Question about Jury Selection in general

Parent Cafe
21

<p>I’ve been called for jury duty four times in the 20 years I’ve lived at my current address. Last spring was the only time I got beyond the jury waiting room–I served on a jury for a civil case. The plaintiff was an insurance company; defendant was a municipality. The insurance company was trying to recover the money it paid out to its insured by claiming that the municipal water department had been negligent while repairing the home owner’s water meter and that behavior had led to water damage in the home. The judge gave us very specific instructions–we had three questions to answer related to the municipality’s actions and the causes of the damage.</p>

<p>I was surprised by what little thought most of my fellow jurors gave to the instructions. Basically, they wanted to vote right away and go home. If we didn’t make a decision in two hours, we’d have to return the following morning to deliberate. This seemed to be the most pressing issue for them. Another juror and I tried to get the group to focus on the questions, but we didn’t get far. </p>

<p>In the end, I didn’t disagree with the outcome of the voting–despite that no one was really discussing the issues. This wasn’t a particularly complicated case; doing what the law required was common sense. What I experienced, however, made me wonder about the outcome in cases where the issues are more complicated. What is the philosophy behind having a group of average citizens make decisions in criminal and civil cases? Why is it a good thing? I could easily make the argument that I was with a bunch of nitwits who didn’t have clue about the law and weren’t interested in following the judge’s instructions. Most were happy to have a day off and wanted to get home early. How is justice served in that situation?</p>

22

<p>I’ve known a couple of people who were called for jury duty in criminal cases. They made it to the interview process and told the court something along the lines of “I’m sorry, but I read about this in the paper, and I just think he’s guilty. I’ll try to be objective, but I really don’t see how I can be convinced.” Both people said this specifically because they felt they could not afford to take off work for the time of a trial. Both were dismissed.</p>

<p>I’ve been called many times, but have never made it to the point of being interviewed.</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>The idea is that the government cannot stack the court process too heavily in favor of itself; the “jury of one’s peers” can act as a check against an overreaching government, not be corrupted as easily as a longer term government employee, or refuse to convict when it opposes the law or application of the law (jury nullification).</p>

<p>How well it works in practice is another matter, especially with greater legal complexity, and greater complexity in the subject matter of the disputes (where opposing lawyers will try to ration out relevant information so that the jury only sees the relevant information that favors their side).</p>

24

<p>I’ve always wondered why there are not professional jurors? It’s such an important job and I too worry about the issues that Bromfield brought up. I’d rather my fate rest with people not anxious to beat the traffic.</p>

25

<p>I was in a jury pool for a criminal trial recently, and yes, they do tell you the facts of the case, or at least strongly imply them. The first thing they did was to swear us all in, and that seemed to keep people honest. They didn’t ask us if we had ever been victims of crime,instead they asked if we or someone close to us had ever been arrested and what wa the outcome. Everyone was spilling their guts; it was quite emotional. I believe that I was passed over due to getting upset by having to relay a traumatic incident that happened over 30 years ago,well before I even knew the person involved, something that never would have even occurred to me if they hadn’t asked. </p>

<p>Also, they told us that we would have to judge the case only on memory; they would not bring us transcripts. That seemed odd. They said “real life isn’t like TV!”</p>

<p>Last thing, jurors are usually numbered in some random order. The first 14 (12+2 alternates) are the defaults, and if someone is passed,then the next one becomes the default. so if you are near the end, your chances of getting picked are slimmer.</p>

26

<p>I have been called for jury duty 4 times in CT. The first time many moons ago, you had to report for 4 weeks everyday. We had to call the night before to see if you had to report to the court. If so you had to wait around to be called for a case. At the time I was self employed (they didn’t care) and my brother was a local attorney (so I was always excused). Awful. Then CT changed their jury duty law and now it is one day of service. Upon reporting to court they would hand a questionnaire asking things like do you know any of the following people…Have you been treated at (insert name) Hospital. The clerk would take them and sometimes even if you answered yes for any question, you were taken into a jury holding room and then called out together to sit in the jury box and listen to the details of the case. The defendent and counsel on both sides were present. Then the judge asks if anyone had trips scheduled or important business to attend to. I had no desire to serve as I had kids but had to wait to be voir dired hoping that the judge would excuse me. One time the judge told me to get a babysitter but I was excused when after hearing the details of the case (a defendent who did not speak English was accused of kidnapping and raping a local high school girl. He had an interpreter with him). The judge asked me some questions about how I felt about the nature of the case (rape) and could I be fair. I answered that if someone from another country is going to come to our country and kidnap and rape someone, they should at least speak the language. I didn’t really mean for it to come out that way, I meant to say I was annoyed about the translator (I figured he spoke some English). I was excused. He was later convicted.</p>

27

<p>Gosh, I have NEVER been called, and I’ve been a registered voter for 31 years. I actually wouldn’t mind serving, either.</p>

28

<p>I’ve been called for jury duty several times, and I’ve served on one murder trial, and one grand jury. Both were fascinating experiences. I will always support our jury approach, but I will never again believe that only guilty people get convicted.</p>

<p>The grand jury was a new experience for me, since you never see them portrayed on TV. I served for 2 days a week for 6 weeks, along with about 20 - 30 other people. We voted by simple majority on whether to indict or not. The suspects don’t appear, only the police. In the case of child abuse, it was a real shock - you get the child’s name, the full circumstances, and you see actual tapes of the child being interviewed. I guess it’s so you can judge the believability of the child. In rape cases, you get the full name of minors, etc. Jurors ask questions, challenge the police (“so why did it take 2 weeks to find the car he was killed in?”), and can talk among themselves all the time. In one case, the police brought in an uncooperative witness for the jurors to question. </p>

<p>We voted to indict or not to indict; but in addition, the prosecutor’s office made judgments about which cases to go forward with or not, depending on what questions we asked and how we treated the prosecutor’s case. That was a good experience, and I really had a sense that people were part of a larger institution that was an important part of our justice system.</p>

<p>The murder trial, not so much. I was shocked at the jurors’ behavior. Disregarded the law, ignored the judge’s explicit instructions, and voted based on their emotions. One juror said “well sure the evidence isn’t there for convicting on that 11th count - but if he’s guilty on the first 10, he must be guilty on 11”. Another said that of 11 counts, if we deadlocked on one count, the judge would have to throw out all 10 counts where we were unanimous on conviction, “and then this scum will go free”. </p>

<p>It was a dreadfull, disillusioning experience.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>May be easier to corrupt (bribe or threaten) a known long term juror who has something more at stake (his/her job) than one picked on the spot for the trial.</p>

30

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, don’t know if this is your situation, but the court magistrate told me they really only call in the number of jurors needed for the trials on the docket for that day, plus a buffer of alternates. He said the reason it often looks like there are so many more jurors than are needed, is that many of the tort cases settle out on the court house steps at the last moment, and the trials don’t go forward.</p>

31

<p>I was amazed at the voir dire questions that the plaintiff’s lawyer asked of the panelists. “If you could use one word to describe yourself, what would it be?” WHAT?!!! Is the next question going to be, “If you could describe yourself as an instrument in an orchestra, what would it be?”</p>

<p>One woman’s word was “victim.” She said that she felt like she’s been a victim all of her life. Like this morning, she was eating breakfast at Denny’s and asked for herbal tea. And she didn’t get it. She asked more than once, but she still didn’t get it. That’s just the way her life was. When she would be asked a question, she would mishear it and give a long rambling answer that had nothing to do with the question. Even after the judge repeated the question a few times, she would still give a goofy answer. After the lunch break, she had been outfitted with a noise amplifier and a headset–she never could get it to work properly.</p>

<p>The judge dismissed her. </p>

<p>Sometimes I wonder if that woman really had a sorry life or she was a fabulous actress…because if this is what she did to get out of jury service, she was SUPERB!</p>

32

<p>hayden,</p>

<p>They always overdo it. They do try to settle the cases before the jury gets seated but they know that some of them will always do that. In addition they call in 45-60 or more jurors to end up with 14 or so (depending on the kind of case) which seems excessive. The more they’re able to fine tune the jurors the more it ends up to be less and less of a relative random sampling of peers.</p>

<p>My study wasn’t scientific - just the result of me being bored so I decided to do a bit of quick counting and math to see how it turned out. I was a little surprised that the few times I did it the results came out pretty close to each other at roughly 18%. This was in San Diego County Superior Court (where most of the cases take place) and I assume the numbers will change with different locations and types of courts. Some people express disappointment that they didn’t get on a case but given the odds, chances are they wouldn’t.</p>

<p>In this court they call a pile of people who must all show up at the court building on the appointed day (but the day can easily be changed by the juror if desired). The jurors are obliged to stick around all day unless dismissed because they’re no longer needed for the day. Once one completes that day of hanging around they’re no longer on the hook and are excused from further service for at least a year. If they actually serve on a jury (not just called into the courtroom) they’re excused for 3 years. This is better than some of the past schemes they used. Different courts handle this obligation in different ways with the Federal courts being the worst.</p>

<p>It’d be interesting to see what the numbers are elsewhere. I suspect most courts don’t really want to disclose these numbers since it boils down to 82 people wasting their day for the sake of 18 people serving. There must be a better way.</p>

33

<p>I was called for jury duty at the county level several years ago. Went for one day, was dismissed because they did not need as many people as they had called.</p>

<p>Now I am in the pool for this next year for Federal jury duty. Will be interesting to see if I am called, and what happens.</p>

34

<p>

But that’s because there isn’t much crime in Maine - right?</p>

35

<p>I was called and was actually in the box. Made it through a full morning of questioning. Looked like I was on the jury and since it was only estimated to be a three day trial the judge wasn’t giving out many get of it passes. After a lunch break one of the lawyers said something I found ridiculous and I laughed (out loud). The lawyer started questioning me and I told him honestly I found his hyperbole ridiculous. Judge told him he couldn’t question me and that he was supposed to be questioning the new people on the panel. First chance that lawyer got he dismissed me. Apparently here in CA they don’t want an educated person with a brain who speaks English and actually has a job. Most of that jury ended up being people who could barely understand and answer basic questions. Fabulous. Good reason to keep your nose clean and not end up in a trial.</p>

36

<p>Some people have had bad jury experiences, but mine have been good thus far. The first case was a double murder. Both attorneys explained the basics of their cases to us before they starting asking us any questions. We were also given a survey with questions we would need to answers. We heard about the general situations, and I knew enough details to find information about the case online after I was dismissed and went home. I got out because it was a long case, and I needed to go back to school. </p>

<p>The second case, I actually was put on the jury. It was a prostitution case. There were a few questions about whether or not we believed prostitution should be legal, and whether police officers were trustworthy. They also asked if I had any family who worked in the legal system. When I answered (completely truthfully) that both my parents and grandmother were lawyers, but not criminal attorneys, the judge and both lawyers laughed. They asked if that would affect my ability to fairly judge the case, and I said no. The trial only lasted a day, and it was pretty clear that the defendant was guilty. I actually became the foreperson, which was surprising, given that I was the youngest on the jury. We went through all the questions, and had to convince a few jurors that just because we felt bad for the defendant didn’t mean that she wasn’t guilty. It really was a fascinating process. If you have the chance to sit on a jury at some point, do so.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>Presumably, the prosecution wanted to dismiss any who thought prostitution should be legal in order to reduce the risk of jury nullification.</p>

<p>I observed similar in jury selection for a simple possession of an illegal drug case – prosecution dismissed a potential juror who indicated favoring legalization of the illegal drug in question.</p>

38

<p>I was in the jury pool for a medical malpractice case (wasn’t seated) and then served on a jury for an attempted assault with a firearm (making it a felony case.) In the latter case, I came away from the experience very much impressed in the professionalism of my fellow jurors. </p>

<p>The case seemed so interesting at first but rapidly became boring, even repetitive. A woman and her son were accused of threatening to shoot a repo man while he was repossessing the son’s car. One of the attorneys - one of the defense attorneys, I think - must have gone to the "Law And Order School of Law’; I swear all he did was mug for the non-existant cameras in the courtroom. He was awful.</p>

<p>But the jurors were attentive, polite, and serious. Every single person took that job very seriously, even when the trial dragged on to four days (honestly, it should have been over in 2 hours.) During deliberations, the conversations were very thoughtful - everyone knew that if we found these people guilty, they were going to prison. I came away from it all thinking MORE of people, not less. And this, in a city known for crime, poverty, and poorly-educated citizens. I would have been happy to have them as MY “jury of my peers,” if it ever came down to such a thing.</p>

39

<p>I was on a jury for a DUI years ago, and it ended up being a great experience. With us was a woman who’d been a citizen for 6 weeks. She’d grown up in the USSR and had emigrated. Her first question when we were deliberating: “but the judge didn’t tell us whether or not he was guilty?” We explained: “that’s our job.” “Really? I thought that was just a pretense.” Her pride in being a real juror was immense. The rest of us were proud that it really means something, the right of trial by a jury.</p>

<p>Since then I was empaneled for another jury. All the questions were gone through and I was still there. The judge asked if anyone had any reason to think they couldn’t be fair. I raised my hand and said that I’d been a victim of a similar crime (my car had been broken into) a year before and that just hearing about the case had made me once again angry and frustrated. I was dismissed.</p>

40

<p>I have sat on juries in both NYC and NJ, and in both cases we were not allowed to take notes. </p>

<p>The process has changed a lot, in NYC I believe you still have to go in, but if you don’t get picked for a case, you are released after 1 day (it is 1day-1 trial). In NJ you now call in the day before, and if your number is chosen you go in. I believe with NJ you are there for a couple of days these days, and if you aren’t put on a jury, you are called.</p>

<p>In answer to the question about getting on a jury/not getting on, it depends on the case and the lawyers. Lawyers profile jurors, based on their background, and they make generalized assumptions about who someone is (questions are designed to further test their ideas of jurors). For example, years ago I got empaneled on a murder case in the Bronx, and we had a really interesting panel, for the makeup of typical Bronx panels, quite a few white collar types, techies, etc (the judge was even surprised, said it was an interesting bunch). On a major criminal case like that, the defense and prosecution in NY have I believe 20 preemptory challenges (sorry if I spelled it wrong), which basically means they can reject up to 20 people without saying why. Well, anyway, of the 13 on the panel I was on, 12 got chucked, only a retired lady was put on the jury.
A guy I made friends with on the jury and I ran into the court officer, and while he couldn’t tell us details, he said the prosecutor had used up most of his challenges…with the implications were were thrown off by the prosecutor.</p>

<p>Why? I learned later, from relatives who had been da’s, that they assume that younger, better educated people tend to be sympathetic towards the defense, more liberal, whatever, so that is probably what happened. </p>

<p>They are a lot better with treating jurors, but it isn’t like on TV. either. I was on a crack buy and buy case (over a 5 buck vial of crack), undercover cop bought from the defendent, they id’ed the item as crack, you name it. Keep in mind this was a routine bust of a low level dealer and it had happened a while before (amazing it even came to trial). </p>

<p>Well, the jury decided to play perry mason, wanting to know why the cop wasn’t wearing a wire, how it smelled like a setup, and so forth (over a 5 dollar case where the guy would likely get time served)…eventually, the guy got off, because a number of people, including myself, weren’t going to hang a jury over a case like this. I know it sounds horrible, but that is the reality, that sometimes verdicts happen because Jurors don’t want to waste time on something that probably shouldn’t have gone to trial.</p>

<p>The hardest case I was on was a civil case and it showed me why often juries come up with what people see as ridiculous awards. We had a good panel, bunch of bright, insiteful people. Basic case was woman was at a stop sign, had started moving, and then suddenly stopped and the person behind her bumped into her, and was claiming all kinds of things, rotator cuff, damaged neck, you name it, hubby was claiming loss of marital rights, etc. The woman was obviously not well off, she worked as office manager for a law firm (her boss was doing the case), she was older ,not in good health, and it was pretty pathetic. at one point, she was talking about how she wouldn’t be able to play ball with her grandchildren (we found out said children were 17 and 18, living with their mother with the family), how she had to keep the house clean and couldn’t , and so forth…in the jury deliberations, we figured she probably saw this as a chance to college a decent payday from insurance and be able to retire finally…</p>

<p>Problem was, this was a really low speed impact (women was pulling out from a store, was in a buick regal, not exactly a corvette), the damage to the car was minor (the bill was like 200 bucks, which is nothing), and more importantly the plaintiff didn’t complain or ask for medical attention at the scene…and the woman who hit her was older, too, not exactly a boy racer…we had trouble with proximal cause, what we suspected was that the woman’s rotator cuff might have been caused down the road by having a stiff neck from the accident and reaching the wrong way, but when we tried to get a reading whether that could be considered proximal cause, all the judge could do was read the law (which wasn’t helpful). We basically all felt like she probably hurt her shoulder later on, but there was no way for us to know if that could be considered proximal cause (also wasn’t brought up that way by the plaintiff’s attorney, they claimed she was hurt in the accident, which the paid medical consultants argued was/wasn’t caused by the accident)</p>

<p>More importantly, what stank was there were absolutely no guidelines in terms of compensation for an injury agreed upon, the neck injury was accepted by the defendant as caused by the accident up front, so that was all we ultimately tried to decide. Problem was, how do you decide what the right value for an arthritic neck is? We were left to ourselves, and muddled through (I think we came up with a low figure, somewhere like 15k, based on her claim she needed help around the house, and we tried to figure out what having someone come in once a week or something would cost for X years). Without guidelines, Juries are left to their own devices, and that is ridiculous. Yeah, judges routinely overturn verdicts and so forth, but my point is, Jurors need better guidance on things.</p>

<p>In terms of the Kaycee case, I can understand why the jury would vote as they did. The prosecution spent most of its time it seems from what I read trying to paint the mother as some sort of uncaring monster, and having been on a jury you are supposed to weigh real evidence, not convict someone because they are less then sympathetic. From what I read of the evidence, it sounds like the prosecution case was basically the mom lied and covered up the death, and they had no evidence that the girl died as they claimed, basically being suffocated, they had no direct forensic evidence that the mom killed the girl versus her drowning, and the burden of proof has to be upon the prosecution. I feel for the people on that jury, this wasn’t the OJ Simpson jury that seemed to have some people intent on seeing him as a victim or who couldn’t tell dna evidence from blood type, it sounds like they simply couldn’t find enough direct evidence to be able to convict. I think they acted a lot better then those criticizing them, or the prosecutors who I suspect thought they had a slam dunk case and then were surprised their grandstanding didn’t sway the jury.</p>