My Day in Court

[John Cole]

I am called for jury duty (a good deal in Massachusetts since jurors are only required to show up for one day unless the trial lasts longer) and look forward to doing my civic duty. A drunk driving case is going before the jury, and I am selected. After dismissals for cause, I wager to myself that I'll be the first juror gone through peremptory challenges. I'm right.

Now, was I dismissed by the defense? Or did the prosecutor dismiss me because everyone knows that all professors are liberals and, therefore, soft on criminals?

It depends. What questions did they ask you? What were your responses? Have you ever been in an accident before? Do you have strong feelings about drunk driving one way or the other? Ever have a relative injured in a car accident? There could be any number of reasons that you could have been excused other than the one you suggest.

[John Cole]

I wasn't asked any questions but the standard questions on the form, which had to do with previous criminal record (none) and if I worked in law enforcement.

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't asked any questions but the standard questions on the form, which had to do with previous criminal record (none) and if I worked in law enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

The lawyers weren't given a chance to ask the jurors questions? In a criminal case? Did the lawyers have any role in selecting the jury other than challenging people based on a questionnaire?

[John Cole]

The judge asked some basic questions before the jury was seated, which I assume are standard. Do you know the defendent? would you naturally believe a police officer's testimony to a witness for the defendent? That sort of thing. I think a couple people were excused because they knew quite a few cops in the city, and one juror informed the judge that he did know someone involved in the case after he was seated. I was dismissed without any questions.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe the side which believed they had the weaker case didn't think they could put anything past you?

Failing that, then perhaps:

1) you are a teetotaler, and that was somehow on the form, or

2) you had a beer in hand, left over from lunch break

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I was dismissed without any questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet you look like a commie. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


I assume that the lawyer(s) had basic information about you and that under occupation it listed something like: English Professor. Given that, I'm suprised you weren't taken outside and shot, let alone allowed to sit on a jury.

It rather pains me to say the above, but you know it has some ring of truth to it.

-Zeno

[Rick Nebiolo]

No way a smart, decent, well-spoken guy makes it on a jury. That said, all I know about juries is based on the OJ case.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

You may remember that severa lyears aback, I posted about my jury duty experience. I still say that letting the lawyers choose the jorors is like letting the managers choose the umpires, only worse. Umpires are supposed to follow certain rules, jurors can do what they please.

The impartial judge should be the only one to pick the jurors. That is, if they have the time to spare from their busy 4 hour workday.

[HDPM]

It's more like figure skating Andy. Do you want one "impartial" judge from Belarus or do you want various nations trying to stack the deck so that the France-Bosnia coalition is balanced out by the Germany-Canada faction? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Judge only voir dire has many problems. There really isn't an easy fix given that jury selection is complex and often hard to analyze IMO.

[Felix_Nietsche]

because everyone knows that all professors are liberals and, therefore, soft on criminals?
************************************************** ****
It is silly to claim that all college professors are liberal. At best the percentage of liberal professors is 99.99%. If you consider the Massachusetts factor (the state that elects John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy) then this number goes to 99.99999%. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I never been on a jury before but if I was....I would force the prosecution to PROVE their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury vote was 11 to 1 with me in the minority I would NOT compromise my values. If they prove to me the person is guilty then I'd give have ZERO qualms in giving out the death penalty in cases where this was an option.

[andyfox]

We let the judge make all types of decisions: what evidence is allowed, what questions can be asked of witnesses, granting recesses, etc. Because his job is to do what he can to provide justice. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if we let the attorneys decide these things? The attorneys are not interested in justice, they are interested in winning, like baseball managers. While I agree that an impartial judge may really be "impartial," the attorneys are certainly not impartial. Do we want cases decided by which attorney did better at selecting the jury?

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
No way a smart, decent, well-spoken guy makes it on a jury. That said, all I know about juries is based on the OJ case.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the impression I got as well.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We let the judge make all types of decisions: what evidence is allowed, what questions can be asked of witnesses, granting recesses, etc. Because his job is to do what he can to provide justice. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if we let the attorneys decide these things? The attorneys are not interested in justice, they are interested in winning, like baseball managers. While I agree that an impartial judge may really be "impartial," the attorneys are certainly not impartial. Do we want cases decided by which attorney did better at selecting the jury?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are putting perhaps too much faith in judges here, Andy.

Maybe it's a little like electing lawmakers: do we really want laws decided by who is better at campaigning? But that's actually only one element of what goes into the process and ultimate decision, and is better than having jusges make all the laws with no need for even having elections for legislators.

Don't you see a more dangerous potential for abuse if judges were to hand-pick the juries on their own? A crufty old coot with a boil on his butt might decide to really sock it to someones he just doesn't like. Or what if he gets paid off? A lot worse that a bribed (or merely biased) biased judge should get to pick the jury too, no?

Also, in a worst future case scenario: just remember that an imperfect system is better than a perfect tyranny.

[whiskeytown]

close...

actually, Lawyers hate educated people on the jury - even my HS Chemistry teacher got off - they want the homemakers, mechanics, and the drones that can be easily influenced.

RB

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we want cases decided by which attorney did better at selecting the jury?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think this would be better than the judge picking the jury. I offer two points.

For one thing, the actions of the judge w.r.t motions offered, objecting to lines of questioning, etc are, as I understand it, subject to appeal. These can be appealed as points of law or fact based on the trial transcript. A judge who misrules on a motion can have the entire case thrown out on appeal. A judge can act in picking a juror based on factors that may not appear on the transcript -- such as race, age, dourness of expression, etc, etc.

The system of advocacy in picking the jury, I believe helps ensure that each side has an equal chance to get a good jury. The problem here of course is the Johnny Cochran is likely to do a better job of it than say a public defender with little resources. But this is true for all aspects of the case, a great attorney with lots of resources will tend to find better results than a poor attorney with few resources.

[andyfox]

Of course there could be abuse. We could miminize that possible problem by allowing the competing attorney to have a veto over, say, two of the twelve jury members.

But what we have now is not imperfect, it's a travesty. The jurors are being selected not on the basis of will they be good and diligent jurors, but on the basis of whether they're likely to vote the way the particular attorney wants them to vote. The lawyers prefer biased jurors. While it's possible the judge would too, it's certainly less likely than the 100% chance we have now with the attorney's doing the picking.

[andyfox]

"A judge can act in picking a juror based on factors that may not appear on the transcript -- such as race, age, dourness of expression, etc, etc."

Of course he can. But the attorneys definitely do. I'd rather have a system wherein it's possible that a juror is selected on a non-objective basis than one where all definitely are.

You are of course correct in that a lawyer's skill may indeed determine the outcome of a case, rather than the objective facts (insofar as they can be determined and presented). But I think it's better to assure we have a fair and unbiased jury, inasmuch as that can be accomplished, from the get-go, and then have the better case win, than to have a system wherein jurors are picked not for their ability to determine the better case, but rather for their perceived likelihood to vote one way regardless of the strength of the presentation of the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
But what we have now is not imperfect, it's a travesty. The jurors are being selected not on the basis of will they be good and diligent jurors, but on the basis of whether they're likely to vote the way the particular attorney wants them to vote. The lawyers prefer biased jurors. While it's possible the judge would too, it's certainly less likely than the 100% chance we have now with the attorney's doing the picking.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the extent this comment is intended to relate to civil trials, it is not accurate.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
close...

actually, Lawyers hate educated people on the jury - even my HS Chemistry teacher got off - they want the homemakers, mechanics, and the drones that can be easily influenced.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus! Now I know why the conservatives get their panties in a bunch over pointy headed liberals. What a statement.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't you see a more dangerous potential for abuse if judges were to hand-pick the juries on their own? A crufty old coot with a boil on his butt might decide to really sock it to someones he just doesn't like. Or what if he gets paid off? A lot worse that a bribed (or merely biased) biased judge should get to pick the jury too, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was a law intern for the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office in the city that I lived in before college.

You would not believe how much this exact thing goes on. The District Judge that I usually argued in front of had a back problem and you could tell the days that he was having back trouble because the sentances were heavier. It was sad but it was true. He would get more aggressive if his back was hurting.

Having the attorney work the jury selection process is a BENEFIT because you have two sides with competing goals and views managing the jury pool.

This effectively eleminates (for the most part) the extremes on both ends of the spectrum. It is a great system of checks and balances. In addition, if you let the judge pick the juries, it would flood the court system with "biased jury cases" because their is no check to the judges descretion. It would be a nightmare for the judicial system.

To the OP:

Sorry about not making the jury. But you want the most politically incorrect process in the country, its jury selection. It was one of the things that I worked on the most was judging the jury by APPEARANCE only. It terrible but it is what happens all the time. You problably got bumped because you didn't fit the "racial/economic/apperance" profile that one side was going for.

-Gryph

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But what we have now is not imperfect, it's a travesty. The jurors are being selected not on the basis of will they be good and diligent jurors, but on the basis of whether they're likely to vote the way the particular attorney wants them to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably they would have to convince such jurors to see their side of the case so why wouldn't it be people who are likely to give careful consideration to their case? BTW people lie when they get questioned for seating on a jury. I can verify this from first hand experience. In your average run of the mill case that goes before a jury I think it's basically a crap shoot as to who gets seated.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
close...

actually, Lawyers hate educated people on the jury - even my HS Chemistry teacher got off - they want the homemakers, mechanics, and the drones that can be easily influenced.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...It happens a lot. This gives you a little more leeway with the prosecution.

But there is also a flip side. If you have a cast iron case, the prosecution you want more educated people because once they convict they tend to throw tougher sentences. Woman convict more easily, but tend to be week on the sentencing. Men tend to be harder to convince of guilt but harsher in sentencing. Well dress people tend to convict more and sentence harder. Older well dressed african-american men tend to convict more etc. It is a big game with many factors.

-Gryph

[andyfox]

I lied when I was interviewed. Because I had already been in court for six days before they even got to me. I simply couldn't devote the kind of time they wanted to me to devote to it. The case involved circumstantial evidence and I said I could never vote to convict based on circumstantial evidence.

The accused was African-American. I am sure some people got out of jury duty by saying they couldn't be nonprejudicial to a black man (three or four said this) and others got onto the jury being untruthful about being able to be nonprejudicial.

The process is a joke. There's no incentive on anyone's part to move things along. Six days to pick a jury? Actually it was more than six days, there were still at least a couple of dozen more potential jurors to vet after me.

The judge knew I was lying. He said to me, "that's no good, what other excuses you got?" And I made up another one. What could I tell him? This court is a joke, you allow these shysters to ask questions at a snail's pace, work for 45 minutes and then take a 15 minute break, and hour and a half lunch?

Attorneys only want jurors to give careful consideration to their case if they have a good one. When they have a bad one they want the jurors to not give careful consideration to their case. Didn't Jonny Cochrane say he's get OJ off if he had one black juror?

I used to arbitrate for a local Bar association. In the case of a fee dispute between lawyers and clients, if the amount involved was over X, the two sides could agree to submit to arbitration with the decree of the arbitrators being binding. We were a panel of two lawyers and one layman (me). The stories the lawyers told me would turn your stomach. One told me he was sure he got a guilty man off by keeping his suit jacket on during the trial when the air conditioning was malfunctioning. He looked more professional than the prosecutors in their cheap, wrinkled shirts. In fact, one of the jurors specifically told him after the case that she thought his professional look made it more likely his case was better. Then, in relating the story to me, the lawyer laughed and said the whole case was decided during jury selection because he had a great jury selector and the D/A's office didn't know what they were doing.

[CORed]

With the exception of death penalty cases, the judge does the sentencing.