Who has been on a jury?

Just curious to find out who else around here has served on a jury, and what you thought of the experience.

I was on a jury when I lived in FL. A young adult male was on trial - he was accused of assaulting a police officer. We found him not guilty as we did not feel the state proved it's case.

The dynamics in the jury room were very interesting, and I can't imagine how magnified things would be in a murder case. There were people who were ready to judge him guilty just because he was a young hispanic male and "looked like a punk." There were other people who went with the majority no matter what, just to get out of there. It took a LOT of effort to get the group focused on the judges instructions, and just stick to the evidence and witness testimony presented during the trial. And this trial only lasted one day.

I can't imagine how crazy things must get amongst jurors during a very long trial, and especially one where life and death are involved.

It scares the daylights out of me to ever imagine being on trial for something in front of a "jury of my peers."

Anyone else??

DG

I agree with you that jury system is very imperfect. In fact, while we tend to think of it as the only system out there, many countries do not use it; rather they have either one or several judges deciding the case. Also, in the US judges rarely overturn the jury's verdict (I can only recall one such case in recent memory); when they do, it's usually to send someone free. In many countries, it's far more acceptable for the judge to even overturn the "not guilty" verdict by the jury.

The one real advantage of the jury system is that it is somewhat impartial. It is harder to bribe (bribing one juror may result in a hung jury, but the whole process is much harder than bribing a judge); it also does not have to run for re-election. Finally, a jury may choose to ignore the law, as it did repeatedly in Dr. Kevorkian cases. This is good, as it ensures that people will not be convicted based on the outdated out-of-touch-with-reality laws.

I've been on three juries.

First case was a guy who was arrested for having a concealed weapon on him (a gun) and he was a convicted felon. We found him guilty. He tried to say he was set up (claimed police set him up...like O.J.). We felt bad for him because we thought he was trying to turn his life around, but we couldn't help but find him guilty.

Second case was a civil case...car accident...a rear end accident where the one side claimed they had to have physical therapy etc. We found the guy not guilty or not liable. I voted that he was the cause of the accident, but that part went 10 to 2 (you only need a majority in a civil case). We were unanimous in the part where he didn't need to pay the other party anything. He was a real creep though, but we had to follow the law. We deliberated for what felt like 15 minutes!

Third case was just last year. The guy was on trial for leaving his son in the car alone and for resisting arrest. We found him guilty of resisting arrest (pretty obvious), but not guilty of child endangerment. I was the last holdout on the not guilty part. I felt he was guilty, but his argument was that his wife was in the car and then left to meet him...meaning really that the wife was guilty. I still am bitter...not with our verdict, but with one juror who basically said "I'm not changing my mind no matter what". And then when I finally said I'd give the guy the doubt...he said sarcastically "what a champ you are". Ugh! He made me so mad, but I'm such a quiet person. I really surprised myself in speaking my mind and holding out like I did because I am so shy, but I took this very seriously and I think most jurors are very serious. I agree that it's surprising what people say in the jury room. Some people were put off my the prosecuting attorney who kept saying "just use your common sense". They thought it made it sound like we were dumb. Others will say things like "I know they told us to disregard this, but..."

I've been called for jury selection many times. I know how to answer the questions to make sure they wont pick me, but sometimes, I guess, I slip up or they are wise to me. I've sat on civil and criminal cases and fought like hell for the defendants rights.

Joe

Ive never been on one, being only 16. Id love to though. All that interests me. I dont want to be a lawyer or anything, but doing the whole jury thing just once would be kinda neat.

I was on one in Portland about 2 1/2 years ago. It was a DUI case. The man on trial was about 70 years old and apparently had various health problems which his defense attorney claimed could have made him appear drunk tho he was in fact not. We voted him guilty; it didn't help that the defense attorney never put him on the stand.

I remember that the prosecutor looked like Renee Zellweger and the defense attorney looked like Ellen DeGeneres, which gave me the impression that I was actually an extra in a very bizarrely cast movie. And though we voted her client guilty, we pretty much all agreed that the defense attorney did an absolutely fantastic job, and we were tempted to ask her for her business card in the event we were ever in any kind of trouble. (She made a great case, there were just too many other variables floating around).

Though I found it to be a very interesting experience, I was rather annoyed about it at the time. I had already put jury duty off once (got the letter-from-work thing) and then I got called again like one week after I'd taken a 2-month leave of absence, which was after I'd had to go on an abbreviated schedule due to a family crisis. I'm surprised I didn't get fired for never being there! Then to top it off, not only do I get selected, we were deadlocked at the end of the first day, so had to go back the next day. Total pain in the butt, but in retrospect, it was a very interesting experience and I'm glad I did it.

I've sat on 4 juries & been excused from a 5th. Let's see if I can quickly summarize. One was a felony theft, another assault & battery, 3rd was a dwi that was being contested because the man was actually at home when he was arrested after leaving his vehicle parked at the side of a road...interesting case. The 4th was a shooting. A man walked uninvited, unannounced into his neighbor's house & was shot twice for his trouble. The defendent was declared not guilty of aggravated assault. The reasoning (here in Mt.) was you have a perfect right to protect yourself & your property from any intruder, even tho you know them & that they are unarmed & not being aggressive, angry or irrational.
The 5th case that I was excused from was because I had had a personal confrontation with the defendent & would have gladly convicted him of anything...even sneezing in a public place!!!. The felony theft trial resulted in a guilty charge, the other 3 were not guilty.

merrywidow said:

The 4th was a shooting. A man walked uninvited, unannounced into his neighbor's house & was shot twice for his trouble. The defendent was declared not guilty of aggravated assault. The reasoning (here in Mt.) was you have a perfect right to protect yourself & your property from any intruder, even tho you know them & that they are unarmed & not being aggressive, angry or irrational.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, odd case... I am glad that on this point the liberal Massachusetts actual has tougher laws...

I agree Ptichka. I was the only one on the jury who found it strange to sit in your house with your front door unlocked & with a loaded gun at your side. I went along with the not guilty because I tho't there was a lot more to this story than we were being told...like a drug deal gone bad & also, because every man on this jury believed he had a right to shoot anyone entering his home uninvited. And they were emphatic about it! The other 2 women never spoke a word. I'm originally from N.J. so my opinion was "shot " down quickly. This happened about 10 yrs ago & it was very much a feeling that I had that the Old West is still alive. If it would have resulted in a death or crippling I would have stood my ground & let it be a hung jury but the man was hit in the shoulder & arm, as I recall.

I've only been called for jury duty twice. The first time was a civil case. We sat around for quite a while, but the parties agreed to settle right on the court house steps, just before the trial began, leaving the whole jury partially annoyed, but partially happy that they were released from jury duty for the next three years.

The second time was a young man, about 19, who was imprisoned at Greenhaven in upstate NY (a very tought prison). He was on trial for having a homemade knife, which is a violation of prison rules. They asked the jury a bunch of questions. I got out of it because my father was murdered with a homemade knife out in his Christmas tree farm. After that, neither the prosecution nor the defense wanted me on that jury. And so another 3 years free from jury duty.

There is an old saying: your fate will be decided by 12 people who were unable to figure out how to get out of jury duty.

Now that I am retired, I wouldn't mind serving, but I couldn't do a murder case, nor would I want to.

Interesting experiences!!

Doris, excellent saying about fate being decided by the 12 who couldn't figure a way out of it.

Merrywidow, interesting that in Montana (at least at the time you served) that the law favored the protection of the home so strongly. Some communities here in the Chicago area have gone extreme in the opposite direction. There is an upscale community where they passed a local law that nobody can own a handgun. A burgular broke into a house, and the homeowner defended his property with a hand gun. The homeowner is being prosecuted for that. Yes, he broke the law, but I really question laws in opposite extremes where you can't take reasonable measures to protect your home and family from intruders.

I often wonder if I would end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit if a robber got in here and got bit by my dogs.

Back to juries....overall it just seems hard to follow judges instructions, and NOT consider things that are supposed to be ignored, like a defendent not testifying, like statements that are stricken from the record, etc.

DG

I've never been on a jury; my husband has been called down to the courthouse about 3-4 times and ALWAYS gets dismissed. I once asked an attorney friend why he keeps getting dismissed by one attorney or the other, and she said that whoever has the weaker case is dismissing him because he's a computer/engineer/analytical type and will not be swayed by emotion.

Now I ask you, does this look like the face of someone who would not be swayed by emotion?

DORISPULASKI said:

I got out of it because my father was murdered with a homemade knife out in his Christmas tree farm.

Click to expand...

How absolutely HORRIBLE! It must have been very painful for you to even be called for that case.

RG,

Which one? Hubby or Maddy?

I have. It was for a drunk driving case. The defendent hit another car in an intersection. We found the guy guilty because we had a mechanical engineer among our group who used his knowledge to figure out which directions the cars were coming, how they hit each other, and how they ended up in their ending positions that were in the photographs. The case itself was dead boring. I fell asleep on some days. It was so boring.

Johio, good question!

My stepmother was on a jury once. I can't remember if the fellow was injured in a car accident or on the job. Anyhow, he was the plaintiff and they defense was claiming he wasn't really that hurt even though he appeared to be so--in other words, they were claiming he was faking it. As it happened, one day she saw him somewhere other than in the courtroom, he appeared to be totally alone and there was no way that he saw her, and she said she could see that he was clearly in a lot of pain. She managed to sway all remaining 11 jurors that he deserved the money. She said that he was obviously so incredibly grateful by the outcome that it was clear that justice had been done. Sometimes there is such a thing as providence.

I got sucked into it about 2 years ago. I got called into selection for 2 juries but was dismissed from both - one was drug related and the other robbery related. I thought I was going to get out of it since it was nearing the end of the day. Then they brought us back in at 4PM and I was on a jury.

it was a Motor Vehicle Accident that had happened about 3 years beforehand. The driver had already admitted guilt in the criminal proceedings and did not appear in court. The woman who was hit was a passenger in her friend's car and was trying to get money for physical hard ship due to the back injury suffered in the accident. She wasn't disabled, but she said she had lots of back pain.

The burden of proof was on her lawyer to prove that the accident was the cause of the injury. Both sides brought in medical experts. We got the case after an afternoon and early afternoon court sessions. Initially, some people wanted to give the girl some money because we agreed that the accident might have caused the injury. There were also several people who felt strongly that she shouldn't get anything.

After sleeping on it, everyone pretty much agreed that her lawyer did not prove that the accident was the cause. The woman had been an athlete and had a child at the time of the accident - we thought it was possible that the back injury could have resulted from wear & tear or lifting her daughter. She also did not seek out immediate medical attention and did not follow up with PT appointments because it was inconvenient with her schedule. So, we awarded her $0.

What I thought was funniest was her appearance. During jury selection, she was dressed in colors that complemented her. On the day she testified, she dressed in a frumpy suit that made her skin look sallow. On the last day, she was back to dressing well.

I disagree about the jury being made up of 12 people who couldn't figure out how to be excused. I believe it is everyone's civic duty to serve if called unless you have a legitimate excuse. Your employer has to let you have the time off. I turned my jury duty check in to my employer & he paid me my regular salary. It's a very informative way to learn how jury decisions are made & how our laws work. You may be called for jury duty but that doesn't mean you are going to be selected to be on the jury. I will say, tho, that I felt after having been called 5 times & selected 5 times that I had more than done my civic duty.

I was assigned to a civil case. The person whose car was hit was suing for physical injury, and the "hitter's" insurance company was contesting the claim. (Fault had already been determined to be the "hitter's.") It was a few years ago, in the first season of Survivor, and my impression of the jury room was that over half the jury members were treating the trial like reality TV, at home, deciding whom to vote off the island. Despite admonitions not to discuss the case among ourselves until the trial was over, it was clear that three men, who had been hanging together, were already in synch. It is possible that they spoke only theoretically enough to identify that they were three peas in a pod, but I think this unlikely, since they seemed to finish each other's sentences and wanted a quick decision with little discussion, so they could go home.

There was juror on the jury sitting next to me who I knew would never find in favor of the person suing, once this person's mother appeared on the stand. (It was clear from the complete change in body language and facial expression.) Another juror inexplicably was not exempted from the jury by the litigant's attorney despite the assertion during jury selection that s/he did not believe that anyone had the right to sue, and that people should take responsibility for what happened to them. I found that only two or three people were willing to view the case based on facts and evidence, because the rest "knew" each person's motives. I thought the defendent in the case far more sympathetic than the person suing, but that wasn't the point -- very nice people can be at fault and do damage, and it was our job to determine if damage had been done and what compensation should be. IMO justice isn't justice if it's only applied to pretty people.

I was appalled by the process. If this was a group of my peers, I know if I am ever in trouble, I could not count on them to be impartial, analytical, or committed to much more than getting home early. What is frightening is that none of them made the connection that if they had been in the same situation, they would have been subject to the same derisive, superficial treatment.

So, Hockeyfan, what was the final outcome of your case?