The NCIS affect

L

longspurr

New member
Just finished being a juror in a trial involving shooting. We listened to a handful of witnesses one day, and finally got down to deliberations at noon the next day.

The only physical evidence was a hole in a car door supposedly made by a bullet. The car was burned and the police said that made finding bullets very difficult. (since no one was shot, I don't think much time was spent -if any – looking for a bullet)

Juror #1 I just have a gut feeling the witnesses are lying. I don't believe them.

Rest of jury why is that

Juror #1 there was no gun found at the scene, so they must have been lying about the shooting.

Rest of jury So what if there was no gun found, the bad guy took it with him when he left the scene.Why would you think the cops would find a gun.

Juror #1 But in NCIS there is always a gun found and they trace it to someone! If there is a shooting there must be a gun. You have to have a gun to have a shooting. Also there were no bullets found. If there was a shooting there must be bullets found.

An hour + later she reluctantly agrees there can be a shooting without leaving a gun or bullets.

Deliberations that I thought should have taken ½ hour + paperwork, ended up taking 3 hours because of 2 jurors. It occurred to me this is like being locked in a room with an Anti-gun person and not being let out until you agree. In political terms we had 2 that are far right, 2 that are far left, and 8 in the middle.
 
If you ever serve on a jury you will do everything you can to avoid being judged by one. I guess some people do not know how low the melting point is on lead.
 
I feel for you; sometimes jury duty is a chore.

I've been on panels where we had members that had less common sense than a door knob. One lady wouldn't let facts get in the way of her ideology. Try doing close to two weeks with one of those!
 
I have thought that some juror's that have nothing else to do drag it out as long as possible . Iv been called before but never selected , seems they dont want Christian fundamantalist right wing conservatives .
 
"what if" is not good enough for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The government has the burden to provide and to prove its evidence. All benefit of doubt goes to the defendant. If they can't find weapon, the weapon doesn't exist. What if the bullet had been before the incident? The defense can say "what if" to raise doubt, but the prosecution can't.

If I were in the jury, I probably would be one of the a-holes holding up the train.

-TL aka juror #1
 
Christian fundamantalist right wing conservatives . I don't think being a bible thumping conservative would come up as one of the Voyeur questions. So you too could be Juror #.

Several jurors wondered aloud about why they were chosen. One said “I said I had firearms and knew some cops I thought for sure one or the other would get me tossed off”.

Another talked about his experience as a Vice Principle and how he was “judge, jury, and expulsioner” for a high school. That didn't get him tossed.

SHR970 based on your experience and mine, I would hope they pick jurors that relied on facts – not dogma. Obviously that does not always happen.

Common sense ruled the day on the jury I was on – but it was a battle with the Air heads.
 
I was on a federal jury in a civil case last fall. When the trial was over the judge invited all of us into her chambers, along with the attorneys from both sides (after she let us ask whatever questions we wanted without them present). The youngest member of our jury, a 21 year old female, asked "why did you guys pick me to be on the jury"? The judge laughed and said "it's not that you were picked, it's just that others were rejected until you were the only ones left". She then asked if anyone had remembered the potential juror wearing the Notre Dame hat and shirt during selection, which I'm sure we all had because he was obviously trying to avoid serving on a jury. He had said that because he was Catholic he couldn't be impartial to Muslims (the plaintiff was Muslim). She said it was also obvious to her that he was just saying the things he did in order to not be selected, but that she was fine with granting him his wish because if someone wanted to avoid serving that much they're probably not the type of person anyone would want on a jury anyway, he could not be trusted to give his best effort.
 
Be a religious nutcase, or a super-patriot, or wearing a boot as a hat won't get you dropped from jury selection. The only sure fire way is to tell them you're a member of the Fully Informed Jury Association and look forward to being a juror.:cool:
 
The last time I was chosen for the selection process the questions seemed to try and sort out who was liberal or conservative . Who was spiritual or secular . The last question was . Do you think the death penalty should be imposed on someone that harmed a child ? I reeled the wording of that question in as I didnt want to word it here as it was on the form .
 
"The car was burned and the police said that made finding bullets very difficult. (since no one was shot, I don't think much time was spent -if any – looking for a bullet)"

Hum..... I'd have some difficulty with that right there.
 
In a jury, you are supposed to weigh the facts of the case as presented to the jury, no matter what your political ideology is nor anything else you bring with you....

Even if you are an expert in an area of science or subject involved...

You are instructed several times throughout the process.... No one seems to listen... That's why going to trial is a scary proposition.

I've been on a few juries... And I've been amazed at how little effort police put into the investigations....

I'm also dumbfounded about how some people cannot separate their bias from the duty.

A witness seals the deal from what I've been involved in
 
It may be amusing to find facetious ways to get excused, but what does that say for one's respect for the system?

If I were charged with a crime, I'd want people on the jury who were better than the guy who just couldn't come up with a way to get out of it.

Jury duty may be monotonous and inconvenient, but some of the folks posting here would probably be better served by someone who takes the process seriously rather than someone who's just finding ways to get home in time for dinner.
 
I think the voir dire process should be a one-time annual event putting you in a jury pool. Once your turn is up, you ain't getting off. And, you get paid. Hang a jury without cause, no pay.
 
"A witness seals the deal from what I've been involved in"

Yeah....

I covered my fair share of trials as a newspaper reporter, and have one solid theory about witnesses...

They're always telling the truth, except when they're lying, whether they know it or not.
 
"In a jury, you are supposed to weigh the facts of the case as presented to the jury, no matter what your political ideology is nor anything else you bring with you...."

Yep. Now if only the Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court justices abided by that a few things would be a little different.
 
I tend to agree with Tom Servo's post.

I always hear people bragging about the things they do to get out of jury duty. I'm not much for "civic duty" rants, but I have always been truthful and direct when called. It's not my goal to get off and go home.

I've been on the other side of it, not as a defendant but as a victim/witness. I also have a degree in Police Science. I've seen how screwed up the system can get. I've been told that I have a very objective mind and if I am called, it's my job to bring something of value to the process.

It is kind of like those that don't vote complaining about the government. If you don't like it, do what you can to change it when called upon.

Sorry for the soapboxing, I'll step down now:o
 
"what if" is not good enough for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The government has the burden to provide and to prove its evidence. All benefit of doubt goes to the defendant. If they can't find weapon, the weapon doesn't exist. What if the bullet had been before the incident? The defense can say "what if" to raise doubt, but the prosecution can't.

If I were in the jury, I probably would be one of the a-holes holding up the train.

-TL aka juror #1
Click to expand...
It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not proof beyond all doubt. You say that if the weapon can't be found, the gun doesn't exist. Suppose somebody gets shot in front of 20 witnesses and the medical examiner pulls a bullet out of the victim's head. Are you saying the defendant gets off just because they can't find the gun he used?

Obviously, people can differ as to what "beyond a reasonable doubt" exactly means. Decent lawyers on both sides should ask some questions during voire dire to see if jurors have a sense of what this means and will apply it as best they can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top