Jury Duty (Long and boring). . .

A friend of mine showed up to deal with a minor in posession ticket wearing shorts and a t-shirt and the judge threatened to hold him in contempt if he ever showed up looking like that again. Good luck to you.

What I don't understand is why the lawyers should have any say at all in which jurors are impanelled. If we want a fair and impartial jury, how can people who are not impartial take part in the selection process? It's as if the Yankees and Braves are about to play a big game and we let Joe Torre and Bobby Cox pick the umpires.


One of the lawyers today was not even listening nor observing when the judge was asking the potential jurors questions. He was looking around the room to see who was still left. The only thing he can be noticing is race, age, and sex. All of his peremptory challenges have been to remove young, white males from the jury.


Anyway, what's the theory behind letting the lawyers have a say in the process?

Criminal trial. The judge is appointed for a term, and then they run for reappointment in an election. I figured out today that court is in session for roughly 4-1/4 hours a day. What a sad state of affairs.

The baseball analogies are inapposite. No vetting process would be closer to have people off the street umpire a baseball game without regard to whether they were fans of one team, related to fans of a team, or even on a team. Lawyers do it because they're the only ones besides their clients that care. But I agree that the number of pre-empts should probably be reduced.


The first time I visited LA County Court (S. Monica) was as a battery victim. I was there all day, and all I could think about was the merits of anarchy.

One reason for the process is to weed out jurors with preconceived notions and biases. In other words, Joe Torre may want to find out if the umpire is Bobby's brother-in-law or something.

But of course a necessary adjunct of that is that the lawyer is also looking to find people who he thinks will be most sympathetic to his client's cause.


I do a lot of defence work in motor vehicle accident cases. Generally, all other things being equal, insurers try to get middle aged women into the box. It is thought that they are more moderate in terms of handing out awards to injured claimants. I have no idea if this is actually a valid theory.


Like I say though, in Canada...well, at least in British Columbia, we generally are not allowed to ask jurors any questions. We size 'em up visually and say yea or nay...pretty unscientific stuff to say the least.

Attorney-conducted voir dire is critical to a fair trial IMO. (BTW it is pronounced "vore dyer" not "voi deer" in places that are OK.) Attorneys don't get to select the jury, rather they de-select bad jurors. It is an unscientific process, but I have seen too many absolutely horrible, biased, unfair jurors weeded out to think it is useless. Judges can ask some stuff, but they don't get very good answers out of people. People just don't want to admit they're biased to the guy in the black robe who is telling them they have to be fair.


Also, I am a big believer in written questionnaires in big cases, particularly if there are issues of sexual abuse or race. They save time and provide more information. Jurors are much more forthcoming on written forms. People won't admit to being racists in public, but if you let them write their answer down on paper that just the attorneys and judge see, they will admit all kinds of stuff. It can be shocking to compare the kinds of answers you get in writing to the typical ones you get in oral responses in front of the rest of the panel.


Note to SKP, jury selection procedures vary in the United States. Federal courts don't usually let attorneys do much, but some judges let lawyers do more. State courts go from allowing very little to allowing anything. Some courts put ridiculous time limits on voir dire - like 20 minutes in a first degree murder. Where I practice, the judge asks a bunch of preliminary questions to the panel. Then we get to voir dire pretty much as long as we want. Usually we can get a jury by lunchtime without any time limits or anything.


Note to Andy - your experience sounds horrible. Like I said above, I tried a case last week and got a jury of 12 plus an alternate by 12:10 the first day of trial. We came back at 1:30, gave them some instructions and did openings. We got through too many witnesses the first day, so had to break early at 4:15 so more could be lined up. The next day we finished with the witnesses, loaded the jury on a bus to take them to the scene of some of the events didcussed in testimony, had some miscellaneous legal arguments, instructed them, closed, and gave them the case by 12:30. They had lunch on the county and then deliberated. It wasn't the most complex case or anything, but it was reasonably serious and important. The attorneys paid attention to jurors' answers and didn't strike people based on race or gender. I get pretty cynical about the system sometimes, but it sounds like you had a worse experience than I would expect. Even in a big city.


Anyway, I just think a lot of cases are too important to not let litigants have a say in jury selection. I wish we could actually pick a jury, but usually you're just looking to cull the herd of the horrible jurors. A skilled questioner can get a whole lot out of his time. I am not particularly good at voir dire and can still learn a lot about some jurors. A lot of times biased jurors lie or fly in under the radar, but I'd still like to have as few of these as possible.

SKP, talking to jurors can be extremely valuable. It can also be very scary. It is sad to hear the basis of some decisions. Other times it is amazing how diligently they work to arrive at a good verdict. It is too bad you are not allowed to talk to jurors informally. I don't always talk to them and I never ask about the deliberations specifically. (Where I practice they get an instruction telling them it's OK to talk to the attorneys or not - the choice is theirs. They are told to respect other jurors and the deliberations in their comments) I just ask them what they thought of the trial and see what they say. But it is very valuable overall to be able to talk to them.

Unlike my experience. Jury selection started(civil case) on time. Jury was selected in 2 hrs. Judge gave instructions, we went to lunch, trial started at 1. Concluded next day. Very little time wasted.


I thought we were supposed to be slow in Montana. Must be the traffic.

EDITH: I've got jury duty, Archie!


GLORIA: Isn't that exciting, Daddy?


Archie: You're on a jury, huh?


EDITH: Yeah!


ARCHIE: Well, what's all the fuss about? (to Gloria) They want people like your mother down there, because they know they ain't got any pink-unscrewed ideas.


MIKE: You ever serve on a jury, Arch?


ARCHIE: (proudly) I've served my time on the jury.


MIKE: (surprised) You did?


EDITH: Well, almost. He was thrown off because he insulted the defense attorney.


ARCHIE: He asked me what I thought of capital punishment. And I told him.


EDITH: For thirty minutes.


ARCHIE: It's a proven fact that capital punishment is a well-known detergent to crime.


MIKE: That's false! Capital punishment has *never* been proven to be a "deterrent" to crime.


ARCHIE: (sternly) We believe it is in this house.


GLORIA: Are you in favor of capital punishment, Ma?


EDITH: (unsure) I guess so.


GLORIA: Mother!


EDITH: (backpedalling) Well, so long as it ain't too severe.


(later, Archie is reading his newspaper. He suddenly sits up, very agitated by something he read)


ARCHIE: Oh, good night nurse, look at this!


MIKE: What?


ARCHIE: "...jury on the Rodriguez trial..." (hands paper to Mike) Go on, look at it, it's right there, see for yourself.


MIKE: "The jury on the Rodriguez trial was sent back to deliberations today when the judge refused to accept a hung jury. It is rumored that ONE LONE JUROR is blocking a unanimous verdict."


ARCHIE: (sadly) "Lone Juror". It shoulda said, "Lone Dingbat".


Bobby

I agree with the idea of weeding out people with preconceived notions or biases, but only a neutral party can do this. The attorneys, by definition, are biased, either in favor of conviction or acquittal. To allow them to take part in the process of picking an unbiased jury by definition makes the jury biased.