Jury duty?

[liliysdad]

I received a jury summons two weeks after my wife and I married. I was 19. I worked a job 50 hrs a week for 7.50 an hour, and my wife was pregnant, in nursing school, and we were BROKE. Did I want to give up work, and the little money I wasmaking? Hell no, I didn't. However, I knew that it was my duty. I did not attempt to get out of it on a financial hardship, which I easily could have.

I missed three days work, as I was empaneled on a drug case trial. It hurt, it hurt a lot. Even caused my truck to be repossessed. However, I did the right thing, and I would do it again.

Now, being law enoforcement, I am no longer a part of the jury pool. Dealing with the courts, and juries, I now see that most juries are made up of those who are too dumb to get out of it, and it pisses me off.





By the way, the guy who we let go for the dope in my jury trial, I later arrested and put away myself. Those three days has made me a far better police officer, IMO.

 

[Number 6]

Specious double-talk

However, it makes me wonder,if it was considered such a great priviledge [sic] by the citizens of this country, why are there penalties for NOT serving?
If so many Americans see it as a great "civic duty", why are we penalized if we choose NOT to participate?
It would seem that the majority of people DO NOT want to participate, hence, the fines, penalties,etc.
All you folks out there that rail against gov't intrusion in our lives...isn't this a prime example of FORCING a U.S. citizen to do something that just may be against his/her wishes?

Well, which is it: A great intrusion into your little life, or civic duty, performed to benefit society?

And I DO NOT equate this with military service. That being said, I fully understand that serving could give me the opportunity to get some human garbage incarcerated and put away, never to hurt anyone again.

And yet you continue to whine about meeting the de minimus obligation of being called to serve.

I understand that each person HAS the right to a jury made up of peers.

Yet you fail to provide that fundamental right by refusing to serve, either outright or by puerile theatrics to get disqualified. How noble....

Yes, I know, the courts battle the enemies of our society.

Yet, despite your vainglorious boasts about being drafted - a significant hardship - you wish to evade far easier service on the home front, fighting crime or abusive prosecutions. My, aren't you the patriot. :barf:

I also don't see it on a par with voting, which has a direct effect on the quality of life and the laws in our country.

Yes, your vote among thousands, if not millions is FAR more significant than being one of six or twelve, AND having a voice in the actual deliberations. Good call.......

Then again, jury duty could have the same effect.

Then again, this could be more doubletalk. I vote for Door # 2.

 

[Edward429451]

Interesting thread in that I too, just received a jury summons. I can't afford the time off. They pay 50 bucks a day after the third day, i.e. nothing.

Some things are worth more than money though. I'm going to go for it, keep my Constitutional mouth shut and try to learn something and hopefully help and make a difference.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Interesting thread on how those infalliable founding fathers instantaneously become repressive bastards when that little slip of paper comes in the mail...

I guess it's all a matter of perspective, depending on which side of the summons you're standing...

 

[Edward429451]

Yep. Life's 10% what it throws at you and 90% how you react to it.

It's called giving something back.

Sometimes we wont be able to see that we helped until after the fact, or not at all. We shouldn't let that discourage us from trying.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Ya' know, it is just mindboggling. Here we have a judicial system that is the envy of the world (the free world, anyway). The beauty of it is that the final sayso doesn't come from an entrenched professional legal class, but instead comes from ordinary citizens selected as much as possible at random. That is what is meant by "jury of one's peers". Failure to show up when summoned or concocting some bogus "excuse" to avoid the service skews that system, by decreasing the randomness of the selection process -- it actually tends to shift the political makeup of the resulting juries more to towards the "yes, I care about the system and honor my duties as a citizen" direction, meaning more towards the right.

I distinctly remember the "debriefing" in the judge's chambers after one of the trials I was a juror on. The judge (who will remain nameless) complimented us, thanking each of us for our service, and then related this story to us:

Once, this judge was not a district court judge trying felony cases, but was a county court judge trying misdemeanor cases. And this judge was working out of the Harris County Clear Lake courthouse annex, which is in a fairly upscale suburban area close to where I grew up. Right next door to the courthouse, there was a bowling alley and a grocery store. At times, it seemed that so few people would actually show up for jury duty that this judge would order the baliff to "round me up a jury" -- and off he'd go to the bowling alley or to the grocery store. Right over to the checkout line: You, You, You, You, You and You over there -- come with me. You are on jury duty. Yes, that is legal in Texas. And that is what you get when NOBODY shows up. You think that responding for jury duty is some sort of intollerable hassle? Just wait until enough people think the same way, and they start having to pick people off the street at random. Doesn't matter what you WERE doing, you are NOW on jury duty. Don't like it? Tough Sh!t! Not only can it happen, it DOES happen -- thanks to people who won't show up when summoned.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"That is what is meant by "jury of one's peers"."

Just as a point of order, there's absolutely no constitutional guarantee of getting a jury of one's peers.

The Constitution only guarantees trial by jury.

 

[garyfdl]

Quote:
I think our legal system would work better if we had a volunteer system for jury duty rather than a compulsory system. Certainly a higher class of citizen would be present.


No, we would end up with professional jurors rather than a true jury of our peers.

An all volunteer system could easily be biased, i.e. people with an agenda who band and volunteer to "legislate" from the jury-box.

However, a system with "professional" jurors, in lieu of " professional jurors" might be a good idea. Having people schooled in the legal system, who know the responsibilities of the prosecution and defense, could result in fairer trials. I'll take it one step further and say these professionals should be specialized in a specific area(s) of law, so they can understand the intricacies of highly technical cases regarding business, medicine etc. Money or power as a factor might be nullified by people who know the law and are not persuaded by emotion and the antics of some lawyers. (no offense Stage 2). And it might eliminate ridiculous lawsuits; like the old lady who gets umpteen millions for dumping hot coffee in her lap at the drive-thru.

if we are a nation of freedom, ANY citizen that does NOT wish to serve, for whatever reason, should be afforded that right.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. (Thanks Gramma, where ever you are.) W/ Freedom comes Responsibility! It is only compelled and an intrusion to those who try and shirk their civil responsibilities. Like taxes, it is part of the price you pay for living in a "free" society.

And your argument of trying to provide the nicer things for your family is bogus. You know it won't make a difference in the long-run. Jury duty is not a lifestyle change. Think of it like this: you got a 48% chance of getting divorced in the next 20 years and she's gonna get all your stuff anyway.

 

[gb_in_ga]

Just as a point of order, there's absolutely no constitutional guarantee of getting a jury of one's peers.

The Constitution only guarantees trial by jury.

True -- it only guarantees a jury trial. But, not really, not in practice or principle.

As I found out here, our concept of "jury of one's peers" antedates the Constitution, going all the way back to pre-colonial times, back to English common law which forms the basis of our own legal system. Once could say that the "of one's peers" part is a necessary inference.

In practice, the courts have upheld the principle of "jury of one's peers" as being valid and binding such that if it can be determined that a jury was NOT of one's peers, verdicts can be and have been overturned.

 

[Heist]

And it might eliminate ridiculous lawsuits; like the old lady who gets umpteen millions for dumping hot coffee in her lap at the drive-thru.

Quick question - under what authority was a court supposed to kick the case out?

The way I learned the case in Civil Procedure (from Arthur Miller), the facts of the case as presented to the judge/jury were that McDonald's served its coffee at 30-40 degrees hotter than what was "normal." That might not be true, but the judge can't very well take judicial notice of that fact.

 

[gb_in_ga]

However, a system with "professional" jurors, in lieu of " professional jurors" might be a good idea. Having people schooled in the legal system, who know the responsibilities of the prosecution and defense, could result in fairer trials.

Interesting concept, one that borders on what happens with military court martials. From what I gather, you just don't get jury nullifications that way. With a "professional" panel, you will get more of the attitude that "The Law is The Law". Also, I heard it said while I was in the Army that: "If you are guilty -- if you actually did the crime, then you are better off with a civilian jury (of random citizens with little or no training -- easy to BS them), but if you are really innocent, then you are better off with a court martial (of professional officers who can actually tell the difference between sh!t and shinola)."

 

[Number 6]

And it might eliminate ridiculous lawsuits; like the old lady who gets umpteen millions for dumping hot coffee in her lap at the drive-thru.

IF you actually knew what you were talking about - and you obviously DON'T - you would know that:

1. She wasn't "dumping hot coffee in her lap at the drive-thru;" she was in a PARKED car getting the lid off while her daughter went in for cream;

2. McDonalds knew its over-heated coffee was a problem from numerous SIMILAR incidents;

3. McDonalds REFUSED to lower the temp on its coffee (its assinine theory being that people did NOT drink the coffee in their cars, but waited until they were home or at the office!); and

4. The victim in this case asked only that her direct medical expenses be reimbursed and McDonald's REFUSED.

Note also that this was a JURY CASE, meaning twelve common citizens saw how McDonalds was acting not merely negligently, but arrogantly.

Remember this the next time you hear some other fool repeat the lie about how the country is awash in "nuisance lawsuits" like this one.

Quick question - under what authority was a court supposed to kick the case out?

The way I learned the case in Civil Procedure (from Arthur Miller), the facts of the case as presented to the judge/jury were that McDonald's served its coffee at 30-40 degrees hotter than what was "normal." That might not be true, but the judge can't very well take judicial notice of that fact.

Don't confuse him with facts - his mind is already made up!

 

[azurefly]

Remember this the next time you hear some other fool repeat the lie about how the country is awash in "nuisance lawsuits" like this one.

It wasn't too long ago that something like two dozen cities were suing the firearms industry for many millions of dollars (and costing the industry many millions of dollars in legal fees just to end up exonerated over and over).

You wouldn't call those "nuisance lawsuits"?


If you don't think the U.S. is awash in nuisance lawsuits, you must simply not be reading the papers.


-azurefly

 

[Number 6]

Reality check

It wasn't too long ago that something like two dozen cities were suing the firearms industry for many millions of dollars (and costing the industry many millions of dollars in legal fees just to end up exonerated over and over).

You wouldn't call those "nuisance lawsuits"?

Absolutely. Note that most of them were dismissed upon the filing of the motion.

If you don't think the U.S. is awash in nuisance lawsuits, you must simply not be reading the papers.

If you think " the U.S. is awash in nuisance lawsuits," you know nothing of the filing figures.

There is no "crisis" in the filing of personal injury lawsuits and no "crisis" in the amount of damages awarded. Those of us with actual experience in the law realize that neither has changed significantly.

The alarmist - and mendacious - claims to the contrary, of which the great McDonalds lie is but one, are driven by corporations looking to cap their liability and deprive injured citizens of a day in court.

 

[gc70]

Originally posted by Stage2
As a lawyer I really appreciate you clearing things up for the other board members about my occupation. Given what you've said I'm sure you are an attorney or have extensive experience with the judicial system or at least have cut your own jury before. Wait... why do I hear crickets?

No offense intended, Stage2. I am not a lawyer, but have had substantial exposure to trial preparation by both private and public attorneys.

Lawyers are paid to win for their clients and jury selection is part of that process. The litigators I have been exposed to have been very clear about jurors with expert knowledge - they wanted them if they had a strong case and did not want them if they had a weak case. The process usually results in the selection of honest jurors who have no particular knowledge related to a case (hence my dumb-and-dumber comment). The result is that both sides have a relatively equal opportunity to convince the jurors with their version of events.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"You wouldn't call those "nuisance lawsuits"?"

Any lawsuit is a nuisance lawsuit if you don't agree with its precepts.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The alarmist - and mendacious - claims to the contrary, of which the great McDonalds lie is but one, are driven by corporations looking to cap their liability and deprive injured citizens of a day in court."

Didn't I see your advertisement on the back of the phone book?

"Have a phone? Have a dollar? You have a lawyer!"

 

[FirstFreedom]

A bench warrant for your arrest can be issued if you fail to show & serve without good cause. It's your duty; it's the law. However, a quote from one of my friends the other day, while talking about being a defendant accused of a crime "....and I dont want to be judged by 12 people that aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!". Makes ya think.....

"The alarmist - and mendacious - claims to the contrary, of which the great McDonalds lie is but one, are driven by corporations looking to cap their liability and deprive injured citizens of a day in court."

Very true. The big companies would love nothing more than to take away that last shred of power that we the citizens have over the gov't and big business excesses at the expense of the little guy - and that's the power of a jury of the people to render a money judgment for wrongdoings. So they chip and shred away at it with lots of lies and cute phrases like 'tort reform'.

If you don't think the U.S. is awash in nuisance lawsuits, you must simply not be reading the papers.

You believe the ridiculous spin put on by the media who knows that revealing the true facts of the case, showing it for what it is, a meritorious lawsuit, would cause the story to not be a story, and thus not help sell their paper or tv show? The facts are so skewed anytime you actually look into what really happened vs. what the media attempts to report. There is a direct correlation between rights in a society and the number of members of the practicing bar. The U.S. has the highest per capita number of lawyers of any civilized country. The lowest? China. Go there and see how many rights you have. I'll bet they have NO so-called 'nuisance' lawsuits. They don't have many meritorious ones that are actually allowed by the courts either!

The tort reform stuff is just a concocted Republican huge lie used to garner vote, because it's very easy to demagogue that issue in the media. It's a big gift to their corporate fatcat friends whose companies would love to not have to pay for screwing people over and causing injuries at every turn, in the quest for the almighty dollar. Nothing wrong with the quest for the almighty dollar, but we have to retain a check against both corporate and government abuses of the masses - that's the 7th amendment jury trial right. If we vote in favor of so-called tort reform, we are voting to limit our own power as jury members - as civilians in our society. We voting to take away our very own discretion in rendering a judgment against theft, fraud, abuse, and recklessness causing injury. Believe me, jurors are very stingy as a general rule, and try very hard to follow the law and take their duty seriously, notwithstanding the above quote from my friend; and thus if a big award is awarded, you can rest assured it is deserved! Don't believe everything you read in the papers.

 

[garyfdl]

Sorry, the grandkids were here. Now back into the fray.

If I used a bad example, MEA CULPA.

And I can be persuaded by fact and logic when they are presented in a civil manner, without undue emotional overtones. Your comment about confusing me w/ the facts is simply arrogant, elitist, and, IMHO, a good example of why many people have such a poor view of your (apparent) profession.

But please enlighten me with the facts:

1. Who awarded her 2.7 million in punitive damages?
2. Who reduced it and why?
3. How much did the legal team get?
4. When did I "repeat the lie about how the country is awash in "nuisance lawsuits"

Aww, Lemme save you some time:

1. A jury of HER peers, apparently they felt McD's was guilty of "callousness"
2. The Judge, who felt it was excessive.
3. A lot.
4. Never.

But hey, 2.7 mil is only 2 days worth of coffee sales. McDonald's can afford it.

My POINT (which I thank you for helping me make) is that juries can be swayed; by emotion, and by lawyers; lawyers who try and twist a statement to mean something it doesn't. Would this change if people accepted their civic duty to serve on a jury when called? Probably not, ergo we might be better served by professional jurists who:

• realize that a lack of common sense, on the party of the first part, is not the fault of the party of the second part (who just happens to have a lot of money)
• can see thru the bs from both sides of the aisle.

“First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” [Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii]

Two can play the game.

 

[garyfdl]

Please don't misconstru my comments. I am not advocating tort reform. There are many cases where business commits grevious harm knowingly and willfully (such as the asbestos companies) and should be held accountable. But there are also cases where juries have been persuaded by the emotional aspect, rather than fact, science, and logic and awarded huge settlements (Dow's breast implants). I have no problem suing a company when a someone is harmed, thru no fault of their own, by a company's negligance. I do have a problem when the "aggreived party" does something stupid, illegal, or that they know is wrong, and then sues because they get injured.

And it's not just a civil issue. The jury system convicts innocent people frequently, while it frees the guilty. We've had two separate cases here where people, after being convicted of murder, were released from prison when DNA evidence exonerated them.

I can't say I agree w/ the formula more lawyers = more freedom therefore less lawyers = less freedom. I see the formula as more lawyers = more laws = more litigation = less freedom. Western Europe has fewer lawyers, and they enjoy many of the same liberties we do. Now I didn't say all, but then again they have some we don't. If you don't believe me, try driving 125mph down the Interstate. The Germans do it all the time.