Jury Duty questionaire

Oh... let's just get rid of the whole thing. Instead of a trial, the police call 1-900-PSYCHIC and the deceased "tells" who killed them. The entire trial would only cost $2.99 a minute.

Seriously, a trial by peers is a RIGHT of the accused. Do your duty.
 
stage2

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.
Click to expand...
With all due respect you are living in a bubble. What happens in real life is often different than the way it's supposed to be. Handpicking people that you have the best chance of swaying your way is your definition of finding the fairest and most impartial? Sure, civil cases don't have to meet the same burdens but I'm sure OJ didn't want to lose what was left of his fortune either. I believe his dream team could have tilted the burden 50.1% in his favor if everything they presented earlier was sound, but everything was spun to a handpicked jury. Objectivity, honesty, fairness and impartiality had nothing to do with it.
 
Recall hearing on an NPR program years ago that in England there is no jury
selection, no challenges as we know them. The bailiff brings in 12 people from
the pool, the judge swears them in, the trial starts.
I have been called up only once, in the Summer of 1974 in Mercer County NJ. I was a sporadically emplyed college student, I went for the educational
experience. We were treated with courtesy, several times sent home early-before 1200-if there was no chance of jury being seated that day. IIRC the
judge asked all the questions, the prosecutor and defense counsel could accept or reject, that's all.
Forget what the questionnaire-if any-looked like, IIRC the only requirements are that you are a US citizen, a citizen of the state, a resident of the county.
 
With all due respect you are living in a bubble. What happens in real life is often different than the way it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

What happens in real life is that I practice law and have cut juries. What experience do you have?

Handpicking people that you have the best chance of swaying your way is your definition of finding the fairest and most impartial?
Click to expand...

When both sides get to do it, combined with oversight by the judge, then yes it is going to be as fair and impartial a jury as one is going to get with a bunch of opinionated humans with preconcieved notions about everything.


Sure, civil cases don't have to meet the same burdens but I'm sure OJ didn't want to lose what was left of his fortune either. I believe his dream team could have tilted the burden 50.1% in his favor if everything they presented earlier was sound, but everything was spun to a handpicked jury. Objectivity, honesty, fairness and impartiality had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, but it was handpicked by both sides. Despite what you see on tv, most lawyers aren't seeking to spin the jury. There simply isn't enough time to do this. The attorney gets to see your questionaire (which may only be a matter of minutes depending on which attorney goes first) and then they get to interview the panel. Some of this time is spend on procedural statements about the attorney themselves and about the client. Only then does the attorney get to actually ask individualized questions of the panel.

So in reality, when you break it down, an attorney might get about a minute a person. In reality there are some witnesses that might not even be asked anything if others require more time.

So to sum things up, there isn't anything sinister about jury selection. When you deal with flawed things (i.e. people) you are never going to have a 100% fair and impartial anything. What makes the jury fair and impartial is that both sides get to have input on the jury and any clearly biased individuals are excused.

Thats the straight dope no matter what you saw Matlock do.
 
NEVER lie to a government official about anything that can be independently verified. NEVER. It's a crime, after all. And the day may come when they use it to disarm you.

The government may not deserve the truth from us, it may not give the truth to us, but lying to an officer of the government about anything, anything at all, is perilous. It's not the sort of thing you should do casually.
 
I often get called for jury duty several times a year. I get tired of it and have resorted to telling the court that I have already done my stint for the year. What they pay you will barely pay for the parking let alone gas and your time. I treat is as a civic duty.

However, I find jury selection very interesting. I answer the questionaire honestly and as completely as I can. I also answer the questions posed by the attorneys honestly as well. As a result, I often don't get chosen for a jury panel. My guess is that I am perceived to be judgemental and the attorneys are concerned that I would "read between the lines" which I personally think is necessary in a serious case. It is probably not my job, but it is my natural tendancy to dig into things and try to understand.
 
The ignorance here is astounding. Apparently the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers mentioned in the COTUS is not really that important but the right to bear arms is...

It is obvious the group here is like any other, full of individuals who prefer to point fingers and find fault at every opportunity yet having no real knowledge of the subject nor viable alternative. Reading some of the arguments about criminal vs. civil trials, 5th Amendment rights, burden of proof and jury selection is an awful lot like listening to Sarah Brady describe the operation of a firearm and definition of an "assault weapon."
 
"I'm sorry your honor, this man simply will not do."
Click to expand...

Yes, that is usually the case. My interest is reaching a fair decision based on the evidence. However, in criminal cases especially, people lie and the jury needs to determine if the testimony is believable. Swearing on the bible on your testimony doesn't mean anything these days contrary to the way I was raised. That was a major awakening in my life.

There was one civil case that I really wanted to participate on the jury as I found it interesting and had professional knowledge (engineering practice, rules, regulations, and so forth, not the details of the case) applicable to the case. Did I get selected? NO It seems the attorney's would rather have folks that are pretty uninformed in general. But hey, did my duty in one day rather than a week or so it took this case to reach a conclusion.
 
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.
Click to expand...

There's a name we hear entirely too little these days. :) (did she het you with that purse?)

Actually, your descriptions sounds more like Lily Tomplin's character "Ernestine".

Best regards,
Bob
 
It is obvious the group here is like any other, full of individuals who prefer to point fingers and find fault at every opportunity yet having no real knowledge of the subject nor viable alternative.
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true believer. I think those that don't share your faith would probably disagree. The right to a fair trial is important. They just don't believe that men and the systems that men operate are necessarily fair.
 
Nothing ever created by man with be perfectly fair (whatever that may mean). The best we can do is make a system that does more good than harm. Our system has its faults but I have yet to see an enduring one that is any better. It also amazes me when those who show no understanding of the system point out things they consider faults which are nothing of the sort.

Perhaps we should just let the gov't decide innocence or guilt? That seems to be what some have proposed and we have already put it into practice with the War on Terror.
 
Wow... just wow.

I received my jury duty summons a week ago, and sent it back quickly, filled out to completion.

I have seen a family member processed through the "justice" system for something so minor there's not a person here who would see it as criminal, but because of a flat-out false statement to police, the whole thing ended up as 3rd degree assault (a BS charge if there ever was one), and we felt lucky that it got amended out as such.

We hoped that if things had gone forward, he'd have found reasonable and intelligent people in the jury box. I am ashamed when reasonable and intelligent people put their reason and brains to use trying to get out of jury duty. I welcomed my summons.

Remember the boxes of freedom and their order of use:
Soap Box
Ballot Box
Jury Box
Ammo Box

I'd think people in the RKBA, of all folks, would understand the value of serving on a jury with the intention of protecting an innocent person from an overzealous prosecutor or protecting an innocent public from the predations of a monster.
 
It also amazes me when those who show no understanding of the system point out things they consider faults which are nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
It amazes me that no matter how many first hand accounts one hears or reads to the contrary some can cling to their belief that if you disagree with them you have no understanding on the matter. I suppose, like all beliefs, you must suspend what you don't like and cherish what you do.
Perhaps we should just let the gov't decide innocence or guilt? That seems to be what some have proposed and we have already put it into practice with the War on Terror.
Click to expand...
At least you are consistent.
 
It amazes me that no matter how many first hand accounts one hears or reads to the contrary some can cling to their belief that if you disagree with them you have no understanding on the matter. I suppose, like all beliefs, you must suspend what you don't like and cherish what you do.
Click to expand...


And do these people do this for a living, or are they basing it on what they saw once, or maybe even twice.

Odds are that when called for jury duty, you won't even be assigned a courtroom. If you are, odds are you won't be on the jury. So your firsthand accounts aren't all that you make them out to be.

So once again, with the same respect, you are talking out of your hind end.
 
And do these people do this for a living, or are they basing it on what they saw once, or maybe even twice.

Odds are that when called for jury duty, you won't even be assigned a courtroom. If you are, odds are you won't be on the jury. So your firsthand accounts aren't all that you make them out to be.

So once again, with the same respect, you are talking out of your hind end.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm talking about. You seek to minimize opposition by bluff and intimidation. That's what counts for justice these days. The guy with the best spin doctor wins. I'm not limited to one or two references, where did you get that? I do understand the method, regardless of your opinion that no one else should have an opinion. If that works on a jury pool, I rest my case.
 
If you do not want a jury elect to have the judge decide. It has happened more than once in NYC when an officer feared a trial in front of a predispositioned hostile jury if I remember correctly.
 
That's what I'm talking about. You seek to minimize opposition by bluff and intimidation.
Click to expand...

Baloney. You are going to sit there and tell me the experience of a person who has had one maybe 2 times at jury duty outweighs or even equals the experience of a trial lawyer? There's spin here alright but it ain't with me.

Just out of curiosity do you correct your doctors diagnosis becasue you've watched ER a couple of times?


That's what counts for justice these days. The guy with the best spin doctor wins.
Click to expand...

Then I submit you have no understanding of the justice system. Again I defer to my credentials to make this assertion. What are yours.


I'm not limited to one or two references, where did you get that?
Click to expand...

I never said that. Maybe thats part of your problem.


I do understand the method, regardless of your opinion that no one else should have an opinion. If that works on a jury pool, I rest my case.
Click to expand...

No you clearly don't. In this thread you've basically declared one of our greatest constitutional rights irrelevant. You've said that its perfectly ok to lie to the judge. You hold up nations without juries as superior (even though you have 1) never lived in those nations and 2) never been subjected to their judicial system).

That right there tells me that you may have an opinion, but its worth as much as what I paid for it.

Just for my own edification, how many juries have you actually served on as in made the jury, deliberated and returned a verdict?
 
Look over this list of questions and see if you would feel comfortable standing in front of a room full of people, including a person on trial for four counts of morder, and answering the questions including being cross examined if you don't give the answer they like.
Click to expand...

That isn't what potential jurors do. In my state, those questions are responded to in writing. The judge sits during voir dire, and need not require a juror to answer questions that would present a legitimate security concern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top