<p>it is a waste of time. if you can believe it, i was called in a WEEK before i was to move into college my first year. needless to say, i got out of it in voir doir. if i didnt, well, i would have missed welcome week.</p>
<p>but as a warning dont use voir doir to make outlandish statements like all lawyers should be killed. you must respectfully disagree with the case so lawyers think you’re biased, but not just trying to get out of it.</p>
<p>Sorry to those folks who feel inconvenienced, but I feel that literally, jury duty is an obligation, one that keeps this country from becoming like an old Eastern bloc state when it comes to justice. Do you want your fate to be determined by the common man and woman, or by the Stasi?</p>
<p>I was the foreman of a jury in a trial that was truly stranger than fiction. If someone had written this script for a TV show, it would have been rejected as not believable.</p>
<p>The defendent was charged with seven felonies, including attempted murder, kidnapping, attempted rape etc. He had tried to kill and rape a female university student in his own home, while his two minor children and his male live-in lover were asleep in their bedrooms. Oh, did I mention that he was a male model who just happened to be on the cover of Playgirl that month (it was passed around the jury box as evidence)?</p>
<p>He took the stand and charged that the woman had tried to kill HIM. Very scary guy.</p>
<p>When we came in with our verdict, he was surrounded by law enforcement, who told us later that they didn’t want him tearing up the courtroom like he did at his last trial. He had just been released from federal prison for bank robbery (which we didn’t know) and he had also been tried for a similar crime against a woman in another state (he was found not guilty).</p>
<p>We found him guilty on each count and I was outraged when the clerk read my name aloud seven times as the jury foreman who had signed the papers.</p>
<p>I found out a few years ago that his 27 year sentence and conviction had been overturned because of a technical issue in the jury instructions. Fortunately, he was re-tried, convicted again and is in prison.</p>
<p>this is pretty funny
guess what was in the mail today?
Yep a Jury summons- not for me or my husband but for my daughter, who is not a Wa resident- since she has graduated, and votes and is registered to drive in Oregon
;)</p>
<p>The US system actually does do more damage to America than you know.
Reasons followed.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Often jurors come from the uneducated, idle masses. Those who hold critical roles in the companies they work for often got out of serving because they have important project goals to deliver or are in management, can dodge by deliberately answering questions the wrong way, or acting nonchalantly. It’s easy to get off. </p></li>
<li><p>Jurors are often askewed toward the little guy. Little guy slipped and fell in the parking lot of big company. Little guy lawyer sees big $ from big company. They don’t think about what really makes a company. The individuals who make up a corporation are each by themselves little guys or girls too. Okay maybe except a few excess at the top. Your huge jury award will come at the expense of hard-working folks inside the company who may be dued for salary adjustments, and the company will have to add costs to the products they sell.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>To summarize: </p>
<p>our daily lives and costs we have to paid are determined mostly by the under-educated, idle masses. What’s the solution. Maybe abolish the jury system and put in-place professional jurists who are legally trained, highly-screened and whose decisions are constantly reviewed in terms of fairness, and compliance with the judicial codes. In fact lets have a panel that reviews the jury descions so jurors themselves are “tried”. Only those capable of rendering a balanced, unbias decision remain. The blantant failure of the OJ trial is a prime example. One juror even went so far as publically ( foolishly and obvious lacking education or guidance ) declared that whats the big deal of a couple of dead whites (even if OJ did it ). “We” had been persecuted by “them” or so long.</p>
<p>edvest1</p>
<p>“Often jurors come from the uneducated, idle masses”</p>
<p>This has not been my experience. In November I was once again called for jury duty and over 100 of us sat in the courtroom while the jury was picked from our pool. The judge made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he had heard every excuse in the book and was not about to listen to more of them. He even chastised people when it was obvious they were trying to get off. The group that was finally chosen included a physician, a lawyer, a research scientist, and a nurse.</p>
<p>Edvest:</p>
<p>So the jury pool is made up of the uneducated and idle and your proposed solution is to abolish the jury system? What about making sure that the educated and oh-so-important folks stop shirking their duty? Seems to me a more logical conclusion to be drawn from your description.</p>
<p>Are you from a small town or in middle America? While living in several large metropolis all the jury selections I have been to, the ones who stayed on were mostly people who were bored with their jobs, or receiving aids.</p>
<p>
One case I was empaneled on (but didn’t end up on the jury of) concerned a kindly little old lady who slipped on liquid on the floor at a mall and was suing the mall. The mall’s lawyer asked the question of the jurors - even if it’s determined that the mall had no way to mitigate the problem (i.e. the drink was spilled 30 seconds prior to the lady slipping) and the mall was clearly not at fault, would you find against them anyway because the mall is a big company with plenty of money and with insurance and this is a nice elderly lady? One juror stated that she would find against the mall because they have money and this is a nice elderly lady even if it’s clear that the mall isn’t at fault. I was surpised anyone could admit to this. Surprisingly, even after further questioning of that juror in this area, the mall’s lawyer didn’t eject her! The lawyers on this board may know why but I was surprised.</p>
<p>
Maybe this is true in some areas but in the courts I’ve been called to people in these positions (which includes me) definitely are not excused from being empaneled. Once empaneled and being questioned by the lawyers it might be possible to be dismissed by ones responses. The couple of times I’ve been in that situation I’ve been ejected although neither time did I state anything at all contrary and in one case, based on the questions asked, I thought I sounded much more ideal than other potential jurors due to the nature of the case (physical injury civil suit) but I was ejected almost immediately anyway. My assumption so far is that it might be because they don’t like the fact that I’m an engineer type.</p>
<p>The majority of jurors in every case I have tried had a college degree. As an appellate lawyer I have seen cases where the jurors have picked up on inconsistencies in the jury instructions which the judge and lawyers missed. Most are biased against anyone suing anyone else for money for an injury, due to the constant din of “frivolous litigation” propaganda Edvest so faithfully parrots, but other than that, they show a lot of common sense, as a group. Overall, the “wisdom of crowds” seems to work; in my experience jury verdicts are generally just - even when they have found against me.</p>
<p>Edvest’s proposals would lead to tyranny - plain and simple. Who is going to decide what decisions constitute “fairness” by his professional jurors? Duh. </p>
<p>Edvest cites one case out of the hundreds of thousands decided every year - demonstrating the depth of research appropriate to the opinion - and decides the system is corrupt. Baloney. I’ll take a jury of 12 peers any day to decide my fate, whether it be financial, penal or otherwise, over a single cranky old man. But then - I actually have experience in the system, which is a handicap when discussing “theory.”</p>
<p>edvest:</p>
<p>So? The ones who stayed on… Make those who did not stay on stay. And keep the jury system.</p>
<p>
In the court I went to, I don’t think the juries ended up consisting of just the unimportant and uneducated and I really don’t think there was any shirking. There is, however, a bit of a bias in this particular court system - to avoid financial hardship for jurors, they don’t require a juror to server greater than the number of days their employer will pay them for (if over 5 days). Many employers won’t pay for over 10 days so those people will end up on cases likely to not take greater than 10 days. People with no financial hardship excuses like this will be more likely to end up on the longer cases. One interesting point is that government employees (fed, state, local) apparently get paid by their employer for as long as it takes to complete the duty. This means that the people likely to end up on the long cases are government employees, retired people, and people otherwise unencumbered by having to earn a living. This isn’t an outlandish bias but it’s some bias nonetheless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCSDdad: I agree there is some bias in the jury selection system. I was responding to Edvest’s post quoted above. The solution to people “deliberately answering questions the wrong way” to get off is not to abandon the jury system. Who would monitor the “professional jurists” to make sure that they remain competent, honest, and (relatively) free from bias? I was on a jury and I could see that we balanced one another in our experiences and our biases.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that I was one of the people who relayed a story of the jury system seemingly abused by a small claims case that could have/should have been resolved in some other fashion BUT, I have to take exception with this remark.
The people who were in the jury pool were a cross-section of the residents of our county, including retired people, welfare recipients, students, businessmen, secretaries, attorneys and a female orthopedist. I really thought they decided wisely and temperately.
There are many forms of wisdom, and I think one of the strengths of our system is the “wisdom of the people” justice tempered with mercy that comes from wide experience.
I was put out by the amount of time the case took, and the expense of the court and attorneys and participants, etc, for a case in which there was essentially no contest, just a matter of deciding what was fair to pay this woman.
I wonder about the fairness of the system at the other end of the spectrum - highly technical cases like some medical malpractice, personal injury and financial cases. As awful as murder or robbery would be, I think I would hate worse being on one of these highly technical cases - being an MD, I won’t be sitting on any of those anyway.</p>
<p>marite: I was reinforcing the point that I don’t think juries actually are filled with dullards and those who couldn’t dream up a good lie to get out of it. I wouldn’t lie no matter how badly I might wish to not serve. I also think that many, once actually in a courtroom before a judge, won’t resort to lying to get out of the duty despite their bravado in casual conversations (but I suppose some would). I think they generally do end up to be a mix of the population which would include the unbiased, the biased, the brilliant, and the not so brilliant. And yes, there will sometimes be jurors who really should not be there due to their extreme bias. We can only hope most of them are culled in the ejection process.</p>
<p>The primary point I was trying to make on this thread is not to abolish the entire jury system but rather to make it more efficient. I threw a few ideas out including some that other countries already follow. For example, civil cases consume a lot of the jurors so if we could find a way to decrease the number of civil lawsuits entitled to jury trials (by using a panel of judges, magistrates, enforce arbitration, etc.) far fewer jurors would be needed leaving them more available to the criminal cases. If cases were required to be settled at some reasonable date (a couple of weeks) prior to the court date when jurors are needed or else the case definitely will go forward, then maybe we could avoid the last second pleas/settlements and the wasted day for the potential jurors who never actually end up serving on a jury. I’m sure there are many more productive ideas that could improve the situation without resorting to abolishing the whole system.</p>
<p>Edvest:
“Are you from a small town or in middle America?”</p>
<p>If you were asking me this question, the answer is that I live in the same county that sent Scott Peterson to San Quentin’s death row.</p>
<p>Those fair,balanced juries filled with “wisdom” of the people, in what major metroplitan centers do you find them ?</p>
<p>Scott Peterson is an idiot lamebrain who should be convicted by even the least competent jury.</p>
<p>Two days causes compliants ? Ha, piece of cake. I was called to serve on a grand jury - 2 or 3 days each week for 6 weeks. However, there was no sitting around, since the 25 or so of us heard case after case all day long. But the cases were all murder and sexual assaults against minors. So I can’t say there was any boredom involved. We were treated very respectfully and courteously by all concerned, and the judge even invited us into the courtroom at one point to see if we had any questions about the process or the judicial system in general. I was impressed by how seriously and thoughtful all the jurors were.</p>
<p>Some people complained about the length of time involved. But I was thinking of how many national guardsmen we have in Iraq. They’re not thrilled to be there, probably, but they do the duty they’re called to do. I am sappy enough to think that a few days every few years is a pretty small cost for having a government by the people and for the people. Sounds pretty trite I guess, but there it is.</p>
<p>
Hayden - I’m actually whining about only ‘one’ day! </p>
<p>My major gripe though is that it was a day of doing nothing. It wasn’t a day of serving on a jury or grand jury or doing anything at all other than reading my book and pacing the floor.</p>