Jury Duty

I answered the way I did because I didn't want to take any chances of messing up the trial. I wanted this &%^$#*& in prison and that's where he went. Still there too, by the way.

Plus I got to look him in the eyes and let him know how I felt. I'm sure it didn't matter to him but it sure helped me a bunch.

I was picked twice, years ago, while I was in military training pipelines (no wiggle room for jury duty without being washed back six weeks).

Dismissed both times, but haven't heard from them since! I sincerely doubt I'd pass the questions phase, though...

Here is a sample reply letter when sent a Summons

Re; JID Number - 123456789

Dear Mr\Ms. (Insert name),

I have recently received a "Juror Summons" in the mail. This is my response to the Summons. In order to know if I am "qualified" to be a juror, I must complete "section A" - the Affidavit. I notice that I am expected to sign the Affidavit under penalty of perjury. In light of this fact, and to insure that I fully understand the legal terms being used on the Affidavit and the nature of the duty that may fall upon me in this matter, I will need your office to provide me with certain information.

In section "A", question 1, I am being asked if I am a "citizen of the United States". Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term "citizen of the United States" in question 1. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

In section "A", question 3, I am being asked if I am a "resident" of Los Angeles County. Please provide me with the statutory definition that you are using for the term "resident" in question 3. Please include the source of the definition so that it may be seen in proper context.

In section "A" (step 2) it instructs a person to sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury. Please provide me with your authority to compel me to affix my signature to any document (including the affidavit) under penalty of perjury.

You may mail your response to address shown at the top of this page. I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,


Joe Citizen


Send this letter and see if you ever hear from them again. That could be good for you, or maybe you really wanted to serve as Juror.

Serving on a jury is one of the best learning experiencies you can get. I have served on about a dozen juries and been called for jury duty at least a dozen times. Actually serving on a jury is an eye opening experience for most people and even if you start out with a closed mind if you will just listen a little to the testimony you will start to understand both sides. All the advice given about such things as jury nullification is just Internet talk and rarely if ever would even be considered. Both sides in picking a jury want the same thing, someone they think that they can convince to put more weight on their side than the other but does not have some pre-concieved notion of what the outcome should be.

It is the job of the judge to dismiss anyone who cannot listen to the testimony and base their decision on it. The judge will ask if you have any reason that you know of to be dismissed. He is not asking for interpretations or details, just do you know how you will decide in this type of case. For instance I have one friend that says he will never vote to convict someone of drunk driving no matter what the evidence. The judge will ask if you know any of those involved in the case and could it influence you. The last time I called for jury duty I spoke up and said that I knew the lawyers for both parties. The judge asked if it would influence my vote and I said I doubt it as one about as crooked as the other. The judge did not like that comment but did not dismiss me. I was not drawn howevr.

Just think of if you were on trial who would you want on your jury. Those that could listen to the facts and make a decision on what actually happened or those who are too dumb to get out of jury duty. Jury duty is a DUTY of being a citizen.

Motofixxer said:

...Send this letter and see if you ever hear from them again. That could be good for you, or maybe you really wanted to serve as Juror.

Click to expand...

Juries are part of the due process in this country that protects the rights of its people. We should WANT to serve. Especially if we claim to be advocates of Liberty.

I would love to have the chance to serve on a jury in an impartial manner. i would hate to think that I could one day have my fate decided by twelve people, any number of whom could have perjured their way onto a jury with the express intent of sending me to prison. Because I do not want a biased juror, I could not in good conscience serve on a jury with prejudice towards either party. Anyone who would do such a thing deserves to suffer the maximum weight and penalty of law. To do this undermines the fundamental principals that make this country free.

Please do not confuse bias with educated and logically minded. If my fate were to be decided by twelve people, I want twelve people with very sensitive bullsh!t detectors.

That being said, I am a college student and my educational expenses are payed for by the government through the GI Bill and subsidized by tax payers. It would be unfair to the tax payers to pay for me to to sit on a jury as well as to pay to retake classes I would have to drop to sit on said jury. My employer would pay me the wages and tips I would have received for work missed due to jury duty, so this would not be a financial burden. But the burden to the people for the additional costs they would assume as a result is unreasonable IMHO.

In a jury trial, once the jury has been sworn in and the trial begins - the JURY IS THE COURT. The presiding judge oversees the behavior, and functioning of the jury - but the jury is the tryer of fact.

One question of fact always before a JURY as the tryer of fact in any criminal case is the presumption of constitutionality of the specific provision of law under which the defendent is being prosecuted.

Another question of fact before the jury , as a representative body of THE PEOPLE in the courtroom and therefore the "legislature" of last resort - is whether the provision of law under which the defendent is being prosecuted should be applied(GUILTY) - or nullified (NOT GUILTY).

Jury duty for students and trachers can be postponed until a time that you are not in class if you wish. I know many people that have had prior commitments such as a work or school schedule, including vacation when called for jury duty to have it postponed until a later session, usually the next month or in the case of teachers during the Summer. I have not know of anyone with a legitimate reason for postponing it to be turned down.

PT111 said:

SNIP...All the advice given about such things as jury nullification is just Internet talk and rarely if ever would even be considered.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you meant by this.

But, I am sure William Penn's jury did not consider jury nullification just talk. They spent a few days in jail in defiance of judges' orders to convict Penn of preaching as a non-Anglican.

Recently in (Montana?) so many in the jury pool were opposed to a drug charge, the state could not seat a jury! The charge was nullified before the trial started.

Lysander Spooner would not consider nullification just talk. Hunt up his essay An Essay on the Trial by Jury, also linked earlier in this thread in one of my posts.

Also, hunt up FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), also linked earlier. Jury nullification does come up from time to time, if for no other reason than judges lying and telling jurors the verdict they must render if the think the accused broke the law. Some have been threatened for informing jurors of their rights and powers. If the judge or prosecutor finds you are willing to nullify even generally, they may try to exclude you. The government really, really hates the power to nullify. And, will go to a fair amount of trouble to make sure potential jurors don't find out about it.

And, finally, do you all remember the 5th Amendment video by the law school professor? Prof. James Duane. He would not consider jury nullification just talk. He seems to have written part of a pamphlet used by FIJA: http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

KBCraig said:

Yes, but: voir dire is the responsibility of the parties, not the potential jurors. The judge usually asks the important elimination questions before the prosecution and defense get a shot, and Big Question Number One is: "Do you know either the defendant or the victim in this case?"

When that question is not asked, and the closest thing asked, on the last day, is whether or not the juror knows of any reason why he shouldn't be on the jury, the fault doesn't lie with the juror. The juror isn't responsible to know what would exclude him, only to give fair and impartial weight to the testimony and render a verdict accordingly.

Click to expand...

Yeah so much for "A jury of your Peers".
Times sure have changed.
Robin47

rushcreek2 said:

In a jury trial, once the jury has been sworn in and the trial begins - the JURY IS THE COURT. The presiding judge oversees the behavior, and functioning of the jury - but the jury is the tryer of fact.

One question of fact always before a JURY as the tryer of fact in any criminal case is the presumption of constitutionality of the specific provision of law under which the defendent is being prosecuted.

Another question of fact before the jury , as a representative body of THE PEOPLE in the courtroom and therefore the "legislature" of last resort - is whether the provision of law under which the defendent is being prosecuted should be applied(GUILTY) - or nullified (NOT GUILTY).

Click to expand...

Right on ! Here's some jury help, to understand your rights and power ! Robin47

http://www.patriotnetwork.info/Citizens_rule_book.htm

Citizen said:

Not sure what you meant by this.

But, I am sure William Penn's jury did not consider jury nullification just talk. They spent a few days in jail in defiance of judges' orders to convict Penn of preaching as a non-Anglican.

Recently in (Montana?) so many in the jury pool were opposed to a drug charge, the state could not seat a jury! The charge was nullified before the trial started.

Lysander Spooner would not consider nullification just talk. Hunt up his essay An Essay on the Trial by Jury, also linked earlier in this thread in one of my posts.

Also, hunt up FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), also linked earlier. Jury nullification does come up from time to time, if for no other reason than judges lying and telling jurors the verdict they must render if the think the accused broke the law. Some have been threatened for informing jurors of their rights and powers. If the judge or prosecutor finds you are willing to nullify even generally, they may try to exclude you. The government really, really hates the power to nullify. And, will go to a fair amount of trouble to make sure potential jurors don't find out about it.

And, finally, do you all remember the 5th Amendment video by the law school professor? Prof. James Duane. He would not consider jury nullification just talk. He seems to have written part of a pamphlet used by FIJA: http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

Click to expand...

If you plan to nullify the law before you are ever sworn in as you seem to be and do not excuse yourself from the jury then you are no better than the lying judges and prosecutors that you seem to hate so much. As was brought out before in this thread the jury has the final say once they are sworn in. If they feel that the law is unjust in that particular case then they have every right, and no one can take that right away no matter what you say, to find the defendant not-guilty. If I were on a jury where one person let in be known during deliberations that they were unable to render a proper decision due to their prior knowlege or belief then I would immediately notify the judge to either have that juror removed or call for a mistrial. That does happen much more than any jury getting together for jury nullification.

As I said I have been on approximately a dozen juries and in every case we discussed not only the guilt or innocence of the person but also how their actions actually related to the law. We have even discussed what we thought was the intent of the law and how it applied rather than just whether or not the law was broken. For some reason I am usually appointed foreman and have never had a case where it was completely clear one way or the other but we always managed to come to a decision. If you sit in a jury room a few times you learn that people take the task much more seriously than most people think in criminal trials. In civil trials all bets are off on what a jury is even thinking much less what they decide.

PT111 said:

If you plan to nullify the law before you are ever sworn in as you seem to be and do not excuse yourself from the jury then you are no better than the lying judges and prosecutors that you seem to hate so much.

Click to expand...

Based on what? If we use your logic, we 1) let the government dictate the law, and 2) let the government undermine one of the oldest bulwarks against government tyranny.

According to two sources I've read, Magna Carta contained a provision for jury trials expressly to prevent the King from making up and enforcing his own laws as he went along, laws contrary to the common law.

I agree that a single nullifying juror will only hang the jury, even if you don't run out and announce it to the judge. I guess that could be distinguished as "juror nullification" instead of "jury nullification."

But, the point stands. One of the most powerful checks on government tyranny is a juror who refuses to convict because his conscience tells him the law is bad. I see no reason to let government undermine that power futher than it has already done by letting the government pack the jury with people who do not know their full powers. There is no reason at all to suppose that the election-vote is the only possible way to keep government in check. Jury nullification was well understood at the Founding and is a natural part of the right to a jury trial. It has merely fallen out of awareness because government schools don't teach it, and judges and prosecutors damn sure don't want people to know about it.

Our freedom of religion can be traced to a jury nullification in William Penn's trial in the (1600s?). It was illegal to preach anything but Anglicanism. Penn was a Quaker, his church closed by the government. He preached in the street and was arrested. The Brits still have the trial transcript (such as was recorded) and history. All available on-line. The trial transcript is hilarious actually. Penn and his co-defendant made monkeys out of the court and one particular witness--the officer who arrested him.

You might browse this website, including the videos to learn more: www.fija.com.

An Essay on the Trial by Jury

Since casual readers might not click the earlier links, missing out on information important to liberty, below are excerpts from Lysander Spooner's An Essay on the Trial by Jury.

For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.

It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [*7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes, of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor --- that is, with the government...


...But all this trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.

If the government may decide who may, and who may not, be jurors, it will of course select only its partisans, and those friendly to its measures. It may not only prescribe who may, and who may not, be eligible to be drawn as jurors; but it may also question each person drawn as a juror, as to his sentiments in regard to the particular law involved in each trial, before suffering him to be sworn on the panel; and exclude him if he be found unfavorable to the maintenance of such a law. fn1

So, also, if the government may dictate to the jury what laws they are to enforce, it is no longer a trial by the country,” [*9] but a trial by the government; because the jury then try the accused, not by any standard of their own --- by their own judgments of their rightful liberties --- but by a standard dictated to them by the government. And the standard, thus dictated by the government, becomes the measure of the people’s liberties. If the government dictate the standard of trial, it of course dictates the results of the trial...

(emphasis added by Citizen)

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35

Citizen said:

Not sure what you meant by this.

But, I am sure William Penn's jury did not consider jury nullification just talk. They spent a few days in jail in defiance of judges' orders to convict Penn of preaching as a non-Anglican.

Recently in (Montana?) so many in the jury pool were opposed to a drug charge, the state could not seat a jury! The charge was nullified before the trial started.

Lysander Spooner would not consider nullification just talk. Hunt up his essay An Essay on the Trial by Jury, also linked earlier in this thread in one of my posts.

Also, hunt up FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), also linked earlier. Jury nullification does come up from time to time, if for no other reason than judges lying and telling jurors the verdict they must render if the think the accused broke the law. Some have been threatened for informing jurors of their rights and powers. If the judge or prosecutor finds you are willing to nullify even generally, they may try to exclude you. The government really, really hates the power to nullify. And, will go to a fair amount of trouble to make sure potential jurors don't find out about it.

And, finally, do you all remember the 5th Amendment video by the law school professor? Prof. James Duane. He would not consider jury nullification just talk. He seems to have written part of a pamphlet used by FIJA: http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

Click to expand...

It also played a key roll in ending alcohol prohibition in this country. Many juries began to refuse to convict anyone of alcohol charges.
The recent event in Montana may be the beginning of the same thing for our decades long prohibition of Marijuana.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/21/montana-jurors-just-say-no-to
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_464bdc0a-0b36-11e0-a594-001cc4c03286.html

Citizen said:

Not sure what you meant by this.

But, I am sure William Penn's jury did not consider jury nullification just talk. They spent a few days in jail in defiance of judges' orders to convict Penn of preaching as a non-Anglican.

Recently in (Montana?) so many in the jury pool were opposed to a drug charge, the state could not seat a jury! The charge was nullified before the trial started.

Lysander Spooner would not consider nullification just talk. Hunt up his essay An Essay on the Trial by Jury, also linked earlier in this thread in one of my posts.

Also, hunt up FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association), also linked earlier. Jury nullification does come up from time to time, if for no other reason than judges lying and telling jurors the verdict they must render if the think the accused broke the law. Some have been threatened for informing jurors of their rights and powers. If the judge or prosecutor finds you are willing to nullify even generally, they may try to exclude you. The government really, really hates the power to nullify. And, will go to a fair amount of trouble to make sure potential jurors don't find out about it.

And, finally, do you all remember the 5th Amendment video by the law school professor? Prof. James Duane. He would not consider jury nullification just talk. He seems to have written part of a pamphlet used by FIJA: http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

Click to expand...

If asked, I would readily state my opinion on jury nullification. It is the last, best defense of liberty in this country and I would not hesitate to employ it. That being said, the instances where it would come into play are so remote that I find it hard to conceive of them happening should I be on a jury. The judge determines and states the law. He rules on it during the proceedings. The jury applies the law to the facts of the case. If the law is defective, the facts are irrelevant. Rousseau and Locke had it right.

eye95 said:

"I've heard the term. What is it?"

"Never mind. That's not important now."

Click to expand...

That's where you get to hang (nullify) the jury if they don't produce the verdict you want.

nullified jury=hung jury. Everyone's heard of those.

rodbender said:

That's where you get to hang (nullify) the jury if they don't produce the verdict you want.

nullified jury=hung jury. Everyone's heard of those.

Click to expand...

eye95's post was intended to provide an example of how one might evade the given question without committing perjury, so as to reduce the odds of his being rejected for service.

Read it again with that in mind.

When discussing it with people who aren't known as liberty activists (potential fellow jurors, for example), I like to keep it simple. If I serve on a criminal jury, these will be the criteria for a "guilty" vote:

1. Did the accused commit, beyond a reasonable doubt, the alleged act?
2. Is that act a crime?
3. Should it be?

Voting "guilty" requires a "yes" answer to all three questions.

marshaul said:

eye95's post was intended to provide an example of how one might evade the given question without committing perjury, so as to reduce the odds of his being rejected for service.

Read it again with that in mind.

Click to expand...

Trust me, I knew his intentions when I posted.