Jury Duty questionaire

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...

Whether you feel comfortable has squat to do with the defendants right to a fair and impartial jury. If there is someone on the panel with a axe to grind, the lawyers need to know that.

As far as someone "cross examining" a juror, thats BS to. The first thing they teach you in law school is don't piss off the jury. They aren't only evaluating your client, they are evaluating you. If you act like a dick to a potential juror it hurts your case even if he gets booted since the rest of the panel now thinks you're a jerk.
 
As far as someone "cross examining" a juror, thats BS to. The first thing they teach you in law school is don't piss off the jury. They aren't only evaluating your client, they are evaluating you. If you act like a dick to a potential juror it hurts your case even if he gets booted since the rest of the panel now thinks you're a jerk.
Click to expand...
That is soooo true!

On one panel that I was dismissed during voir dire (by the defense, because I knew the Prosecutor). Only he did it so rudely, the rest of the panel got pissed.

Talking to a few of the jurors after the trial (the defendent was found guilty), they all were glad the defendent was guilty, as the defense attorney was even more of an, er jerk, than when he booted me and a couple of others off. No, they didn't vote guilty because of the attorney, but they were very glad it just turned out that way (I sat through the trial - IMO, it was the correct call). Not a single juror "wanted" to see this guy win.
 
Talking to a few of the jurors after the trial (the defendent was found guilty), they all were glad the defendent was guilty, as the defense attorney was even more of an, er jerk, than when he booted me and a couple of others off. No, they didn't vote guilty because of the attorney, but they were very glad it just turned out that way (I sat through the trial - IMO, it was the correct call). Not a single juror "wanted" to see this guy win.
Click to expand...

Yup. My beloved old law professor (one of those slow speaking east texas types) always opined that there are two things that you can count on with a jury.

One, they will always think that the smartest guy in the courtroom is the judge. Many times this wont be the case. You can be 100% stone cold dead right about a point of law and if the judge smacks you down in ignorance, then jury is going to question your competence.

Two, the jury is going to be looking for someone to root for. This isn't to say that they are going to base their verdict on who they like. However when they go into the back room to deliberate, the folks that support you and like you are going to fight harder for your side than people who agree with your arguments but are ambivalent or even dislike you. It doesn't hurt to take human nature into account when dealing with humans.
 
I was called for duty one time! I faithfully called every Friday to see if I was called up for the next 2 months. I missed one Friday and that was the day they announced that I was selected. The Men in blue came by the house and gave me a summons! I ended up in front of the judge explaining why I did not respond. I told him the story and he looked at me with the most menacing eyes you like to avoid. He stated I know , We logged all of your calls and I just needed to do the thing!
 
Been called many times for both civil and criminal cases. Never served. I made it to the jury box for interview once and was summarily dismissed by the prosecutor for being acquainted with the arresting officer.

I heard a story that may well be urban legend, but I like it.

Law professor to classroom;

“Your client has been accused of shagging a goat” (substitute the harsher, more common expletive for “shag” and it's better)”what type of person would make the most sympathetic juror for your client?”

Girl in the back “A young person, because they are more open-minded.”

Middle-aged guy in the front “an older person, because they’ve seen a lot and are less likely to be shocked by such a thing”

Professor “Wrong and wrong. What you want is a goat-shagger, because in his mind, your client has done absolutely nothing wrong!”
 
Whether you feel comfortable has squat to do with the defendants right to a fair and impartial jury. If there is someone on the panel with a axe to grind, the lawyers need to know that.

As far as someone "cross examining" a juror, thats BS to. The first thing they teach you in law school is don't piss off the jury. They aren't only evaluating your client, they are evaluating you. If you act like a dick to a potential juror it hurts your case even if he gets booted since the rest of the panel now thinks you're a jerk.
Click to expand...

If the defendant or prosecutor want me to be fair he dang well better hope I am comfortable.

Second if I tell you that a question is personal you better accept that and not demand that I answer or your client will pay. As I said I have been called for jury duty I think 10 time ahd have sat on about 12 cases. The last time I was called when asked about knowledge of any of those involved I immediately arose and said that I knew one of the lawyers and could not be fair to his client. If you advertise on the back of the telephone book your client better have an airtight case and not ask for anything other than what is absolutely deserved because I will hang him and laugh. Can't help it but I judge the lawyer and the criminal.

So far if I remember correctly I have been 50% guilty and innocent. None have asked how much I make, if I have ever cheated on my wife or taken illegal drugs.
 
If the defendant or prosecutor want me to be fair he dang well better hope I am comfortable.

Second if I tell you that a question is personal you better accept that and not demand that I answer or your client will pay.
Click to expand...

You can do your duty, or you can be comfortable and not be asked questions you dislike.... in which case the prosecution and defense may both not be doing their duty. Take your pick and hope you never need be judged by your peers.
 
Second if I tell you that a question is personal you better accept that and not demand that I answer or your client will pay. As I said I have been called for jury duty I think 10 time ahd have sat on about 12 cases. The last time I was called when asked about knowledge of any of those involved I immediately arose and said that I knew one of the lawyers and could not be fair to his client. If you advertise on the back of the telephone book your client better have an airtight case and not ask for anything other than what is absolutely deserved because I will hang him and laugh. Can't help it but I judge the lawyer and the criminal.
Click to expand...

I don't quite know what to say. You not only piss on the justice system, but relish in it. It also seems you enjoy perjuring yourself.

However I think what irks me the most is the self centered attitude with which you approach this process. How vain and conceited does someone have to be to take offense at being asked questions when someone ELSE'S finances, freedom, and possibly even life is at stake. How arrogant must someone be to presume that WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE FACTS OF THE CASE they know which questions are absolutely deserved and which one's are not.

Its my fervent hope that one day a judge holds you in the same contempt that you have shown the justice system.
 
Don't worry, I have already been held in that contempt and that is why I feel the way I do. I once trusted lawyers and judges but after having one laugh in my face and tell me the best thing I could do was find another lawyer to correct his mistake I no longer do. I had a company close down the office where I worked and refused to honor their employment contract. The Federal Judge said sorry about that but by the way you can't work anywhere because you signed a non-compete agreement and yes it is OK that they fired you retroactively. I cost me $10,000 just to be able to work again after losing my job because the company closed down. And all those lawyers that helped me draw up the contract told me to get lost and seek expert legal advice.
 
Don't worry, I have already been held in that contempt and that is why I feel the way I do. I once trusted lawyers and judges but after having one laugh in my face and tell me the best thing I could do was find another lawyer to correct his mistake I no longer do. I had a company close down the office where I worked and refused to honor their employment contract. The Federal Judge said sorry about that but by the way you can't work anywhere because you signed a non-compete agreement and yes it is OK that they fired you retroactively. I cost me $10,000 just to be able to work again after losing my job because the company closed down. And all those lawyers that helped me draw up the contract told me to get lost and seek expert legal advice.
Click to expand...

Then I'd say karma worked itself out.

Of course none of this has anything to do with truthfully answering questions as a juror. It merely tells me that you're just bitter and are jeopardizing other peoples lives (who had nothing to do with your situation) by exacting your revenge on their attorneys (who also had nothing to do with your situation).

But if one lawyer was bad, then they all must be right?
 
Don't you understand the whole jury survey thing is part of the plan for the New World Order to gather information on you for when the UN's black helicopters sweep into your neighborhood to remove troublemakers?

I swear, some people here amaze me.
 
The Federal Judge said sorry about that but by the way you can't work anywhere because you signed a non-compete agreement ...
Click to expand...

I suggest that though you may dislike his decision, it does not reflect contempt or injustice to bind you to the terms of your contracts. Ironically, if there were any kind of factual question involved, a jury might have been more likely than a judge to bend over backwards for a "little guy".
 
Stage 2

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.
Click to expand...
You're making my point better than I did. You continued to misrepresent my perspective by claiming I've only heard of one or two cases that went bad and that only an lawyer or judge can have a valid opinion on the matter no matter how many people say they got their nuts put through the wringer unjustly. Neither do I get my perspective from TV, with the exception of the OJ trial, which was scripted as far as I know. I realize that you have an invested interest in the matter and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but no one else's. As far as your medical analogy goes, we can get a second opinion, opt out and have medical coverage for almost anything. When medical offices start demanding, by threat of imprisonment, that you come in your your mandated anal exam, even if it takes weeks, at your expense, I'll buy the analogy.
 
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?
Click to expand...

That last time I bought a house I paid a lawyer $1,500 to prepare the paperwork. Before the closing I was given a copy of the closing documents and went over them. I noticed in my "watching ER a couple of times" experience that they did not make sense and pointed it out to the lawyer and realtor. Both assured me that they were correct and I just didn't understand what they meant. After signing all the documents and gathering up everything to be distributed the lawyer tuns to me and says "I need a check from you for $80,000". I said "What I am supposed to be getting a check for $40,000 back out of the deal". The lawyer says "Well, it says right here that you are suppose to give the bank $80,000".

Thank goodness that everyone else in the room had some sense or I would have been required to pay the bank $80,000 according to that lawyer. After I explained to him how to properly prepare the documents we had them re-typed with the correct amounts on them and he didn't even charge me extra for having to re-type up everything. I have no idea how many others have been screwed over by this lawyers incompetence but my "watching ER" experience did pay off then.
 
You're making my point better than I did. You continued to misrepresent my perspective by claiming I've only heard of one or two cases that went bad and that only an lawyer or judge can have a valid opinion on the matter no matter how many people say they got their nuts put through the wringer unjustly.
Click to expand...

To be succinct, your problem is that you don't read. NOWHERE in this thread have I said that YOU served on 1 or 2 juries. What I have said is that the anecdotal evidenc that you are pointing to is from people who most likely have not served on a jury, or at most once or twice.

Maybe if you'd listen more when others are talking, you would have found the entire experience different since what you think was being said isn't in fact what was said at all.


Neither do I get my perspective from TV, with the exception of the OJ trial, which was scripted as far as I know. I realize that you have an invested interest in the matter and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but no one else's.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add that I am infinitely mre qualified to judge the opinions of others. You're the guy that tells the gunsmith of 30 years that he's doing it all wrong because you read something in a gun rag or head something on the internet.

Lets assume that you actually have sat on 10 juries. Are you going to claim that you have the same knowledge as someone who has seen 100 juries? Are you going to tell me that you know what is going on better than someone who was trained to cut a jury?

Your posts are full of assumptions and guesses. You throw out BS comments about how the systems in other nations are better and (surprise) you have no experience living in these countries or dealing with these systems.

As a juror you really have no idea what is going on during voir dire either. You really don't know the facts of the case or much else. You don't know what the attorneys are looking for, or how they go about what they are doing.

You've only been on one side of the equation. To presume you know exactly what is going on with the entire process is a joke. Watching a surgery doesn't give me the ability to critique the doctor any more than being interviewed a jury gives you the ability to judge the system.

You are free to feel as bitter as you like, but your accusations are simply unfounded.
 
That last time I bought a house I paid a lawyer $1,500 to prepare the paperwork. Before the closing I was given a copy of the closing documents and went over them. I noticed in my "watching ER a couple of times" experience that they did not make sense and pointed it out to the lawyer and realtor. Both assured me that they were correct and I just didn't understand what they meant. After signing all the documents and gathering up everything to be distributed the lawyer tuns to me and says "I need a check from you for $80,000". I said "What I am supposed to be getting a check for $40,000 back out of the deal". The lawyer says "Well, it says right here that you are suppose to give the bank $80,000".

Thank goodness that everyone else in the room had some sense or I would have been required to pay the bank $80,000 according to that lawyer. After I explained to him how to properly prepare the documents we had them re-typed with the correct amounts on them and he didn't even charge me extra for having to re-type up everything. I have no idea how many others have been screwed over by this lawyers incompetence but my "watching ER" experience did pay off then.
Click to expand...


1) Nowhere have I said there are not incompetent lawyers out there. I know this for a fact because I have worked with some.

2) This has nothing to do with jury duty.

3) There are always going to be stupid attorneys, jerk attorneys, arrogant attorneys. Thats life. This doesn't invalidate jury selection. It simply means that attorneys come from all walks of life as with everyone else.
 
"To be succinct, your problem is that you don't read. NOWHERE in this thread have I said that YOU served on 1 or 2 juries. What I have said is that the anecdotal evidenc that you are pointing to is from people who most likely have not served on a jury, or at most once or twice.

Maybe if you'd listen more when others are talking, you would have found the entire experience different since what you think was being said isn't in fact what was said at all.
Click to expand...
When did I say you said I only served on 1 or 2 juries? Furthermore I am basing my comments on a lifetime that far transcends one or two anecdotal accounts, I've tried numerous times to correct your assumption. Who isn't reading here?
You forgot to add that I am infinitely mre qualified to judge the opinions of others. You're the guy that tells the gunsmith of 30 years that he's doing it all wrong because you read something in a gun rag or head something on the internet.
Click to expand...
You've digressed from totally misrepresenting my comments to wild analogies based on your false assumptions. I never even said I only know of accounts via the internet. I also reject your assertion that only attorneys can decide if other's opinions of the court processes are valid. Repeating your authority won't make it happen.
Lets assume that you actually have sat on 10 juries. Are you going to claim that you have the same knowledge as someone who has seen 100 juries? Are you going to tell me that you know what is going on better than someone who was trained to cut a jury?
Click to expand...
No, but I damn well would have a good insight as to my personal experience and would continue to reject someone that said I wasn't entitled to form an opinion based on them.
Your posts are full of assumptions and guesses. You throw out BS comments about how the systems in other nations are better and (surprise) you have no experience living in these countries or dealing with these systems.
Click to expand...
Let's see, I mentioned once that England has survived without our system and that was about the extent of it. Who's making all the assumptions here?
You are free to feel as bitter as you like, but your accusations are simply unfounded.
Click to expand...
Your assumption that I am bitter is unfounded.
 
Go and serve... And keep in mind that you are only hearing about 30% of the relevant story and truth is relative... just like the speed of light.
 
I have never been a jury member. If picked my mission would be to set accused free unless the evidence is clear and present. Far too many innocent people serve life sentences because the police is lazy and seek easy solutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top