Edmonds homeowner shoots, kills burglar

[1245A Defender]

Wow!!

you really stuck me with that ,,, 124 or 5a thing

for some years i have been ,,, afraid,,, to go out into the world...besides it being a long drive..
also ,, my distain for the , just, us,, system made me want to not serve in that fjcked up system,
suddens words showed me a valid reason to participate in the just us system.
I am feeling like now I want to take an active role in this.
at least I will let them make a choice to select me.

 

[New Daddy]

I just got finished with jury duty on a criminal trial. First, I believe you guys should rethink your opposition to jury duty. Mostly because its your chance to effect the system. Sure, your chances of getting on a trial related to a self defense shooting is rare but there are lots of other people getting railroaded by the system. Finally, think of this way - if what ever reason you are accused of a crime - lets say brandishing because of your open carry - who do you want on the jury? Someone who may think like you or someone you have to "educate." If you're not willing to participate, you'll be (and leave others) to the mercy of those that will. - or as I told my boss - who do you want on your jury, me or somebody who isn't smart enough to get off of jury duty?

I've been on a couple of juries of the years. The trick to getting selected to serve is to be quiet and attentive during voire dire. When you're asked a question - stress that you're open minded and that you'd "have to see the facts." You don't have to lie - just say as little as possible. If you want to wear your status on your sleeve, you've already lost.

In my most recent case, the vote was not guilty. It was pretty clear that the jury was leaning that way - first vote was 10-2 and the 2 just said they felt the suspect was not guilty, but they wanted to look at some of the evidence again. In this case, it was a violation of a no contact order. If the jury would have voted guilty, I would have held out not guilty based on jury nullification. In this case, the woman was at a bar where her husband worked and her ex-husband showed up. I would have applied jury nullification because the NCO only applied to the woman and if the ex-husband showed up at a location where she was already present AND had a right to be - she's required by law to leave. You may disagree with me, but I don't think that's right. It leaves the person with the NCO open to harassment - the other person just has to show up to disrupt them. In this case, it was proven that the ex knew she hung out there AND that her husband worked there.

However, one or two of the jury members were very specific that we HAD to follow the judges instructions. This came up specifically, when one of the jurors asked - can we do that in regards to considering certain information. My response was that we can do anything we want. One of the gentleman attempted to correct me by saying it wasn't in the judges instructions and literally went through the instructions and checked off each one as we went through the evidence. I let it go - because there is no reason to say "jury nullification." Better just to do it and let everybody wonder. It may not be the "open" way, but this isn't about being open - it's about justice.

 

[sirpuma]

I once was sent a letter for jury duty ... to my mom's house ... after I was stationed in Germany. Needless to say, I didn't go to jury duty. That was in 88. I haven't seen a summons letter since.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I just got finished with jury duty on a criminal trial. First, I believe you guys should rethink your opposition to jury duty. Mostly because its your chance to effect the system. Sure, your chances of getting on a trial related to a self defense shooting is rare but there are lots of other people getting railroaded by the system. Finally, think of this way - if what ever reason you are accused of a crime - lets say brandishing because of your open carry - who do you want on the jury? Someone who may think like you or someone you have to "educate." If you're not willing to participate, you'll be (and leave others) to the mercy of those that will. - or as I told my boss - who do you want on your jury, me or somebody who isn't smart enough to get off of jury duty?

I've been on a couple of juries of the years. The trick to getting selected to serve is to be quiet and attentive during voire dire. When you're asked a question - stress that you're open minded and that you'd "have to see the facts." You don't have to lie - just say as little as possible. If you want to wear your status on your sleeve, you've already lost.

In my most recent case, the vote was not guilty. It was pretty clear that the jury was leaning that way - first vote was 10-2 and the 2 just said they felt the suspect was not guilty, but they wanted to look at some of the evidence again. In this case, it was a violation of a no contact order. If the jury would have voted guilty, I would have held out not guilty based on jury nullification. In this case, the woman was at a bar where her husband worked and her ex-husband showed up. I would have applied jury nullification because the NCO only applied to the woman and if the ex-husband showed up at a location where she was already present AND had a right to be - she's required by law to leave. You may disagree with me, but I don't think that's right. It leaves the person with the NCO open to harassment - the other person just has to show up to disrupt them. In this case, it was proven that the ex knew she hung out there AND that her husband worked there.

However, one or two of the jury members were very specific that we HAD to follow the judges instructions. This came up specifically, when one of the jurors asked - can we do that in regards to considering certain information. My response was that we can do anything we want. One of the gentleman attempted to correct me by saying it wasn't in the judges instructions and literally went through the instructions and checked off each one as we went through the evidence. I let it go - because there is no reason to say "jury nullification." Better just to do it and let everybody wonder. It may not be the "open" way, but this isn't about being open - it's about justice.

Good points!