Picking juries...

[radcen]

Pros and cons of simply picking 12 people and going with the luck of the draw?

 

[MaggieD]

Pros and cons of simply picking 12 people and going with the luck of the draw?

They might not speak English.
They could be related to the defendant.
They could be related to the judge, prosecutor, court reporter, etc.
They could be deaf.
They could be anarchists.
They could be an employee of the defendant.
They could be an employee of the company being sued in civil court.
They could be a major shareholder of the company being sued in civil court.

I could go on...but I think the cons would far outweigh any pros. Gotta' screen the jury pool.

 

[radcen]

They might not speak English.
They could be related to the defendant.
They could be related to the judge, prosecutor, court reporter, etc.
They could be deaf.
They could be anarchists.
They could be an employee of the defendant.
They could be an employee of the company being sued in civil court.
They could be a major shareholder of the company being sued in civil court.

I could go on...but I think the cons would far outweigh any pros. Gotta' screen the jury pool.

Yeah, that is a pretty short 'pro' list. :2razz:

 

[1Perry]

If I'm ever picked for duty I'll make one statement. "I believe I can be impartial and judge the defendant based upon the law".

If I do not believe that to be the case, I'd state so. Anything else I was asked I would refuse to answer.

 

[Caine]

If I'm ever picked for duty I'll make one statement. "I believe I can be impartial and judge the defendant based upon the law".

If I do not believe that to be the case, I'd state so. Anything else I was asked I would refuse to answer.

Well... you'd be excused pretty quickly.

So the end result is still the same.

On top of that, you'd add frustration to an already annoying process....... for what purpose Im not so sure of.

 

[1Perry]

Well... you'd be excused pretty quickly.

So the end result is still the same.

On top of that, you'd add frustration to an already annoying process....... for what purpose Im not so sure of.

I'm not on trial so any of the questions they may ask are none of their business.

 

[Caine]

I'm not on trial so any of the questions they may ask are none of their business.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat big boy.

 

[1Perry]

Okay. Whatever floats your boat big boy.

Amazing you would get all bent over that. :shrug:

If it was up to me it would be illegal to ask any question other than "is there a reason you feel that you can not make an impartial decision".

You have a right to a jury of your peers. Not a jury of those who hold certain views.

 

[Ikari]

Gotta' screen the jury pool.

At this point given the amount of monkeying with juries by prosecution and defense to essentially the lowest common denominator and full of the dumbest people around; I think random chance is better. A jury of your peers is a jury of your peers.

 

[radcen]

I do not know this for certain, but I have heard that you need to utter only two words to be excused from jury duty... "jury nullification".

 

[MaggieD]

I do not know this for certain, but I have heard that you need to utter only two words to be excused from jury duty... "jury nullification".

I'm betting you're right...but that can backfire. When I was called in for questioning for a possible jury trial a few months ago, a man was completely uncooperative saying that he wouldn't believe any LEO's who testified because he distrusted police...was reticent in this replies to the judge, and was quite obviously attempting to get thrown off. The judge lectured him for his reluctance to do his civic duty, excused him from the jury pool and ordered him to sit at the back of the courtroom for the duration of the trial.

Oops.

(The jury pool LOVED IT!)

 

[Caine]

Amazing you would get all bent over that. :shrug:

If it was up to me it would be illegal to ask any question other than "is there a reason you feel that you can not make an impartial decision".

You have a right to a jury of your peers. Not a jury of those who hold certain views.

It sounds like internet tough guy talk.

It is VERY important for juries to be screened. I also find no legitimate purpose for refusing to answer jury selection questions.... and view anyone who would do such a thing (which this is the first I have ever heard of someone even thinking of it) as being excessively obstructive to the execution of justice. I just can't fathom how any person thinks that they are helping in any way by doing anything of the sort.

 

[Caine]

At this point given the amount of monkeying with juries by prosecution and defense to essentially the lowest common denominator and full of the dumbest people around; I think random chance is better. A jury of your peers is a jury of your peers.

I had a Sergeant from my own department get called up to the jury box during jury selection one time in a case where I was the arresting and investigating officer. Granted he and I had never met before, do you think this would have been fair to the defendant had he not been allowed to be excused?

 

[herenow1]

What happens if you don't show up to be screened for jury duty? I was supposed to appear back in nov, but got it postponed until dec, and I forgot all about it until last week.

 

[MaggieD]

What happens if you don't show up to be screened for jury duty? I was supposed to appear back in nov, but got it postponed until dec, and I forgot all about it until last week.

In Illinois, you are guilty of Contempt of Court and subject to a fine. I'd call 'em. They did notice.

FAQ

 

[Ikari]

I had a Sergeant from my own department get called up to the jury box during jury selection one time in a case where I was the arresting and investigating officer. Granted he and I had never met before, do you think this would have been fair to the defendant had he not been allowed to be excused?

While in general I think you could make professional courtesies and such so as to remove them and avoid perhaps direct conflict of interests as such; are you telling me that your Sergeant couldn't have acted impartially as a juror? Incapable of it? In the end I think there is a lot of importance on the jury; but that today it is monkeyed with too much by defense and prosecution. Jury of your peers, yes? I've certainly had colleagues dismissed from juries because they essentially were too smart. That's f'd up. So it goes both ways. In the end, the right solution probably isn't to make it so random but to restrict how a potential juror can be dismissed.

 

[Caine]

While in general I think you could make professional courtesies and such so as to remove them and avoid perhaps direct conflict of interests as such; are you telling me that your Sergeant couldn't have acted impartially as a juror? Incapable of it? In the end I think there is a lot of importance on the jury; but that today it is monkeyed with too much by defense and prosecution. Jury of your peers, yes? I've certainly had colleagues dismissed from juries because they essentially were too smart. That's f'd up. So it goes both ways. In the end, the right solution probably isn't to make it so random but to restrict how a potential juror can be dismissed.

Im sure he could have acted impartially. He believed he could. He knew the law already (which is a problem, prosecution and defense never want someone to know.. or think they know the law already). He didn't know me. No reason not to. I know I could act impartially.

However... with him up there, that leaves the perception to the defense that he did not receive a fair trial. In essence.... screening the jury pool is required if only for the fact that it prevents yet another reason for appeal on the basis of some procedural issue with the trial itself.

 

[Sig]

I have long believed that we would be much better served using a pool of professional jurors.

Expecting 12 random citizens, with varying degrees of committment and no forensic training whatsoever, to sudenly become disciplined and adept enough to make a monumental decision about someone's else's life is utterly absurd.

One can only wonder how many verdicts have been decided on a hairdresser-turned-juror's urgent need to step outside and smoke a cigarette.

 

[1Perry]

It sounds like internet tough guy talk.

It is VERY important for juries to be screened. I also find no legitimate purpose for refusing to answer jury selection questions.... and view anyone who would do such a thing (which this is the first I have ever heard of someone even thinking of it) as being excessively obstructive to the execution of justice. I just can't fathom how any person thinks that they are helping in any way by doing anything of the sort.

It's very important for those trying to get people who think a certain way. A way they want them to think. I think it's asinine that we allow people who specialize in getting people who think a certain way on the jury.

You have a right to a jury of your peers. Not a jury who believes a certain way.

 

[1Perry]

I had a Sergeant from my own department get called up to the jury box during jury selection one time in a case where I was the arresting and investigating officer. Granted he and I had never met before, do you think this would have been fair to the defendant had he not been allowed to be excused?

Funny that. Here you are automatically excused if you work for law enforcement. But I'd think he would be a good juror. Is there a reason you believe that he couldn't have ruled fairly based upon the evidence?

Are you saying that he might be biased against a defendant and not make a decision based upon the law? If so, he should be fired as a Sergeant.

 

[1Perry]

What happens if you don't show up to be screened for jury duty? I was supposed to appear back in nov, but got it postponed until dec, and I forgot all about it until last week.

I'll bet that you will be getting a knock on your front door before long. I'd go in myself and hope that they understand. My uncle passed away and I moved into his house for awhile around 12 years ago. One day someone from the Sheriff's office knocked on the door looking for him. I explained that he had passed away. I asked him if he wanted verification and he said it wouldn't be necessary as he could do that but he was there to arrest him when he hadn't shown up for jury duty.

 

[radcen]

Funny that. Here you are automatically excused if you work for law enforcement. But I'd think he would be a good juror. Is there a reason you believe that he couldn't have ruled fairly based upon the evidence?

Are you saying that he might be biased against a defendant and not make a decision based upon the law? If so, he should be fired as a Sergeant.

As Caine said in post #17, I think the real problem is perception, and how that gets 'played' in the court system, not so much the individual person.

 

[1Perry]

As Caine said in post #17, I think the real problem is perception, and how that gets 'played' in the court system, not so much the individual person.

I might perceive that 22 year old doesn't have the life experience to make a proper decision. Unless there is a valid reason, they are as legit of a juror as anyone.

 

[radcen]

I might perceive that 22 year old doesn't have the life experience to make a proper decision. Unless there is a valid reason, they are as legit of a juror as anyone.

You know that. I know that. Not everybody knows that. Both defense and prosecuting attorneys most likely know that, but will use it to their advantage if the original trial doesn't go their way to begin with.

 

[1Perry]

You know that. I know that. Not everybody knows that. Both defense and prosecuting attorneys most likely know that, but will use it to their advantage if the original trial doesn't go their way to begin with.

They will find an excuse even where there isn't one. But as I noted, law enforcement is automatically excused here. My wife is the city clerk. She doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement outside of printing their pay checks. They won't allow her to be a juror.