Originally Posted By alexbook I'm on jury duty tomorrow. This is the umpteenth time I've been called over the years, and I've never yet made it onto a jury. Luck of the draw, I guess. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to hear about some other people's experiences. Have you ever been on a jury? What was it like? Did you enjoy it? Was it interesting? Why or why not?
Originally Posted By sherrytodd I have been called for jury duty only once. I was told by everyone that I wouldn't get picked for the jury since I work in insurance. Well, guess what; #2 picked. The funny thing was that another person on the jury was a friend of mine that I hadn't seen in probably 8 or 9 years and he ended up being #3. Case wasn't that interesting. Guy ran into another car on his motorcycle going VERY fast. He was arrested but refused to submit to an alcohol test. Guilty of DWI and reckless driving. It was pretty boring.
Originally Posted By beamerdog I've been called 3 times in the 35 years I've lived in this state. No one ever selects me since my husband is an attorney and was in the attorney general's office, I was a paralegal, and I know a ton of attorneys and judges. I usually know one or more of the attorneys on the case. Plus one time I was excused because my dog was a distraction, lol. It's interesting that since Delaware is such a small state even judges are called to jury duty (and sometimes serve).
Originally Posted By Tinkeroon I have been called quite a few times over the years. Usually the case is dropped or I'm not chosen to serve for one reason or another. But I did serve once several years ago. It was a murder-for-hire case and we did find the suspect guilty. A woman was charged with hiring someone to kill her husband. (Which they did) It was very interesting but also a very long drawn out case. Lasted over 3 months. Didn't have to be sequestered, thank goodness, but it was really hard not talking about it at all since it was what consumed most of our time nearly every day. You learn a lot about the law in those types of cases, and what is and isn't admissible in court and why. I wouldn't mind doing it again IF I could be on a much shorter trial and IF it were in my home town. I do not like going to the city where our Superior Court is. And most especially that part of town. Lots of traffic, one way streets, panhandlers, etc... I find it very stressful getting to the parking garage of that courthouse. A short local trial would be fine.
Originally Posted By rtjl72 only once have i ever been called to jury duty and wouldn't you guess it i got picked. it was a child sexual molsetation trial. an uncle and his 3 nieces. it was about one of the worst things i have ever done. it was not the evidence brought forth. but the lack of it. and that the charges were filed. i'm not sure i ever did right in that deliberation room, but after 3 days i caved in and went along with the others. i don't think i want to say anymore but i bet i will never get picked again because i will say how awful of a taste i have in my mouth from that experience and hopefully nobody in their right mind will pick me.
Originally Posted By ShivaThDestroyer I've sat on two juries. One was for felony assault and the other for attempted murder. Both were very disillusioning. You learn real quick that the forensic and deductive skills that you see on TV don't seem to carry over into real life. I found it totally amazing that detectives who had worked on these cases for over a year never connected the evidence that would have resulted in open and shut convictions. One prosecutor even yelled at us when we failed to find the defendants guilty. The fault wasn't ours. We had to make our decisions based on the evidence that the prosecution presented. The silver lining was the friendships that we jurors developed.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I've been a registered voter for almost 30 years and I have never been called for jury duty. Frankly, I'd love to have the chance to do my civic duty like that at least once.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 try spending hours watching juries sleep,pick their nose and do everything under the sun but pay attention.the folks who are looking for a CSI type case are a real treat.I never watch police ,lawyer ,CSI or any shows like that .They all make me NUTS!!!
Originally Posted By Dznygrl Bleh, I was called to duty for the first time just this past April (I was 25 at the time), and wouldn't you know, I got picked. It was a rather boring, run-of-the-mill DUI case, where the guy was driving drunk and ran into someone's parked car in their driveway, and drove off. The trial took a week. But with jury duty, you WAIT more than anything else. Chances are you'll be sitting in the hall outside the courtroom WAITING for things to get started more than you'll watch any proceedings take place. I remember one day in particular they were having some kind of conflict over deciding whether or not a certain witness should be brought in, so we waited in the hall for two hours only to be brought in so they could tell us to break for lunch. We get back from lunch, sit and wait for a couple MORE hours, then they bring us in and tell us that they won't be continuing with the trial anymore that day, and we could go home. Aye yi yi! One thing that was good about it was my fellow jurors were a nice, fun bunch of people. I'm not much of a social person myself, but I enjoy listening to OTHER people be social. (Yes, I at least talked a little bit!) Everyone had a good sense of humor so they had me laughing during those awfully long waits. The deliberation did not take very long. I really couldn't think of anything to say that wasn't already being brought up, so I just kinda sat there with my mouth shut. There was only one guy who wasn't 100% convinced that the defendant was guilty (AAAAALWAYS has to be ONE!!), so it took a little to convince him. But we were outta there in a little over an hour I would say. Anyway, the whole thing was...a learning experience, I guess. I learned that I would never, ever want to be a lawyer. I also learned that the court system likes to start things late, take lots of breaks, long lunches, and go home early.
Originally Posted By chickapin I have also been registered 30 years and only called once. I wasn't put on the jury. (Didn't break my heart--it was a flasher on a college campus!) I do think it would be interesting to see how the process works at least once.
Originally Posted By jonvn I've been on jury duty a few times. It's a very disheartening experience. Last time was THE last time. It was also a child molestation thing. I am done with the underside of society. One time I served like 5 or 6 weeks on a malpractice case. It was dreadful. The only reason we were thrown together as a group and we were not allowed to talk about it. After weeks sitting in and listening to the testimony, it was settled out of court while we were deliberating. What a fricking waste of time.
Originally Posted By Ursula I've been picked twice. On the first one I was 18 and it was a murder trial. In Compton. Bad guy tries to steal a car, shoots the owner in front of the owner's pregnant girlfriend, premeditated and planned, gang related. I was the only juror the same age as the bad guy. Boy, was that interesting. We were taken to the scene of the crime (gas station) in the convict bus, we CLEARLY saw how the defendant's lawyers drew up the map to misguide us how far away both the gas station booth was from the pump, and how far the gas station was to the bad guy's home. It was eye-opening to say the least. And a spectacle as well. Some of the ladies called to the stand were decked out head to toe in gang colors dressed for church. With those large feather hats and sparkly handbags, too. We found him guilty. I listened to both sides, weighed the evidence (we even got to see the dead body in photos)...but the kicker was that the defendant said he was at a BBQ and therefore couldn't be at the scene of the crime...on a Thursday at 2pm. The "guests" at the BBQ were brought in sequestered (I hope that is the word) and were asked each what was served. One guy said hotdogs, the other chicken, the other ribs, etc. It just didn't make sense to me that having a BBQ on a Thursday would produce such a large amount of food to be served. One lady refused to say either way if he was guilty or not. She was older, so we asked her why. She was a follower of Jesus Christ and felt that it was not her job to judge. She said if she said he was guilty, he'd get the death penalty, and her religion was against that. We told the judge. He took her into chambers and had a talk. He convinced her that she was only saying if she thought he did it or not. We were not to decide or discuss penalties, and I assume he was also religious man because she came out feeling confident in making a choice. We were escorted out of the courthouse and got to ride in the judge's private elevator to the parking garage because one of the gangs had people sitting in the courtroom and there was talk of retaliation to the jury. I even drove home crazy, taking three freeways, and exiting last-minute. The other trial I was on wasn't nearly as interesting. A john got caught for hiring a prostitute. After the jury was picked, the guy tried to convince us that prostitution wasn't a crime and he realized how stupid he was and pled guilty instead and we were sent home in two hours. The lesson I learned on this second trial is: never lie to get out of jury duty. The fellow sitting next to me cried to the judge that prostitution shouldn't be illegal and that this whole trial was a waste of his precious time. The judge asked him more questions on his views and this fellow was backed into saying that he wouldn't mind being on a trial that was worth his while...so the judge sent him from the posh courthouse of El Segundo to Downtown L.A. to serve on a very long murder trial AFTER he dismissed the rest of us after the two hours.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I was called to serve on a Federal jury last December. Fortunately the night before I was supposed to report I received a call saying that the jury panel I had been assigned to was being dismissed (I assume for lack of cases). I was still eligible to be called again, but at that point there was only about two weeks left in my eligibility window, so I did not get called again. I was pretty happy... I figured that the most likely federal crimes around here would be drug crimes and really didn't want to deal with that.
Originally Posted By jonvn If I were to ever sit on a jury again, and it was for something like prostitution or drugs, I would vote not guilty, no matter what the evidence is. I don't think these are things that should be in our justice system. If no one gets hurt, these are victimless crimes and I will have no part in sending someone to jail for basically nothing.
Originally Posted By barboy rtjl72, did I read that right? You and your crew convicted someone of something extremely serious without evidence? So because of you some poor guy out there might well be innocent but is given a life sentence. Good God I hope you can sleep at night.
Originally Posted By barboy "One lady refused to say either way if he was guilty or not. She was older, so we asked her why. She was a follower of Jesus Christ and felt that it was not her job to judge. She said if she said he was guilty, he'd get the death penalty, and her religion was against that." I'm confused. You said Compton, as in Compton(LA area) California right? In California a prospective juror in a death penalty case is supposed to be "death penalty" qualified. "but the kicker was that the defendant said he was at a BBQ" Are you saying that since he lacked a substantiated alibi that means he was guilty. In theory the state is burdened with the task of showing that the accused was present at this crime scene. In other words a defendant, in theory, is not obligated to prove he is innocent by supplying an alibi(faulty or legitimate)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<If I were to ever sit on a jury again, and it was for something like prostitution or drugs, I would vote not guilty, no matter what the evidence is.>> The Feds are a real trip on the drug stuff. In their 'stings' they go after a few upper-middle level dealers and then drag in users that are just marginally involved. They know they will never nail the guys on the margins with the conspiracy to distribute stuff, but by scaring the shit out of them with the threat of long prison terms the use 'em to get information about the big boys. Hey... all's fair in love and drug enforcement, right?
Originally Posted By sherrytodd <<<rtjl72, did I read that right? You and your crew convicted someone of something extremely serious without evidence? So because of you some poor guy out there might well be innocent but is given a life sentence. Good God I hope you can sleep at night.>>> They did not say whether they found him guilty or innocent. Climb down from your high horse.
Originally Posted By Ursula jonvn: <<<If I were to ever sit on a jury again, and it was for something like prostitution or drugs, I would vote not guilty, no matter what the evidence is. I don't think these are things that should be in our justice system. If no one gets hurt, these are victimless crimes and I will have no part in sending someone to jail for basically nothing.>>> This opinion really bugs me. In the times I've had jury duty and went through the process, SO many jurors say this. The problem is that it is not the jury system's duty to make the law. Juries are to decide cases and determine if a law was broken. If you don't like a law, lobby to your congressman/lawmakers. And "victimless" crimes do have victims, don't kid yourself. (like the drug addict who put a gun to my head to buy drugs with the money and goods he stole from me, for example).
Originally Posted By barboy "it was about one of the worst things i have ever done. it was not the evidence brought forth. but the lack of it. and that the charges were filed. i'm not sure i ever did right in that deliberation room, but after 3 days i caved in and went along with the others." Really Sherry? This passage is quite revealing. How else would one interpret it? Here is what I read: the state charged a man with very little evidence--- so little that the poster is ashamed and regretful that he/she threw in the towel and found the man guilty due to peer pressure. And now that the man has a life sentence he/she is haunted by his/her lack of spine in the jury room. So again how would you interpret it?
