The NCIS affect

KyJim said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are jurisdictions where without murder weapon there cannot be murder charge. Circumstantial evidence sometimes can substitute direct evidence. In this particular case, were there any other evidence?

-TL
 
I wont necessarily skip out, if called I would go. But that does not mean I want too, or if given an out I wont take it.

Last thing I want to do is spend a bunch of my time playing in the Lawyer sand box.
Lawyers actually think the world they live in is the real world...
Yishhhh...
 
I have been deferring several times. Not that I don't want to serve, it just happened at the wrong time, when I was having crunch time at work. I wish I got called when I was unemployed.

When one is caught by the legal system, the lawyer's sand box is the real world.

-TL
 
Jury duty

I have been called to jury duty several times. Never selected. All but one was a criminal case. The one that was not I was too much of a subject matter expert.

As to the criminal cases I don't thing the defense liked the idea that a good part of my 20 years in the USN I was a part time Master at Arms and such.
 
"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...
Click to expand...

In cases where the facts are clear, folks of different ideologies tend to follow the facts and the law. Research suggests that in ambiguous cases (of course, YOUR SHOOT WILL BE GOOD!), other factors such as appearance and ideology start to influence the jury discussions.
 
Here's the real NCIS effect

Or Hawaii 5-0 effect, or the CSI effect, or the Bones effect... Call it what you will.
The media has set up this mythic idea that those who work for the investigative side of law enforcement are "a small group of dedicated souls who will rest at NOTHING to find the truth!" So, therefore, when they find and present THE TRUTH, it's gotta be true, b/c they care so much.

As opposed to over-worked individuals who sometimes miss important info to get done and home or just want to clear a case from their desk as soon as possible so they can get to the next 3 cases: AKA are human.

The law on these shows has become "the big brother that is looking out for us."
 
TV EFFECT

Yes, doing one's duty as a citizen is a terrible bother, it interferes with your regularly scheduled life. People dodged the draft, too, for the same reason, no matter what excuse they used to justify it.

Our system isn't perfect, none can be. But today's society has reached a point where the main weakness of the system (relying on the "wisdom" of the jurors) has nearly reached critical mass.

It is an adversarial system. Both sides get heavily focused on "winning". Winning is NOT the same as "seeing justice is served".

One of the difficulties our system faces in these times is what "everyone" knows, thanks to generations of tv shows, teaching us all about the law, court proceedings, forensic science, etc.

Both sides work hard to keep anyone who has real knowledge of certain things off the jury. Their odds of winning go up when the jury only knows the facts as the lawyers present them in court. Witnesses are under oath. The lawyers (both side) ARE NOT! Keeping out anyone with expertise leaves only those who have been taught by TV.

NCIS,CSI, Bones, Law & Order, and many, many others over the years have taught the general public "technobabble". A grain of real truth, here and there, the rest, is plausible sounding fantasy. In SciFi, its how the warp drive or the transporter works. In crime dramas, the babble is about what the lab finds, and "proves".

There is a solid, almost unshakable belief in the infallibility of things like fingerprint matching, and particularly matching the bullet to the gun that fired it. We have been taught this by TV, over and over, and over.

Reality is somewhat different. If either side's lawyers even suspect you might know that, they work hard to see you aren't on the jury. The only reality they want in court is what they tell you reality is.

And there is also a tremendous "double standard". If a case involves a shooting, they don't want gun owners, and really don't want experts/enthusiasts on "their" jury. On the other hand, when it involves a traffic accident, they don't even think of barring people who know how to drive, and indeed, even have a govt issued license "proving" that they do.

curious, isn't it?
 
There are jurisdictions where without murder weapon there cannot be murder charge. Circumstantial evidence sometimes can substitute direct evidence. In this particular case, were there any other evidence?
Click to expand...
I would be curious as to what those jurisdictions are. But your second sentence seemingly contradicts the first.

Was there any other evidence in this case? Who knows. We have a short blurb and that's it. I wasn't responding so much about the facts of this particular case but the notion that police have find a gun to prove a shooting beyond a reasonable doubt or that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means zero doubt.

I'll also add that just about all prosecutors I see address the "NCIS Effect" during voir dire.
 
I have not been on a criminal case jury, couple of civil suits out of four summonses.

Once they ran out of cases before they ever got around to me. I wish I had been able to stick around and see how the one came out where a guy was suing an insurance company to collect on his wife's life insurance. He had, after all, been acquitted of murdering her.

Once I was scolded for saying I was acquainted with the plaintiff and her situation and would not be able to credit the defendant's story. I was, of course, struck immediately, but the judge sure didn't like me saying I had my mind made up.

The other two times, I got "caught" on a jury; both found for the plaintiff. The first case, I was the only one who did not think his damages were worth as much money as he did, but I knuckled under to the 11 and let him collect.
The other time, I made myself heard and think the award was appropriate.
 
Bah, I have my very first jury duty at the end of May. You guys aren't really making me feel like this is going to be a good experience. :rolleyes:
 
Bah, I have my very first jury duty at the end of May. You guys aren't really making me feel like this is going to be a good experience.
Click to expand...

If you’ve never seen the system in action it can be fairly interesting. I’ve been called six times and served on four juries that went to verdict and on each one there was someone who acted idiotic. Of course the members of the jury are the least of your worries when you consider the disorganized court, grandstanding attorneys and sometimes scary defendants. My best advice would be to take along a good book and a lot of patience.
 
Jury duty is like a funeral and a doctors appointment rolled into one, add a splash of high school power struggles among the jurors, and bake it for a week or two and Tada! We have ourselves a bouncing baby trial....

... Now one thing that you might not be aware of is; anytime there's and objection that requires discussion, the jury is ushered out of the court. You might not be in the proceedings for more than a few minutes some days. Sometimes back out as soon as you get back in....
They don't want you to hear anything but what's presented to the case....
You shouldn't hear any of the legal technical mumbo jumbo....

If a lawyer says objection and you don't hear the judge reply with "overruled" or "sustained" your gonna leave the room
 
Anyone who really wants to avoid jury duty just needs to be old and move to a state that excuses everyone past a certain age.
They don't want to hear snoring in the court room.
 
Speaking as someone who once spent a lot of time in court (as an expert witness).
It's slow, dreadfully slow.
Its boring, dreadfully boring.
Its picayune detail, over & over & over & over.

Then after a lot of this tedium, someone, maybe Defense, maybe Prosecution, possibly a witness, maybe "the accused", but never, ever "Hiszhonor" will say something so stupid everyone tries to not laugh.

Addendum:
"Hizzhonour's" commentary is never stupid or frivolous, but it is always expected to be cleverly numerous.

Example (during a gold chain snatching "hit & run", from a little old lady)

The accused:
"Did you see my face when I snatched your chain"?

LOL:
"No, you ran up behind me"!

Hizzhonour:
"Would you care to rephrase that question so you don't confess your guilt in court"?

The accused:
"Thanks, your Judgeship.":eek:
"How could you see my face when I was snatching your chain if I ran up behind you"?
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
...but the judge sure didn't like me saying I had my mind made up.
Click to expand...

This makes me wonder, and I understand it is entirely the judge's opinion that matters, but is an honest answer, that you believe you could not render an unbiased verdict, would that be contempt of court?

and if so, would it be the fact that you cannot do it, or the fact that you told them you couldn't, that would upset them?

No doubt they would ask for a reason. Would you be obligated to give one?

I've only been called for jury duty once, and things did not get to the point of selection, so the issue never came up. Perhaps some of our member with more personal experience can shed some light on this. (just curious, not planning on using that as a tactic to get out of jury duty, but, if it were true....
would it be likely you would be punished for telling the truth???
 
Served twice on criminal cases, both single day trials. So not a huge burden. The key to less duty is not to live in a high crime area. I have lived in my current county for over 25 years and my wife and I have only been called once each. My son was on federal duty, was on list for quarter but never had to actually come to a trial. I can see where people in places like CA that tend to have really long trials have a larger burden.
 
NJgunowner said:
Bah, I have my very first jury duty at the end of May. You guys aren't really making me feel like this is going to be a good experience.
Click to expand...
It's not bad, it's actually interesting if you let it. The trial I was on last year was a civil trial, a religious discrimination case. It lasted 5 days, the only bad part was there was one witness who couldn't appear in court, but her sworn testimony from a deposition was read at the trial by the plaintiff's lawyers, the male lawyer asking the questions and the female lawyer reading the answers as if she was the witness. It went on and on and on, finally the judge could see she was about to lose her jury as we were all about to fall asleep and she recessed an hour early.

Other than that it was interesting, the judge would buy us nice snacks every day and she let us drink water or soda in the courtroom. Plus afterwards we all got to ask her whatever we wanted in her chambers, and how often do you get to talk to a federal judge in her chambers? They have some very nice chambers btw, hers had a spectacular view of Lake Michigan (as did the jury room btw).

I didn't ask her about any 2nd Amendment issues, but I got the impression she was favorable to gun rights... Bush II appointee, and lots of pics of wildlife and such in her chambers. Made me think she was a hunter or at least from a family of them.
 
The key to less duty is not to live in a high crime area.
Click to expand...

I live in a county that has more people than all but 8 states. I actually live in a good area. Problem is that they keep sending me either to down town or one of the less desireable courts. I NEVER get the court near me. That makes for a sucky commute, not so attractive food options, and possibly new friends waiting for you near the parking lot.

My last case was an attempted murder. In voir dire the judge had opportunity to dismiss me for cause. You could tell it was amusing to the lawyers as the judge and I went back and forth a few times. I ended up on the jury. Truth is I liked the way this judge ran his court room.

Case went three days and the defendants both took the deal since they found out the third person involved rolled on them. First to squeal is the first to deal!

I have found the judges can either make or break the situation.

Ironically, if you end up with a case involving guns / gun crime and you have an anti for a prosecutor, they seem to break every speed record to get you out of there if they ask if you own or have guns in the house.
 
I've had jury duty three times (a month each) in my life and was called in for voir dire five times. Nobody has wanted me --- I'm a lawyer. A couple of times, I've known one or more of the lawyers. The first four were civil trials. The last one was a criminal trial but the defense didn't want me due to my association with law enforcement.
 
The two times I've been called for jury duty I didn't receive the letters till way after the trials were over because I was oversea with the Navy (once at sea in the Med and once when I was stationed in London). My father had to send them a copy of my orders to the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top