Jury Duty

KBCraig said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with those questions at all. I wound up on a jury once where a fellow was charged with driving too fast for conditions. Now the conditions described in the law not only covers road conditions but also such things as weather and the condition of the driver so it is sort of a catch all law that they can charge you with when they can't think of anything else. When we heard the prosecution's case we were all wondering what we were doing there as it was very weak. At that point the defense should have rested and probably would have been turned loose. However the defendent presented his defense and then we understood. When we went to the jury room we were discussing the facts and one person said "I don't care how fast he was driving if things actually happened as he said it was too fast even if it was only 5 miles per hour".

We felt that he had no business driving at all under the conditions he described, yes it was a crime that he was even driving or should have been and yes the law was just in his case. It would not always be a just law nor should it apply in just any instance but in this case it did apply because we felt that the law covered his actions exactly. I have seen more than one case where the best prosecution witness was the defendent thinking they were helping themselves. I think my record is 50/50 for guilty/not-guilty.

I've been on three juries, all were criminal cases, and all had appropriate outcomes.

What amazed me was the way a dozen ordinary people can become a single entity that somehow exceeds the wisdom of the individuals involved.

None of these crimes do I recall hearing ANYTHING about prior to the trials.

Two of the trials were quick and easy: Average thugs doing average burglary/robbery type things.

First was burglary and assault, excellent prosecution evidence, including security video. Guilty.

Next was more complex.

A middle aged Girl Scout leader with a daughter in the Scouts charged with 23 counts of rape. Of the girls.

Trial took a considerable time and the prosecution was very, very precise and proved time, place, who was involved, and other details for 22 of the 23 counts, only missing location for one.

We convicted on 22 of 23, knowing full well that he did 23, but that prosecution had failed to produce one bit of evidence (that they probably had).*

(The perp survived nearly a year in prison before resembling stew meat.)

The third got to a seated jury before the perp chickened out and changed his plea to guilty. Guess we looked frightening.

On that third one, the only interesting part was the prosecuting attorney remembering me as the guy who had gotten the Federal DOJ to come in to town and straighten out a few problems that city government had.

She asked if my prior experience with battling the city would influence my actions on the jury, since the city had brought the case, and I told her no, that some in the city government had been difficult to convince, but eventually they did the right thing. Surprisingly, she found me acceptable.

I have just recently sent back a Federal jury questionnaire, and am looking forward to another jury opportunity...

* Edited to add: They did have more evidence, we found out afterward, but it couldn't be mentioned or admitted at trial 'cause an ex-cop PI had broken into the guy's house and stolen it. The perp had kept Polaroid pic evidence of every one of the 23 in an annotated photo album...

rodbender said:

Trust me, I knew his intentions when I posted.

Click to expand...

OK, well I just wanted to make sure that remained clear for anyone reading your post and whatnot.

That was one of the rare posts from eye95 which was actually quite good.

Tomas said:

....The third got to a seated jury before the perp chickened out and changed his plea to guilty. Guess we looked frightening.

Click to expand...

*ahem* "Presumption of innocence"?

Just in case you're not aware, a considerable number of the people freed via DNA testing and The Innocence Project, actually confessed and/or pleaded guilty to crimes they didn't commit. What did your third "perp" get by way of a sentence? And what was he potentially facing had he not pleaded guilty? Did he have a high-priced defense lawyer with a proven track record, or a public defender fresh out of law school?

A conviction, or even a guilty plea, is a long way from "actually guilty" in my mind.

KBCraig said:

*ahem* "Presumption of innocence"?

Just in case you're not aware, a considerable number of the people freed via DNA testing and The Innocence Project, actually confessed and/or pleaded guilty to crimes they didn't commit. What did your third "perp" get by way of a sentence? And what was he potentially facing had he not pleaded guilty? Did he have a high-priced defense lawyer with a proven track record, or a public defender fresh out of law school?

A conviction, or even a guilty plea, is a long way from "actually guilty" in my mind.

Click to expand...

When he changed his plea to "guilty" we were dismissed and he went from being the accused to being the perpetrator of the crime. I have NO idea what his sentence was or what he plead to - it was no longer in our hands.

Tomas said:

When he changed his plea to "guilty" we were dismissed and he went from being the accused to being the perpetrator of the crime. I have NO idea what his sentence was or what he plead to - it was no longer in our hands.

Click to expand...

No -- he went from presumed innocence, to being convicted of the crime, not "guilty", or "the perpetrator".

Never assume that a guilty plea equates guilt.

KBCraig said:

No -- he went from presumed innocence, to being convicted of the crime, not "guilty", or "the perpetrator".

Never assume that a guilty plea equates guilt.

Click to expand...

Many cop to a lesser charge for expediency's sake. Traffic court is a great example. NC is notorious for "dealing" down to 'defective equipment' to get a fast guilty plea. No points and the court still gets its ridicules court "costs," so the defendant pleads guilty when he is clearly not. Everyone is happy and Blind Justice is once again disregarded. But then anyone who goes to traffic court expecting justice--unless he happens to be a lawyer, is a fool. In CO, if you send in your payment for a speeding ticket and don't go to trial, they drop half the points.

Tomas said:

The third got to a seated jury before the perp chickened out and changed his plea to guilty. Guess we looked frightening.

Click to expand...

KBCraig said:

*ahem* "Presumption of innocence"?

Just in case you're not aware, a considerable number of the people freed via DNA testing and The Innocence Project, actually confessed and/or pleaded guilty to crimes they didn't commit. What did your third "perp" get by way of a sentence? And what was he potentially facing had he not pleaded guilty? Did he have a high-priced defense lawyer with a proven track record, or a public defender fresh out of law school?

A conviction, or even a guilty plea, is a long way from "actually guilty" in my mind.

Click to expand...

Tomas said:

When he changed his plea to "guilty" we were dismissed and he went from being the accused to being the perpetrator of the crime. I have NO idea what his sentence was or what he plead to - it was no longer in our hands.

Click to expand...

KBCraig said:

No -- he went from presumed innocence, to being convicted of the crime, not "guilty", or "the perpetrator".
Never assume that a guilty plea equates guilt.

Click to expand...

Without getting buried in pedantic parsing, I believe that legally, once a person pleads guilty to a particular crime and the court accepts that plea, one is considered legally to have committed that crime.

Doesn't even matter if the crime is one you committed or a lessor crime that was made up for a plea deal: Swear you are guilty and they'll usually take you word for it and confirm you are.

I understand that there are (many) cases where this is not Real World™ true, but as I understand it, once a court accepts your word that you are guilty, you are legally guilty.

Tom


(BTW, I'm not here to argue a cause or put forward an agenda, I'm just here to present my jury experience, and if someone wants to do battle about something else, they can do it without me - I'm moving on. I'm too old for this crap.)

OC for ME said:

As soon as I see the the perp (guilty or innocent I don't care) I let slip a wee bit to loudly "...ya know, i don't like to looks of that fella....he looks guilty as hell...."

I get booted pretty darn quickly. Still a wasted day or two but I am not sitting in any jury boxes. Unless of course it is a weapons violation case then I want to be as impartial as possible to be able to sit on those juries.

Click to expand...

Why pass up your greatest opportunity to nullify government tyranny?

OC for ME said:

As soon as I see the the perp (guilty or innocent I don't care) I let slip a wee bit to loudly "...ya know, i don't like to looks of that fella....he looks guilty as hell...."

I get booted pretty darn quickly. Still a wasted day or two but I am not sitting in any jury boxes. Unless of course it is a weapons violation case then I want to be as impartial as possible to be able to sit on those juries.

Click to expand...

Jury duty is not just something the government makes us do. It is one more opportunity for us to keep the government in check.

marshaul said:

Why pass up your greatest opportunity to nullify government tyranny?

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

Jury duty is not just something the government makes us do. It is one more opportunity for us to keep the government in check.

Click to expand...

Yea this is something I have changed my perspective on and am more in line with your guys thinking on this. I have yet to be called, but maybe not being registered to vote has something to do with that.

eye95 said:

Jury duty is not just something the government makes us do. It is one more opportunity for us to keep the government in check.

Click to expand...

Take a look inside many american prisons and you will find that a huge number of those inmates received their conviction not from a verdict, but from a plea. Prosecutors do not like the idea of juries, because they know they could loose their cases easier than they can win them.

Nevada carrier said:

Take a look inside many american prisons and you will find that a huge number of those inmates received their conviction not from a verdict, but from a plea. Prosecutors do not like the idea of juries, because they know they could loose their cases easier than they can win them.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that I can agree with that where you are saying that the could lose easier. Time is the biggest factor where a prosecutor and the courts are overloaded now with cases that do go to trial. The trial of a someone could easily cover several days and if you are a prosecutor already faced with a backlog then you want to dispose of those cases that are already solved so you can focus on the ones you are not sure of. Plea bargining saves time and money and will it really matter if a criminal gets sentenced to 5 years vs. 15. More important is that he serves some time. I know this does not sit well with anyone but is fact that the amount of time one is sentenced to has little effect on the crimilnal other than the time he is off the streets. If there were no plea bargining then either our courts would be 10 years behind, then cost to the state for additional prosecuters and judges would skyrocket or the majority of criminals would be walking the streets without ever serving any punishment.

PT111 said:

............... If there were no plea bargining then either our courts would be 10 years behind, then cost to the state for additional prosecuters and judges would skyrocket or the majority of criminals would be walking the streets without ever serving any punishment.

Click to expand...

Or they could clear the backlog by removing or not enforcing malum prohibitum laws.

END_THE_FED said:

Or they could clear the backlog by removing or not enforcing malum prohibitum laws.

Click to expand...

But, then, there would be nothing to do but enforce laws against real crimes.

Then, the self-fulfilling prophecy of high crime caused by prohibition would be over, and along with it the justification for huge police budgets and all kinds of para-military training.

Of course, this is a huge industry at this point (granted all of it using stolen money -- so not a legitimate industry). So, every new law requires more LEOs to enfarce it, and more LEOs provide constant justification for more laws to make their job trivially easy, and of course the already high numbers of LEOs serve to convince many that they really must have a purpose... and the vicious cycle continues.

I suppose there was once a time in this country when we could rely on the jury system and put our faith in it.
Today, all it boils down to is which lawyer tells the most convincing story to the jury.
Today, you get just as much justice as you can afford to buy (See STATE V. SIMPSON).
I was convicted on assault many years ago for a crime I did not commit. The "victim" even testified that she lied to the police. My court-appointed lawyer hardly spoke English. Prior to the trial, I was offered deferred adjudication. My reply was "No way. I am innocent and all I have to do is tell the truth. I will not say I am guilty of a crime I didn't commit. I'm innocent so "the system" is supposed to work for me."
12 jurors were convinced by the fancy talk of the prosecutor, who was already pissed at me for not taking her deal and causing her to have to be in court.

Lucky for me it was just a misdemeanor conviction and not a serious crime. This is why I will not serve on a jury. Juries believe anything they are told by a person with "authority".

Spearhead said:

SNIP I suppose there was once a time in this country when we could rely on the jury system and put our faith in it.

Click to expand...

I wonder. Mark Twain made some biting comments about juries. Something like...well, here. Have a look: http://www.twainquotes.com/Jury.html

And, then one can balance it a little with comments from Massad Ayoob regarding bad prosecutions for defensive shootings to the effect that if you just get the information across to the jury, the system works. As in, explaining the 21-foot knife rule, how you really can be killed by being kicked while down on the ground, etc.

And, of course, we can demonstrate the half-dozen or so death row inmates who were convicted by their 12 peers decades ago, who have been proven by DNA that they couldn't have committed the crime.

False convictions are more or less tolerated as long as
1) It doesn't happen to you, and
2) the innocent people we execute and/or punish is a small number, relatively.

OC for ME said:

So, with that said, I'll let all of you folks that enjoy serving on juries go ahead and serve. Me, I'm doing my best to get outta jury duty.

Click to expand...

So, because *you* don't expect to benefit from jury nullification, you assist the prosecution by removing yet another potentially defense-friendly juror?

And you don't see this is part of why the deck is stacked? A majority of citizens do everything possible to get out of jury duty, and those who are least likely to try to get excused are those who favor "strong law and order". And you proudly admit to being an enabling part of this very problem, even though you know better?

marshaul said:

So, because *you* don't expect to benefit from jury nullification, you assist the prosecution by removing yet another potentially defense-friendly juror?

And you don't see this is part of why the deck is stacked? A majority of citizens do everything possible to get out of jury duty, and those who are least likely to try to get excused are those who favor "strong law and order". And you proudly admit to being an enabling part of this very problem, even though you know better?

Click to expand...

This is the very reason I have changed my stance. If I have to ever go in front of a jury I would hope someone with my "values" is on that jury.