A funny thing happened at the Federal Distirct Court House

Did they relent on the suspenders or did you have to walk around holding your pants up?

paramedic70002 said:

Did they relent on the suspenders or did you have to walk around holding your pants up?

Click to expand...

Hands free.

I've only been called once and wasn't selected.
I dont like the idea of serving but would/will for one reason. Had I been on Scouser jury he wouldn't have been convicted.
I'd have paid money to watch Grapeshot at the Federal Courthouse. ..

I want to serve on a jury. It is IMHO the highest and most sacred duty of a citizen. And I think I can honestly say I would not be coming in with any agenda except to see that justice (not the criminal justice system) was served.

Back when I was employed I'd get called every few years. Defense attorneys rejected me out of hand because I got a paycheck from the Dept. of Corrections. CAs rejected me out of hand because I listed my profession as "social worker". Nowadays I'd probably get thrown bodily from the courthouse by both of them together because I have been arrested and tried for a criminal offense.

Of course if I was in fact selected I'd probably upset the judge, the CA, and the defense when about every 6 minutes I'd get a really satisfied smile on my face.:uhoh: (Leg bags are better than peeing in a blue serge suit. With both people don't know what's going on; with a leg bag there's no evidence left behind.) (Hey! Are you going to discriminate against the disabled? When there is a reasonable accommodation available that does not cost the State anything?)

stay safe.

I was the foreman for a child pornography possession jury trial. After the trial when we went into the jury room, some guy said let's vote and go home! I said first we need to select a foreman, and he said I nominate you! Said I'd do it but we aren't going to vote without talking about it some. (I was there most of the day and would have had to go work the night shift if I had left then.)

Guy was guilty as sin. Public Defense attorney kept calling them the "naughty pictures" and tried to make us think a reasonable adult might not be able to tell the difference between an 18 month old child and an adult. Uhm.......No! I got home, took a LONG HOT SHOWER, crawled into bed and cried like a baby.

In my opinion the guy deserved a new trial and his defense attorney should be banned for life from ever practicing again. Yeah, he was guilty, I guess he got about what he paid for. Judge determined penalty at a later phase and I never heard what it was. Some things can't be unseen, sadly.

I was in the jury pool for a civil trial for a restaurant that burned down. Burning cardboard in a wood burner. I burned wood to heat my house and they asked me if I ever burned cardboard. Said no, the glue burns way too hot and probably burn my house down. Was dismissed at next opportunity.

It's a tough call, do you want to be judged by 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I had a poor impression of our justice system before, and I was wrong. It was way worse than I could have ever imagined!!!

I served on jury duty once. Hated it because my co-jurors allowed themselves to be bullied during deliberation by a single juror who didn't want to be there any longer.

In my mind those who deliberately attempt to get themselves disqualified from being chosen are the most selfish people in the courtroom. Those of you who were present at my trial might remember the jury selection process but for those who weren't I'll give the scenario I have in mind.

The jury pool is brought into the room and 13 names are called, those 13 people then occupy the jury box and the witness stand, are told the basic gist of the case and asked if there's any reason they should be excluded and whether or not they could hear the evidence and keep their personal feelings separate. The defense and prosecution then get to question the 13 people and each have to dismiss 3 of the jury pool, leaving 7 to hear the case. (don't start arguing about 12 people in a jury, it was 7 in this case).

Well there was one guy in the 13 wearing an NRA shirt, so guess who the prosecution said had to go.

In my mind this guy came to court that morning thinking "how can I avoid having to sit in a courtroom all day, I know I'll wear an NRA shirt to piss them off". Instead of claiming to support the Constitution, this guy was deliberately attempting to see to it that a possibly favorable (to the defense) juror didn't have to do his duty. That guy's behavior pissed me off almost as much as the bus driver's lying under oath pissed me off.

Those who seek to avoid jury duty just because it's an inconvenience to them should be considered to be in contempt, charged and locked up accordingly.

Saw some of that. The woman beside me was acting like she could barely stay awake. Finally, the judge actually asked her if there was a problem and she said she was on prescription meds that made her sleepy. Judge released her and did not count as one against defense or prosecution.

On child porn jury there was one little old lady about 90 who never said a word. I made sure everyone who wanted to talk had a chance, but she never said anything, so I asked her specifically if she had anything she wanted to say, or ask. She just shook her head no, and never said a word. I felt bad that she had to go through that, I'm sure at her age she could have lived just fine without that.

I found the process quite interesting, but as the day wore on it seemed clear to me that the guy's defense attorney was just going thru the motions. I sure hope I never have to be in that position, not sure that guilt or innocence is the number one criteria of the process, to be honest.

Nightmare said:

I have been in three jury pools and empaneled twice. The petit jury selection process was enlightening. The pool was of a hundred. Judge Eggleston lectured at length on the criteria for selection/rejection, including the effective definition of felon.

A felon was described as anyone who had been liable to more than a year and a day of state supervision. The liability includes all pre-trial interventions, alternative sentencing, pleas, et cetera. That was enlightening.

Eye opening was the number of pool members that approached his bench when he demanded "Who here might be a felon? Come on up and I'll decide!" Only fifteen of us, of the pool were able to keep our seats and only a very few returned from their discussion.

The defendant repeat-drunk-driver was found guilty.

Click to expand...

Would that not be a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination?

For example, VA statute 18.2-308 provides that a CHP holder must show his CHP and an identity document upon a cop's demand. The statute gives the specifics as to what circumstances and which kind of ID. Now, if the same cop asks, "Do you have a CHP?" a criminal cannot be compelled to answer that question for it would be incriminating. Nor, could he rationally be held liable for refusing to answer or failure to produce a CHP. It is a subtle but hugely important distinction: a cop can demand I show him a CHP, but he cannot make that demand in the form of a question, "do you have a CHP?"

So, is there a statute forbidding felons serving on juries? And, is there a penalty? If so, it is the government's job to keep track of who might be a felon. A judge has no business asking an incriminating question.

Nightmare said:

LOL So it is a crime, it is incriminating, to be a felon, or to claim to be a felon? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

As long as there is no accusation of attempting to serve on a jury while a felon.

How Prospective Jurors Are Chosen in Federal Court

"According to the Federal Judicial Center: "Congress requires that each district court develop a plan for selecting jurors. Generally, the selection process begins when the clerk of court randomly draws names from the list of registered voters in the judicial district, and sometimes from other sources, such as the list of licensed drivers."
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Voting/fl/Can-You-Get-Out-of-Jury-Duty-by-Not-Registering-to-Vote.htm

In Virginia one of the civil rights you lose upon conviction of a felony is the right to serve on a jury. I'll look for the citation later. Till then we'll just use http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/trial/jury-selection/virginia-jury-selection/ .

Not sure how that would affect federal jury selection but this http://smithkramerlaw.com/Article_Consequences-of-a-Federal-Felony-Conviction.asp says no unless

if an individual's civil rights have been restored under 28 U.S.C. Section 1865(b)(5). Under this Section, civil rights and restorations are governed by state law. The Courts and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have construed Section 1865 to apply only when an affirmative act by the state to restore civil rights occurs - e.g., the act of granting a gubernatorial pardon or amnesty.

Click to expand...

In other words, a pardon or amnesty must specifically include restoration of civil rights. I am aware of two pardon cases - one where all civil rights were restored and one where only certain specified rights (specifically excluding RKBA, right to vote, and right to hold public office of trust) were restored.

stay safe.

Wait! What!?! It is a right to serve on a jury?

All my life I've had it pounded into me that jury duty is a responsibility, nay, a duty. An obligation of responsible citizenship to serve as a check on...

I wish they would make up their frickin' minds.

Nightmare said:

One is summoned to jury duty from lists (particularly drivers licenses) not disqualified by criminal status, or citizenship status. An arrest warrant is commonly used to enforce juror appearance.

Click to expand...

You might want to be a little more specific there. Yes, lists of potential jurors are culled from lists such as drivers license or voter registration, but from there those who are legally unqualified to serve are dismissed. I have heard/read that CA is allowing "undocumented visiting guest persons" to serve on a jury. I'm too lazy to bother looking that up.

At least in Virginia the judge can issue a John/Jane Doe capias and order a bailiff to arrest the first (X#) of folks spotted to fill the jury pool.

stay safe.

Nightmare said:

IIRC from other discussions here, a duty is implicit in a right. The right of free speech implies the duty to tolerate offensive speech. The RKABA implies the duty to do so responsibly. The right to not quarter troops implies the duty to provide them quarters. The right to be secure in ones person implies the duty to put ones person in insecure circumstances. The right to not incriminate oneself implies the duty to -- maintain ones innocence. Et cetera.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. No, I don't think so.

If I understand the rationale, a right to serve on a jury carries it with it a duty to serve on a jury.

By that logic, the right of free speech carries a duty to speak freely. A right to defend myself and others carries duty to shoot bad guys. The right not to incriminate myself carries a duty not to incriminate myself.

By that logic, a duty to pay taxes carries a right to pay taxes. :idea: Hey! Wait a minute! You might be onto something Nightmare! If I have a right to pay taxes, then I must necessarily have right not to pay taxes! Oh, but won't that be a beautiful day?

thanks everyone...

i am the proud recipient of a letter from the clerk of superior court which is requesting my smile on the 30th of this month as juror #16.

sigh

ipse, ThD

PS: BTW, haven't lived at that addy for 4 years and DL was changed same time frame.

That's right - no duty to have ID

color of law said:

I would have shown-up with the summons only, no ID. When they refused me entrance I would have called the clerk and informed the clerk the marshals denying you entrance and interfering with a court order. Remember there is no law that requires you to have ID.

I have an attorney friend that use to live in DC. Had a order to be in court. Showed up with just the order. The marshals finely let him in. How would the court find anyone in contempt when their own officers deny you access?

Click to expand...

Excellent idea! There is no legal requirement to have ID, so said the S. Ct. in Kolender v. Lawson.

Mike said:

Excellent idea! There is no legal requirement to have ID, so said the S. Ct. in Kolender v. Lawson.

Click to expand...

While there is no legal requirement to have ID, I don't believe SCOTUS said that in Kolender.

As I recall, Kolender said the California statute requiring alternate forms of ID in lieu of (driver's license, etc.) was too vague, allowing a police officer too much latitude in judging whether the detainee had violated the statute. Is there a specific line in Kolender that said there is no legal requirement to have ID that I am not recalling?

Nightmare said:

I have been in three jury pools and empaneled twice. The petit jury selection process was enlightening.

Click to expand...

In my three jury pools (never impaneled) in Utah for both federal and State courts, I was most surprised to realize that the jury is not at all randomly selected.

After voir dire and those who get themselves excused for hardship (judge makes decisions) both prosecution and defense huddle with the judge and make their case why various persons should be excluded for cause.

Next, prosecution and defense have some number of peremptory challenges: then can remove from the pool a certain number of jurors for no reason at all. Only limitation is that they cannot remove jurors for discriminatory reasons. Bumping all women, or all racial minorities is a no no. But if it isn't obvious and can't be demonstrated that X of the Y removals were for discriminatory reasons, they stand.

At this point, the prosecution and defense get together and come up with a mutually agreeable list of jurors from the persons remaining. The judge rubber stamps and impanels the jury.

IMO, simply changing this last step to a random drawing would be a huge improvement.

Nightmare, in your experience, was final selection randomized at all? Or was it selected.

Others I know have related that as the jury pool filed in, the first 14 persons took seats in the jury box, the rest in the gallery i order. As potential jurors were eliminated for whatever reason, there were holes in the seats. When it was all said and done, the lowest 13 numbers were the jury. So the randomization took place as original numbers were assigned.

But in my experience, nothing random at all about final selection.

Charles

scouser said:

In my mind those who deliberately attempt to get themselves disqualified from being chosen are the most selfish people in the courtroom. Those of you who were present at my trial might remember the jury selection process but for those who weren't I'll give the scenario I have in mind.

...

Those who seek to avoid jury duty just because it's an inconvenience to them should be considered to be in contempt, charged and locked up accordingly.

Click to expand...

+1.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

How do we respect this right of the accused if we do not have means of seating an impartial jury?

How many who want to be in the jury on a specific case could honestly claim to be impartial?

Some might argue about the degree of injustice if guilty men go free thanks to bad juries. But who can question the gross injustice if innocent men are wrongly convicted because good men refuse to serve on juries.

Those who claim to support liberty, but leave their fellows at the mercy of gun grabbers and tyrants because jury service is inconvenient or offends some political sensibility are beyond selfish. They are hypocrites and liars. (This is not to be confused with those for whom jury service would represent a true and legitimate hardship for health reasons, or significant financial loss, etc.)

Charles