feelings (We basically all thought that at least one of the guys was guilty, but the presumption of innocence relies upon us recognizing our fallibility as humans and deciding whether we could be fallible and the prosecution could possibly be as well in this case). Honestly, I wish I could've kept my notebook after the case instead of it having to be destroyed. I'm a copious note-taker and though I remember largely all of it I fear that the details are going to get muddied over time and that's a shame.

I don't know that I'd call it 'fun' (It's hard to reconcile that word when you're dealing with the lives of two individuals going forward and the gruesome murder of another), in fact...no, I would definitely not call it fun, but it was incredibly enriching and I definitely think everyone should do it at least once.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article22574901.html

EDIT: Oh, one thing I also felt very strongly about after our case was that the public defenders out there are just severely overworked and unable to put in what their clients deserve. I didn't think the defense attorneys on our case were terrible or anything, but ultimately what saved the guys from our perspective were almost entirely arguments that we thought of in the deliberation room, not what was presented in the courtroom. It's hard to believe that it's the kind of thing that the defense couldn't articulate and THAT is what scared me, our jury was great and was able to discuss these aspects of the trial intelligently and fairly with ourselves, but another jury could've just accepted everything the prosecution said despite poor evidence because the defense just wasn't picking up on the most obvious contradictions. Also even within the 3 (there was a third defendant that had a separate jury for reasons) defense attorneys, one was pretty good, one was about as charismatic but didn't do a great job at making convincing counters, and the third (the guy we weren't on the jury for, and who was found guilty within like two hours or some shit) was absolutely trash. I think almost anyone he represented would have been found guilty because he'd be hurting the case more than helping and that's a bit sad.

 

[Barrylocke]

I'd honestly be interested in taking jury duty sometime. I suppose it's inconvenient in some ways but I think it would be a good experience.

 

[Epcott]

Get notice in mail
Get pissed off at waste of time
Finally, acceptance
Have fantasy of being juror, making a difference
Anxiety until day arrives
Get lost in stupid courthouse
Find waiting room with 50 people
Sit there
Sit there and fill out stuff
Sit there another hour
Sit there
Your number is too high
They debate whether they need extras
They wonder should extras return tomorrow
Buttock clenches at thought of sitting there again
They say you're not needed after all
Go home
5-6 hours of your life wasted in a chair

Bah

 

[Woody Invincible]

I get paid my salary if I'm at jury duty, so I really wish I would get picked sometime, but I've never gotten a letter.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't mind going too much. We got free pizza. I ordered the most expensive kind of pizza, X-Large Vegetarian, and discovered how good sauerkraut is on pizza (but not anything else lol).

One of the jurors invoked my worries about the system though, because he was really dead-set on convicting a guy on all charges, even though it was pretty clear that he wasn't guilty - at least no evidently - of the crimes.

 

[TyrantII]

Sounds like it worked out well. You're exactly the person who should be on one.

 

[nabe_shogun]

I had to go once. Some guy was arrested for making ricin and home made silencers. It was pretty clear he was guilty. The whole thing took almost 2 weeks, and I ended up getting paid more than I would at my shitty job at the time.

 

[lt519]

So aside from what I specifically felt was vastly different than what you said, I'll go into general stuff here. I thought it was a super positive experience and I was glad to be a part of the process. I think it's entirely possible another jury would've sent someone to prison for life that I didn't think deserved it, and simultaneously I felt we let someone off that did (two defendants) but I feel very good about it all the same. Making a Murderer really made me look back and think about the case I was on, which was also a murder trial, and how we let the evidence really guide us in our decision and not our feelings (We basically all thought that at least one of the guys was guilty, but the presumption of innocence relies upon us recognizing our fallibility as humans and deciding whether we could be fallible and the prosecution could possibly be as well in this case). Honestly, I wish I could've kept my notebook after the case instead of it having to be destroyed. I'm a copious note-taker and though I remember largely all of it I fear that the details are going to get muddied over time and that's a shame.

1. New York state: "In most civil trials, voir dire generally is conducted by counsel outside the immediate presence of the assigned trial judge, though the judge retains discretion to remain present during any or all parts of the process. In many counties, voir dire is conducted in the assigned trial 2"
3. The judge saw it and called a break immediately after the line of questioning was done.
4. For a simple civil case we only had 6 jurors, it was much more obvious that one overbearing person could sway the whole group that just really didn't care

But re: our different experiences. I think that's the crux of it. You can get a jury that really cares with awesome lawyers that are good at keeping your attention or you can get a jury that is biased or doesn't care and lawyers who are I'll prepared to defend their client and put the jury to sleep. It's a major craphsoot and if it goes that far any case can go any way.

It's a shame for criminal cases where the stakes are so much higher it is still a crap shoot and the idea of presumption of innocence is basically gone.

Sounds like it worked out well. You're exactly the person who should be on one.

Except in the end the judge just reads you the law and then you make a decision based on the law. You still have to interpret it and apply it to the case which I felt woefully under-qualified to do. This is one of the things that bothered me the most. I felt like I was making an uniformed decision without all the details and experience I would need to make the right decision. I wanted to go back out and ask lawyers to elaborate on points or provide additional evidence, but that's not something you can do. You can ask the judge for clarification of the law, which we did a few times, but it was still confusing. In our case it wasn't as black and white as a murder charge may be. Contract law is utterly confusing and to ask jurors to apply it to a case is asking a lot.

I served on a child abuse/murder case.

It was the week before my last semester in college started, and I couldn't get them to completely dismiss me due to being called during the prior semester. Anyway, that was the most stressed out I have ever been. I didn't sleep much that week, I had two separate panic attracks. One was during the weekend right before school started and I had to move some stuff down to my apartment, but the case wasn't done, so I had to drive back (around 6 hour round trip) afterwards. During the trip back, I caved. The second time happened as I was driving back to my parants after the case was over. It was about 11:00 at night, and my tire blew on the highway. I didn't care about anything, I just wanted to get the fuck home.

Anyway, we convicted the person, and they got a life sentence. I hope I never get called again because it literally messed me up for about a year and a half.

What caused those panic attacks? The case itself or the weight of the decision? That sounds like a horrible experience but I think if I were in a jury for a murder case I'd be right there too. It is a lot of pressure if you take it seriously.

snip

Thanks for the post! I agree, a lot of people just don't want to be there, basically freely admit it and get dismissed. Nobody, judge and attorneys, want someone to be there that doesn't want to be there

But your advice didn't work for me! I didn't attempt to get out of it but when asked some voir dire questions I answered truthfully and thought for sure I'd be dismissed. I'm an engineer and the case was a contractual dispute between two engineering firms and the case was going to bring in a lot of details of the project. Also had to admit my fiance was an attorney in the same county and had worked with the judge before. Shocked I wasn't dismissed.

 

[oni_saru]

Sister was involved in a medical insurance fraud case. She was pissed because she said people let their biases get in the way when it came to the verdict for the wife and husband on trial. Everyone agreed they were guilty but when it came down to the years both would serve, majority of the jurors wanted to give the wife a lesser sentence then the husband.

Sis was not having that. Her claim was that it wasn't fair due to them both committing the same fraud. She felt both should have the same sentence. In the end, she wasn't able to convince two of the jurors and the husband still got a higher sentence.

She said that was the most frustrating part. People not thinking rationally about what was fair and just letting their emotions and biases get in the way.

 

[Dutch Microwave]

I never understood why is this even a thing in the first place.
You're asking people who are possibly and probably 9 out 10 times completely clueless about the case and how its built up,not to mention the law itself to help out those who actually do know and less likely to be biased in order to decide the fate of someone possibly for a lifetime.It's like asking random people on the street for advice on severe medical problems,sure every once in a while you may get useful answers but random Joe from grocery store wouldnt be the first person I'd turn to if I was suffering from seizures or whatever.
It just seems so illogical.

 

[TheYanger]

I never understood why is this even a thing in the first place.
You're asking people who are possibly and probably 9 out 10 times completely clueless about the case and how its built up,not to mention the law itself to help out those who actually do know and less likely to be biased in order to decide the fate of someone possibly for a lifetime.It's like asking random people on the street for advice on severe medical problems,sure every once in a while you may get useful answers but random Joe from grocery store wouldnt be the first person I'd turn to if I was suffering from seizures or whatever.
It just seems so illogical.

They're not uninformed though, it's the job of the attorneys to lead you by the hand down every logical connection. I mean you don't see it on TV but they really don't leave anything out in a trial. We had plenty of witnesses come to the stand whose sole purpose was to explain and demonstrate through evidence that the chain of custody on pieces of evidence from the crime scene were not tampered with and remained sealed, things like that. If there is blood spatter, they'll call in real life Dexter and they will come and explain EXACTLY what it means.

What would be illogical would be leaving the fate of citizens up to the exact same people that arrested you in the first place, which is how people view it when you let the judge or someone else decide. At the end of the day, nobody is unbiased, but by getting a sample group of ordinary citizens you're removing the ability for the system to be biased (in theory). It's not perfect, but nothing is, I would never give up the right to a jury trial we have here for any other setup in the world.

 

[Dutch Microwave]

They're not uninformed though, it's the job of the attorneys to lead you by the hand down every logical connection. I mean you don't see it on TV but they really don't leave anything out in a trial. We had plenty of witnesses come to the stand whose sole purpose was to explain and demonstrate through evidence that the chain of custody on pieces of evidence from the crime scene were not tampered with and remained sealed, things like that. If there is blood spatter, they'll call in real life Dexter and they will come and explain EXACTLY what it means.

Yeah I knew the case is explained to the jury but since the only requirements for the average citizen to become a jury member is to be 18 and mentally sound...well lets just say that with those criteria you end up with a lot of people who might not have the life experience,general intelligence or emotional maturity etc to make fair judgements based on the evidence they're presented with or to see through the lawyers' flavour bullshit.I sure as hell wouldnt want my fate to be (even partially) decided by for example a 19 yr old who's idea of fun consists of setting himself on fire for youtube video.

What would be illogical would be leaving the fate of citizens up to the exact same people that arrested you in the first place, which is how people view it when you let the judge or someone else decide. At the end of the day, nobody is unbiased, but by getting a sample group of ordinary citizens you're removing the ability for the system to be biased (in theory). It's not perfect, but nothing is, I would never give up the right to a jury trial we have here for any other setup in the world.

Judges,lawyers all have 5+ years of experience studying the law,witnessing the various cases,they're all better equipped and prepared for this than average citizen who as far as I know isnt actually guaranteed to be called into the courtroom.I thought lawyers basically pick the jurors from a pool based on their (perceived) gullibility,their capacity to be manipulated into picking the favored outcome which doesnt sound random to me.The whole thing is already biased from the start this way.

One other thing I see pop up from time to time is the fact that the jury duty is mandatory and some people are looking for a copout.People don't actually do this willingly,they might lose out on work,vacation time,sexy time or whatever and the chances are way higher that they might not take this as serious as they should and just wanna get it over with (a la 12 Angry men) and go home.I'm not advocating for a system that's only made up of 2 lawyers and a judge,but instead of x amount of random joes,they could get other independent but actually qualified people to chime into these trials who are less likely to be persuaded by sob stories/demonizing speeches and are more into facts.

 

[Eklesp]

I am on the list the next two months to possibly be called to a jury. I am really nervous I would have to make a serious decision that could change the rest of someone's life, or hold up a trial because I couldn't make a decision. I don't think my concience could handle that. Hopefully I can express that during any questioning that happens, before a trial.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Get notice in mail
Get pissed off at waste of time
Finally, acceptance
Have fantasy of being juror, making a difference
Anxiety until day arrives
Get lost in stupid courthouse
Find waiting room with 50 people
Sit there
Sit there and fill out stuff
Sit there another hour
Sit there
Your number is too high
They debate whether they need extras
They wonder should extras return tomorrow
Buttock clenches at thought of sitting there again
They say you're not needed after all
Go home
5-6 hours of your life wasted in a chair

Bah

Oh my god this was my exact experience on Friday, only it ended with:

"We need you all to come back on Monday."

Seriously, 6 hours of waiting, finally get in the court room, only for the judge to say "we need you to come back Monday".

We know what type of case it is, how long it will go, and I already know, from name and skin color, that the defendant is fucked.