<p>I didn’t mean it was a pure dichotomy–there are both types of fiction in both countries, obviously–just that there seems, anecdotally, to be different distributions. How many cop/law enforcement TV shows do you see in the US versus defense attorney TV shows? And there’s always the well-worn trope that getting a lawyer=guilty in them, too. I’m not saying either justice system is necessarily better–I’m not at all qualified to even attempt to make such a statement–but that I just find the media difference interesting.</p>
<p>I wish under our system that potential jurors were not so inclined to try to get out of jury duty, or to be dismissed for various reasons by the lawyers. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like the jury had two brain cells among them.</p>
<p>If you want better jurors, increase compensation.</p>
<p>I’ve tried dozens of jury cases, and read the transcripts of hundreds more. My opinion is that juries are - collectively - actually quite smart, although undeniably pro-prosecution in criminal cases.</p>
<p>Given a choice between having my own freedom or finances judged by others I’d take a jury over a judge every time. But I agree with BCCEagle - jurors should receive better compensation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, as my high school history teacher put it: “It’s always preferable to have 12 people arguing over you.”</p>
<p>I showed up for my jury duty on New years eve of last year, despite having to walk w a cane & despite knowing that I got up at 6am to sit and wait all day.
I was wrong, I only had to sit & wait until lunchtime, then they told us we were dismissed for the year.
There was plenty of people BTW, I think most people take the jury assignment seriously even though the stipend hadnt increased since Roosevelt was president.</p>
<p>I would love to do jury duty (as long as it wasn’t a sad and horrific case). My company pays us as if we’re working, so the stipend doesn’t really matter. If you had to give up pay for as long as it takes for a small stipend, that would be very painful for most. I suspect the lawyer for the defense would get me removed as soon as possible, though I’m very fair minded.</p>
<p>King County may be getting better turnout now that they assign you to courthouse by your home.
When my mother had jury duty, she had to go to Kent.
Im sure they could take the $10 a day and make better use of it, that wouldnt even get you a decent lunch most places around the courthouse.</p>
<p>Jeez, all the way to Kent? In rush hour, that could cost you $10 in gas money just to get there. That is odd that they didn’t use to assign you the nearest courthouse. Seems like a no brainer to get people to show up!</p>
<p>i was a juror, which surprised me because I am an attorney. The retired fire chief had me elected foreperson as well. The case was pretty straight forward and took much longer to try than it should have so it stretched out for an entire week instead of a day and a half. The jurors took a straw poll before lunch and when we were not unanimous, we ordered lunch, discussed the case a bit and then voted again. We were again not unanimous and the one person who didn’t vote to acquit said, “The D did SOMETHING.” We said, “That is not what we’re being asked to determine. We are being asked to determine if the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the elements charged against D.” We voted a third time and were unanimous to acquit. The jurors took their job seriously and were puzzled at all the breaks the judge called for in the case, which broke things up and made everyone return for many days.</p>
<p>All the judges and attorneys I know agree that generally, they have great respect for jurors who generally reach reasonable verdicts and are very dedicated to do their best job.</p>
<p>I also didn’t want to handle any grisly cases, but the assault and battery case we deliberated was fairly low key. I agree it would be good if there is better compensation for jurors and employers try to give them their regular wages (or at least a portion) when they have to go to jury duty. Some employers will give 100% of their regular wages.</p>
<p>Locals might be tainted by knowledge of the case.</p>
<p>Totally random, but my friend saw Amanda at Qdoba and she and her dad were silently freaking out, and her younger sister didn’t know who she was and almost asked for an autograph!</p>
<p>“Locals might be tainted by knowledge of the case”</p>
<p>And locals here might be swayed by what we’ve heard about Amanda. We are more apt to believe she’s innocent, based on hearing what a sweet, kind, generous girl she is. Hard to believe she’s a crazed killer, with all that innocent joyfulness going on.</p>
<p>The original case tainted the locals against her, with things that we would find unfathomable over here. That the police would lie and tell her she had HIV…and needed to list her sexual partners, and then release the information to the newspapers. That Italians would be convinced she was a sexual deviant because she brought along a joke sex toy that a friend had given her. I don’t think she’s have a remotely fair chance in Italy, with all the lies and garbage that has been said about her.</p>
<p>You’d think that the fact that the case was thrown out already, based upon the evidence being all tainted, either unintentionally or INTENTIONALLY, would be the end of it.</p>