Jury Duty questionaire

[Musketeer]

What if I refuse to answer those questions and plead the 5th?

One has nothing to do with the other. Your right not to be forced to incriminate yourself has exactly WHAT to do with filling out a jury survey? Unless they are asking you things that can get you imprisoned there is no chance of incrimination.

Don't piss off the judge, do your duty and answer the question.

 

[rwilson452]

most of the time at some point in the process they ask if jury duty would pose an undue financial hardship, if so why. I have seen people who are self employed get off. one time it seems a couple were called at the same time. he was the principle at a school and she was a teacher at the same school. the judge gave them the choice of which one would stay. I don't know if the lady was selected or not as I was turned loose before she came up. I Have been called to jury duty several times but never selected. The last time was for a federal trial they pay $48 a day plus mileage, as I recall. Yes showing up for selection counts.

 

[Musketeer]

But my point was that I don't believe in our jury system, it was once a great idea but I think that time has past. England doesn't use it, neither do most countries, but they live relatively peaceful too so I don't buy it.

England also confiscated civilian arms, should we follow their lead?

That you do not BELIEVE in our jury system means NOTHING. That you are required to support to within reason does. If for some valid reason you cannot do so, say you own your own business and are the only/primary employee and breadwinner for the family explain it to the judge. Contrary to what you may think they do not want to harm you by making you a juror.

 

[Musketeer]

The last time was for a federal trial they pay $48 a day plus mileage, as I recall. Yes showing up for selection counts.

On that point I do have an issue. Requiring people to work for less than minimum wage should be illegal, even for the gov't. If you can serve do so. Many companies pay for a set amount of days.

 

[grymster2007]

Don't lie on the questionnaire and don't whine about the inconvenience or the pay. Just go serve and do so honestly and with a sense of duty.

And try to enjoy the experience as far as that is possible.

 

[JaserST4]

most of the time at some point in the process they ask if jury duty would pose an undue financial hardship, if so why. I have seen people who are self employed get off.

Tried that. Had Ruth Buzzy's sister laugh and snortle and my whimsical concern then she told me how it was going to be. Sure, you might find someone that cares. You might not.

England also confiscated civilian arms, should we follow their lead?

You would need to explain the connection to me. I don't see why we can't borrow good ideas and ignore bad ones. I just have no faith in the jury system and hope to hell I'm never on the receiving end of one. It's a crap shoot, anyone that's been there says the same, and I do know folks that's been there. Even the judge is a crap shoot and he does that for a living, how much more so for someone that's been conditioned to follow their emotions.

 

[PT111]

I am the OP and I appreciate the answers and I want to say a few things nefore I get accused any more. First I have servered on jury duty several times, mostly small cases (speeding, DUI etc.) but also general sessions. I have no intention of lying on the questionaire or to anyone else involved.

As for the pay the last time I serverd it was $10 a day plus mileage, one-way. The one thing I hate about jury duty is that the judge, lawyers and court officers treat you like scum. I Have never been treated with less respect that I was on jury duty and if you get chosen it is even worse. Ypu are the only one there with absolutely no rights and totally at the whim of the judge as to what you can do and when you can do it. Try passing gas or telling the judge that you need to go to the bathroom. Remember one man was thrown off the OJ jury and threatened to be sent to jail because he had made a list of the names of the other jurors.

I don't care what kind of crime or lawsuit is involved there is no reason for me to be forced to admit to anything other than I will do my best to be impartial and fair. I just want to know that do I also have to give up my 5th amendments rights as well as the others. You think the lady in the video that was strip searched had it rough try making a mistake as a juror in a courtroom and the judge will do worse, laugh about it, it is perfectly legal and no repercusions.

 

[Al Norris]

Professional juries, huh? Jaser, perhaps you should read this, before you think it would work.

The only reform I can think of, is doing away with the legal professions voir dire the way it is practised today. Hardly a "jury of your peers" anymore.

 

[toybox99615]

let me pick them

professional juries could never meet my standards and I doubt they would meet anyone else's. More like a court-marshal where the jury is made up of all academy graduates and the accused is on trail for insubordination.

 

[JaserST4]

For me the OJ trial serves as the pinnacle of how a great idea has outlived its' usefulness. If you have the money you can buy the verdict you want. I'm not for a full time career as a member of a government jury panel. I agree that would be dangerous and could cause more problems that it solved. I would rather see a volunteer pool of some sort that rotates so even a bad decision could be overturned if necessary. I don't have the details or mind for it but I think it's something we need to start considering.

 

[Musketeer]

I don't care what kind of crime or lawsuit is involved there is no reason for me to be forced to admit to anything other than I will do my best to be impartial and fair. I just want to know that do I also have to give up my 5th amendments rights as well as the others.

Again, you do not understand what the fifth amendment says. How are you incriminating yourself by answering the survey question? The request to answer is, I believe, a court order. To ignore it or lie is a violation of said order. You may plead the fifth but I would suggest you ask a lawyer first because if you are not using the fifth to prevent self incrimination then it does not apply.

 

[Musketeer]

For me the OJ trial serves as the pinnacle of how a great idea has outlived its' usefulness. If you have the money you can buy the verdict you want.

Of course a perfectly valid argument could also be made that the OJ trial showed how poorly evidence was handled and procedures followed by the local authorities. If anyone should be ashamed of the outcome it should certainly be the prosecutors there. You cannot expect a jury to continue to believe your side when one error after another pops up.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The OJ trial was an incredibly poor showing by the prosecution.

Most of the time they looked like they had their heads up their arses. They gave Johnny Cochran HUGE holes and weaknesses to exploit.

Given what I saw in the news coverage and the actual trial coverage on Court TV I wouldn't have voted to convict the guy, either.

The prosecution never even came close to making their case and Simpson's legal team did exactly what it was supposed to do, defend their client by injecting reasonable doubt and impeaching the credibility of both the physical evidence and the prosecution's witnesses.

Do I think OJ was guilty? Hell yes.

Do I think that he could be convicted by what the prosecution did? Hell no.

Don't blame the outcome on shenanigans or an incompetent jury. The jury was FAR more competent than the prosecution.


For a recent look at the process, Mtnbkr was on a jury a few weeks ago in Virginia. To encapsulate it, man charged with raping an underage woman. He claims it's consentual, she apparently started claiming rape only after being caught by relatives.

Prosecution leveled straight rape charges, never went for the slam dunk statutory rape charge.

Jury found the woman's story to be completely unbelievable. The prosecution's 'smoking gun' evidence only proved that the two had sex. There was no physical evidence of rape at all. The police involved in the investigation really covered themselves in "glory." IIRC Mtnbkr used the word incompetent more than once in telling me about it.

At that point, it was a he said, she said scenario. With an unbelievable story and no phsyical evidence of rape, only sex, the jury voted to acquit.

 

[JaserST4]

Do I think that he could be convicted by what the prosecution did? Hell no.

Don't blame the outcome on shenanigans or an incompetent jury. The jury was FAR more competent than the prosecution.

The jury was neither competent or incompetent so it's a moot point. They had no professional status to uphold but they were bamboozled by a team of high dollar attorneys, apparently it even worked on some viewers. The prosecutors weren't on trial either but certainly could have done a better job. That said, the evidence begs circumstances to new levels.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Evidence.html


9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin.

9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

 

[Mike Irwin]

And you completely miss the point, Jaser.

It is up to the prosecution to make that evidence stand up in court in such a manner that the defense can't refute it or cast doubt on it.

The prosection REPEATEDLY failed to do so.

The jury didn't get bamboozled by high priced attorneys, Simpson's attorneys did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do -- discredit prosecution witnesses, discredit prosecution evidence, and present a viable defense that fits another theory of the crime.

If a team of experienced prosecutors can't make their own case stand up in court, exactly whose fault is that?

 

[ford1342]

I once used to be anti-jury duty. Then one day I noticed a co-worker; no, let's call him a "co-employee", for a more accurate definition, gets off work every chance he gets to serve jury duty. For one, our employer pays decently for jury duty service, and two, it is a day off away from any kind of work for this individual. This "co-employee" has historically made a habit of taking advantage of any kind of "discrimination" loophole he can get to avoid various tasks and assignments at work. Then, I finally realized that individuals like this probably make up the majority of the jury members out there. I sure wouldn't want to be the one on trial for a self defense shooting of one of this jury member's drug buddies. Guess which way people like this on a jury will root for, regardless of evidence and law.

One day one of us sheepdogs may be the one on trial for just simply protecting ourselves or our loved ones. I would sure welcome jury members that have a mindset like all of us on this forum when it comes to the subject of shooting in self defense. I for one will now be eager to serve jury duty especially in support of a fellow person on trial that is clearly not a danger or a burden to society.

 

[M1911]

PT111: Sure, if you want to refuse to answer the questions and claim to do to so on the basis of the 5th Amendment, go right ahead. Of course, the judge will most likely hold you in contempt and throw you in jail for a day or two. But if that's what you want to do, go right ahead.

Here's the text of the 5th:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note the section that I've put in bold. This is the part that ensures that if you have been charged in a crime, you do not have to answer questions. Of course, in the scenario given in the original post, as a prospective jury member you have not been charged with any crime. Therefore, the 5th Amendment does not apply.

As for the reasons behind the questions, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the jury is fair and impartial. That is why they will ask you some questions, such as:

- do you know the defendant?
- do you know the victim?

You do have free will. If you don't want to answer the questions, then don't answer. But don't whine when you face the consequences. And I can almost guarantee that the judge will not be pleased when you don't answer the questions. And if the judge isn't happy, he has ample opportunity to make sure that you're not happy.

 

[JaserST4]

And you completely miss the point, Jaser, It is up to the prosecution to make that evidence stand up in court in such a manner that the defense can't refute it or cast doubt on it.
The prosection REPEATEDLY failed to do so.
The jury didn't get bamboozled by high priced attorneys, Simpson's attorneys did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do -- discredit prosecution witnesses, discredit prosecution evidence, and present a viable defense that fits another theory of the crime.
If a team of experienced prosecutors can't make their own case stand up in court, exactly whose fault is that?

What's the other theory? OJ was the victim of odds that defy all logic? I'm sorry it surprises you that a team of the most expensive lawyers in the country can spin the evidence presented by the prosecutors. I showed you what some of the evidence was but it came down to who was lawyered up the best. OJ didn't have the same legal horsepower in his civil suit and look what happened.

 

[STAGE 2]

OJ didn't have the same legal horsepower in his civil suit and look what happened.

With all due respect, you are talking out of your butt.

Civil trials and criminal trials are as different as night and day. In a criminal trial, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To borrow the jargon of my old law professor, thats a crazy high standard. In a civil case a party only has to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. Essentially, all they have to get is 50.1%.

So right there the case of the plaintiff/prosecution has become ridiculously easier. Add to that the different procedural rules and obtaining a verdict is much easier.

As far as the larger argument, a defendant has the RIGHT to a fair and impartial jury. The only way to get this is to find out information about the people in the jury pool.

Simply put, your unfounded paranoia is overwhelmingly trumped by the constitutional rights of the defendant. Get over it.

 

[toybox99615]

viable alternative

Back when I was on Federal Jury duty for a year a few folks tried all kinds of stuff to get released. The old time judge really put the screws to them and when then did not get seated as a jury he had them sit through the trail in the audience. I'm sure it was within his prerogative. And those who got released under some procedure where both the accused and the prosecutor can remove so many jurors without cause; they went home.

At one point the Federal Judges in Anchorage were considering an alternative for those who had moral conviction (mostly bible references to false acquisitions) that would prevent them from being on a jury. Their idea was they would have those individuals take care of the jury room during the trail. The non-jurors would make coffee, sweep the room, hang up coats all of which would be considered doing their part for the jury system. I have no idea what ever became of the idea. I would definitely favor an alternative like that.