Grabbing Jurors at Wal-Mart?

John Cole · #1 04-15-2003, 11:05 PM

A friend related that she had read an article that described an unusual (at least for the East coast, I think) method of forming a jury pool. Apparently, in some states, such as Nevada and Idaho, the locals aren't fond of performing their civic duty, and they often fail to appear for jury duty. One solution: send a sheriff to the local Wal-mart and slap a bench warrant on anybody wearing a tie to stock the jury pool. Anybody else ever hear of this?

John

Zeno · #2 04-15-2003, 11:24 PM

"One solution: send a sheriff to the local Wal-mart and slap a bench warrant on anybody wearing a tie to stock the jury pool."

Egads, who wears a tie in Wal-Mart. This may not catch many fish. How about a bench warrant on anybody with a tattoo? That should increase the jury pool very quickly.

-Zeno

HDPM · #3 04-16-2003, 12:09 AM

Things like this have been done, but it can end up on appeal and being tossed. Actually in Idaho I have always had decent luck with turnout. A good percentage of the people show up and judges are reluctant to let people off with weak excuses. I have heard of judges back in the day sending a sheriff to the local bar to get more jurors. Needless to say, the type of juror you get from a bar at 10:30 AM is good incentive for the parties to settle.
The only problem I had along these lines was in a child molestation case I was prosecuting. The judge didn't do advance questionnaires and a whole bunch of jurors had been molested or knew kids who were molested. Since the charge carried life, both sides had a bunch of peremptory challenges so we didn't have enough jurors left. The judge wanted to pull a bunch of jurors who were called for other jury service that morning, but they had been asked all about their experiences with child molesting and stuff, so they were out. So the judge wanted to go grab jurors off the street. Both sides objected because that process does not meet the legal requirements of at least trying to get a representative sample of jurors. So we had to send everybody home and subpoena more jurors. The defendant pled guilty before more jurors were called, I think he might have been shocked at how hard it was to get jurors who weren't molested and biased against child molesters. He got life with parole after a while, but was one of the worst criminals I have seen. The details of his crimes would turn your stomach and I won't post them. It's better that he pled since he did it without a deal and got life anyway.

Last week I was in a trial where one of the jurors didn't even live in the county where the trial was held, which is a requirement for service. But the county sent him a notice anyway and he showed up to do his civic duty, even though he wasn't a proper juror for that county. It could have caused some problems, but worked out fine. Most people would try to get out of it, but he showed up. No harm, and the jury properly exonerated an innocent man. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] So don't dog Idaho jurors too bad.

P.S. The real scary thing is jurors who don't answer truthfully in voir dire and get on a jury they really want to get on for improper reasons. They are totally biased for one side and make it through jury selection. Sometimes it's caught and you wonder how many get by without being found out.

Cyrus · #4 04-16-2003, 02:35 AM

"The defendant pled guilty. He got life with parole after a while, but was one of the worst criminals I have seen. The details of his crimes would turn your stomach and I won't post them."

Just out of (morbid) curiosity, when's he eligible?

scalf · #5 04-16-2003, 07:17 AM

[img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img] hey, how many people in idaho would be wearing a tie in wal-mart in idaho..my over/under = 3...lol..really..lol...gl [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]

HDPM · #6 04-16-2003, 09:42 AM

IIRC 9 years from the time of sentencing which was 2 or 3 years ago by now I think. So he's in for at least 6 more years, but that is not enough. The judge's reasoning at sentencing was kind of unusual, but at least he gave him the possibility of life. (Parole is totally discretionary here)I don't think he'll get paroled since he was in total denial about what he did. He pled, but had the attitude that he was the victim and didn't really do anything wrong. Child molesters seem to have that attitude more than other criminals IME.

Graham · #7 04-16-2003, 10:39 AM

lol, over/under scalf is a degenerate who'll gamble on anything ... 100% [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Ray Zee · #8 04-16-2003, 06:05 PM

you would have a nice jury of jehovers witnesses. not bad cause if you lost you would be certain to get it overthrown

scalf · #9 04-16-2003, 06:22 PM

[img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] child molestors generally were molested themselves...it's the life they know...not like in prison...gl [img]/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]

HDPM · #10 04-16-2003, 07:21 PM

I don't believe this guy was molested himself. He was a particularly sadistic guy, and really didn't have any explanation for his conduct. He had an excellent and aggressive lawyer who was hard pressed to find much to argue in his favor. He's not a sympathetic case. I have seen a lot of molesters who were horribly molested themselves tho, which does support your point.