|
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
But I wondered why. Like everyone else I was asked if I had been on a
jury before, and I answered yes that I had been on both a civil and a
criminal jury. The judge then asked if I had been the foreman, and I
answered yes, and she then asked if my juries had reached a verdict,
and I answered yes.
I also told the judge that I had read about the case in the newspaper
when other prospective jurors brought that up.
Other than the standard info about my education, marital status,
occupation etc that was all I had said. I'm a tall, middle aged male,
scientific type. The defendant was a middle aged woman charged with
vandalizing a vehicle that was parked in front of her house.
So I'm wondering- was it likely that I was dismissed because I had
been a jury foreman? Also, what is the significance of whether or not
my juries reached a verdict? Obviously these must be important
questions as the judge asked them, but I don't understand why.
-Paul
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 7:14 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
If you are relating this accurately, you were not dismissed "for
cause" - there was nothing about what you said that made the judge
decide (usually, on motion of one or both of the parties) that you
would be an inappropriate juror for this particular case (although
maybe you would be a fine juror for a different case). "Peremptory"
means you were de-selected, for whatever gut-feeling reason he wanted,
by the defense lawyer. No one has to give any reason to exercise a
peremptory challenge (unless the challenge is itself challenged as
being racially or ethnically biased) and so no one but that defense
lawyer knows why he booted you off his jury.
But I wondered why. Like everyone else I was asked if I had been on a
jury before, and I answered yes that I had been on both a civil and a
criminal jury. The judge then asked if I had been the foreman, and I
answered yes, and she then asked if my juries had reached a verdict,
and I answered yes.
Hard to tell if that had anything to do with it; it cuts both ways.
Maybe in some cases the defense would have wanted someone who was good
at logic and good at organizing ideas and good at getting other people
to agree with him. Or maybe the defense lawyer in this case saw
those traits as liabilities and was looking for a jury that would
sympathize on an emotional level with his client.
I also told the judge that I had read about the case in the newspaper
when other prospective jurors brought that up.
Didn't they also ask if, despite reading about it, you could still be
fair in your consideration of the evidence, and base any verdict only
on the evidence presented in court? So this knowledge would not
disqualify you "for cause" if you answered that you could still be
fair. Contrary to popular belief, jury selection is _not_ a process
of getting rid of everybody with more than a high school education or
any kind of responsible job. It just seems that way sometimes
because more of the educated/employed members of the jury pool can
come up with good reasons why it would be a hardship for them to serve
on a multi-day trial than can someone who would just sit there
watching trials all day anyway, be it Judge Judy or the live
presentation in a real court.
Other than the standard info about my education, marital status,
occupation etc that was all I had said. I'm a tall, middle aged male,
scientific type.
Again, maybe he wanted more huggy-feely types on his jury instead of
analytical lab boffins.
The defendant was a middle aged woman charged with
vandalizing a vehicle that was parked in front of her house.
I'm sure she felt she had a good reason (cheating ex-boyfriend's car,
maybe?) and wanted jurors who would see things her way.
So I'm wondering- was it likely that I was dismissed because I had
been a jury foreman? Also, what is the significance of whether or not
my juries reached a verdict? Obviously these must be important
questions as the judge asked them, but I don't understand why.
You're analyzing this way too much. Which sounds perfectly natural
to you, like breathing, which is why you chose a career in science.
And which may be why, having seen the nonverbal cues you gave off in
answering the voir dire questions as well as your actual answers, the
defense concluded you would not be friendly to his client if you wound
up on his jury.
For those who don't know and may be leaping to other conclusions, jury
selection is really a process of jury de-selection in that both sides
of a case are given, at the outset, a certain number of peremptory
challenges that they are allowed to issue, to try to shape an
acceptable jury. Everyone has biases of one kind or another, based
on who they are and their past experience; a smart lawyer wants to de-
select those whose biases might predispose them to rule against his
client or which at least may make them not as friendly toward his
client as some other jurors would be.
You say "these must be important questions as the judge asked them."
They are important, to the parties, not necessarily to the judge.
Making peremptory challenges is a right, not a requirement, and the
voir dire (jury qualification) questions you were asked under oath are
an important prerequisite to the parties' being able to exercise their
peremptory challenges in a hopefully useful way. The judge would be
just as happy (maybe more so, since it's quicker) to simply seat the
first 12 people to walk into the room as his jury. The questions the
judge asked you were provided by the parties, based on the kind of
information they each particularly wanted to know to help qualify a
jury for that specific case.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
Paul G. wrote:
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
But I wondered why. Like everyone else I was asked if I had been on a
jury before, and I answered yes that I had been on both a civil and a
criminal jury. The judge then asked if I had been the foreman, and I
answered yes, and she then asked if my juries had reached a verdict,
and I answered yes.
I also told the judge that I had read about the case in the newspaper
when other prospective jurors brought that up.
Other than the standard info about my education, marital status,
occupation etc that was all I had said. I'm a tall, middle aged male,
scientific type. The defendant was a middle aged woman charged with
vandalizing a vehicle that was parked in front of her house.
So I'm wondering- was it likely that I was dismissed because I had
been a jury foreman? Also, what is the significance of whether or not
my juries reached a verdict? Obviously these must be important
questions as the judge asked them, but I don't understand why.
-Paul
I have had the same experience. It was explained to me that many defense
attorneys do not care for educated former forepersons whose juries
reached verdicts -- thinking that they might have had too much influence
over the other jurors.
In a criminal case, in which I was foreman, the original vote was 5-1
for conviction. I was the 1. The final vote was 6-0 for acquittal. So
it can work both ways.
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 3:14 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
But I wondered why.
Looks like it was just my gender (though I'm not remotely biased
against women). I would still like to know why they ask about prior
jury experience, and how it affects jury selection. Here's what was
in the paper today:
Women chosen for Kelley jury
Opening statements today in vandalism trial
By LORI A. CARTER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
March 26, 2008
Opening statements are set to begin today in the misdemeanor vandalism
trial of Sebastopol City Councilwoman Linda Kelley following an
afternoon of jury selection Tuesday that yielded an all-female panel.
Kelley, 54, has pleaded not guilty to allegations that she used a key
to scrape a truck parked in front of her home in August. She could be
sentenced to up to a year in county jail, fined $10,000 and ordered to
pay restitution if she's convicted. Defense attorney Lisa Gygax
previously sought to move the trial elsewhere, arguing that Kelley
couldn't be judged fairly in Sonoma County because she is a liberal, a
lesbian and a politician.
Ending up with an all-woman jury wasn't necessarily the goal, Gygax
said following court Tuesday. "There were larger factors to consider,"
she said.
Following months of pretrial hearings that she wasn't required to
attend, Kelley was present Tuesday and conferred with Gygax at times
before choosing which potential jurors to excuse. As people in a panel
of 80 prospective jurors were questioned, a gender pattern began to
develop for both the defense and prosecution.
Deputy District Attorney Jenica Leonard excused four women and one man
from the panel. Gygax dismissed six men and one woman.
|
| |
| |
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
That means the defendant's lawyer didn't like you for some reason,
but don't take it personally. And he doesn't have to give a reason.
But I wondered why. Like everyone else I was asked if I had been on a
jury before, and I answered yes that I had been on both a civil and a
criminal jury. The judge then asked if I had been the foreman, and I
answered yes, and she then asked if my juries had reached a verdict,
and I answered yes.
I also told the judge that I had read about the case in the newspaper
when other prospective jurors brought that up.
This, by itself, is a likely reason to exclude someone. Question:
if all of the prospective jurors who read about the case in the
newspaper were excluded, would there have been enough left for a
jury?
Other than the standard info about my education, marital status,
occupation etc that was all I had said. I'm a tall, middle aged male,
scientific type.
There is a rumor going around that people who think too much:
engineers, scientists, programmers, etc. don't get on juries much.
I do know I've been called for jury duty 6 times, was assigned to
a specific case 6 times, and a jury was selected 4 times and I
wasn't on it. (The other two were last-minute settlements.) Yes,
I'm sure my example alone doesn't prove much. I didn't try to get
out of it (as I didn't really have any good excuses, and my job
would pay me anyway).
The defendant was a middle aged woman charged with
vandalizing a vehicle that was parked in front of her house.
Could this have been a middle-aged *married* woman charged
with vandalizing her husband's mistress' vehicle? Then perhaps
the lawyer doesn't want many married men on the jury.
So I'm wondering- was it likely that I was dismissed because I had
been a jury foreman? Also, what is the significance of whether or not
my juries reached a verdict?
Lawyers on either side don't like hung juries. If you were on a
jury that didn't reach a verdict, YOU might be the one who won't
vote to convict the defendant "because she looks like my cousin
Julie" even if the murder happened live on national television. I
don't think lawyers are allowed to ask if you voted for "GUILTY"
or "NOT GUILTY".
|
| |
| |
On Mar 27, 3:29 am, William Brenner <wbren...@nospamplease.net> wrote:
I have had the same experience. It was explained to me that many defense
attorneys do not care for educated former forepersons whose juries
reached verdicts -- thinking that they might have had too much influence
over the other jurors.
OK, that makes sense, as well as your comment that it works both ways.
I certainly wouldn't vote to convict someone just because I didn't
like them personally. This woman is going to need a sympathetic jury
if what the paper says is true- the owner of the truck she keyed was
sleeping in it at the time, and woke up and saw her. So a hung jury
might be a big win for the defense.
The judge said it would be a 5 or 6 day trial. Why this went to trial
and how something so simple could be dragged out to 5 or 6 days is a
mystery to me. It does involve politics, though, the defendant is a
member of the city council. Not my city, so I didn't have a dog in
this fight.
-Paul
|
| |
| |
William Brenner <wbrenner@nospamplease.net> wrote:
In a criminal case, in which I was foreman, the original vote was
5-1 for conviction. I was the 1. The final vote was 6-0 for
acquittal. So it can work both ways.
Funny, you don't look like Henry Fonda.
Getting back to the OP's question, jury consultants help lawyers
determine which jurors are likely to be helpful or hostile to their
cases. These determinations are based on a number of factors, but
include things like education, ethnicity and political leanings.
Here's an article on jury selection: http://www.slate.com/id/2147351/
Stu
|
| |
| |
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:29:27 -0400 from Mike Jacobs
<mjacobslaw@gmail.com>:
No one has to give any reason to exercise a
peremptory challenge (unless the challenge is itself challenged as
being racially or ethnically biased) and so no one but that defense
lawyer knows why he booted you off his jury.
I'm curious about how this works, because as a layman it seems to me
there are lots of opportunities to drag out a trial.
If opposing counsel suspects that a peremptory challenge is racially
motivated, she challenges the challenge. Does the judge hold a
hearing in chambers? How much defense must the first attorney give,
the one who issued the peremptory challenge. Does opposing counsel
have to give any reason why she thinks the challenge was racially
motivated, or can *she* just peremptorily challenge a peremptory
challenge?
Is there any limit to the opposing counsel's ability to protest
peremptory challenges, other than the patience of the judge?
Has the upholding or denying of a peremptory challenge been a
significant issue raised at appeal (so far)?
Interestingly, "peremptor" is Latin for "murderer" or "killer", if
Cocteau's setting of /Oedipus Rex/ is to be believed.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:20:40 -0400, "Stuart A. Bronstein"
<spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Getting back to the OP's question, jury consultants help lawyers
determine which jurors are likely to be helpful or hostile to their
cases. These determinations are based on a number of factors, but
include things like education, ethnicity and political leanings.
Here's an article on jury selection: http://www.slate.com/id/2147351/
The cited article and all the discussion in this thread, seems to be
about juries in the American courtroom. I have never heard about
jury consultants used in foreign countries. Does anybody have any
knowledge of it? I believe that England has gotten rid of peremptory
challenges. What would happen if that happened in the USA? Lawyer
riots?
RHR
|
| |
| |
On Mar 28, 7:21 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:29:27 -0400 from Mike Jacobs
<mjacobs...@gmail.com>:
I'm curious about how this works, because as a layman it seems to me
there are lots of opportunities to drag out a trial.
Oh Jeez, Stan, you're asking for a lot more detail than I personally
know from experience, since I've only once had a case where such an
issue was raised (by me, at my client's insistence, back when I was
doing mostly insurance defense work, when my black client wound up
with an all-white jury in a rural MD county that didn't have many
black residents to begin with, but it was a car crash for heaven's
sake and the insurance company was going to pay for any damages
awarded and the plaintiff herself was black as was her lawyer. At my
request the 2 lawyers went up to the bench, I said "defense challenges
the jury array based on the rule of _Batson_v_Kentucky_ (the SCOTUS
case that allowed and set the parameters for such challenges) but the
judge, who was also black, gave about 2 seconds thought to it before
he denied my motion. That was that. And anecdotally, it seems to
be what happens with most Batson challenges -- the successful ones
that you read about in the paper are quite rare and require pretty
strong evidence of racial bias on the part of the opposing attorney.
If opposing counsel suspects that a peremptory challenge is racially
motivated, she challenges the challenge. Does the judge hold a
hearing in chambers?
Generally it's done at the bench, when the attorneys are called up
after the jury is seated to see if either of them have any objection
to the array. I don't know what would happen if the judge felt there
_was_ a possible basis for a Batson challenge, since it would
basically mean throwing out the first jury and starting over. My
sense is that they would not try to pick another jury from the same
panel of prospective jurors; they would send all of them back to the
jury room to maybe get selected in a different case, and bring out a
new panel, if it's a big enough county to have multiple jury trials
set for any given day so they would have more prospective jurors
sitting in the back room waiting. As I mentioned, in a small rural
county where a jury trial is an occasional event, Batson challenges
are not likely to succeed unless the discrimination in jury selection
is overt and obvious.
How much defense must the first attorney give,
the one who issued the peremptory challenge.
He/she has to come up with a sound, non-racially/ethnically-motivated
reason for challenging the minority jurors (i.e. the same reason they
would have challenged that person if he/she had be seen of a different
ethnicity, best shown if they did in fact challenge majority jurors
who also had that characteristic).
Does opposing counsel
have to give any reason why she thinks the challenge was racially
motivated, or can *she* just peremptorily challenge a peremptory
challenge?
Read _Batson_. IIRC the grounds for such a challenge must be that
the jury does not sufficiently reflect the racial/ethnic makeup of the
jurisdiction (so that the defendant does not have the Constitutionally
guaranteed "jury of his peers") and that the reason for the imbalance
was some flaw in the selection process, either in the way the court
administrators selected the prospective panel in the first place, or
in opposing counsel's peremptory challenges.
OK, you made me read it again, Stan. Batson, 476 US 79 (1986) says,
for its rationale:
"More than a century ago, the Court decided that the State denies a
black defendant equal protection of the laws when it puts him on trial
before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully
excluded. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880). That
decision laid the foundation for the Court's unceasing efforts to
eradicate racial discrimination in the procedures used to select the
venire from which individual jurors are drawn. In Strauder, the Court
explained that the central concern of the recently ratified Fourteenth
Amendment was to put an end to governmental discrimination on account
of race. . Exclusion of black citizens from service as jurors
constitutes a primary example of the evil the Fourteenth Amendment was
designed to cure.
"In holding that racial discrimination in jury selection offends the
Equal Protection Clause, the Court in Strauder recognized, however,
that a defendant has no right to a 'petit jury composed in whole or in
part of persons of his own race.' 'The number of our races and
nationalities stands in the way of evolution of such a conception' of
the demand of equal protection. But the defendant does have the right
to be tried by a jury whose members are selected pursuant to non-
discriminatory criteria. The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the
defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the
jury venire on account of race. Purposeful racial discrimination in
selection of the venire violates a defendant's right to equal
protection because it denies him the protection that a trial by jury
is intended to secure. 'The very idea of a jury is a body . . .
composed of the peers or equals of the person whose rights it is
selected or summoned to determine; that is, of his neighbors, fellows,
associates, persons having the same legal status in society as that
which he holds.'"
Is there any limit to the opposing counsel's ability to protest
peremptory challenges, other than the patience of the judge?
It's a Constitutional issue so, no, as long as the challenge is made
in good faith. And in a criminal case, the defense is not only
allowed but, I would argue, obligated to make such challenges if there
is any colorable ground for them, at risk of providing ineffective
assistance of counsel to his client.
Has the upholding or denying of a peremptory challenge been a
significant issue raised at appeal (so far)?
Well, there's Batson, which first set the parameters of the concept.
I suppose there have been lots of appellate cases which discussed
Batson - you could Shepardize it if you're willing to do all that
work. I'm not, at least when I'm just spouting personal opinions in
a Usenet newsgroup as a hobby.
Interestingly, "peremptor" is Latin for "murderer" or "killer", if
Cocteau's setting of /Oedipus Rex/ is to be believed.
I think "usurper" is a closer English translation -- one who
wrongfully steps into the shoes of another. Which is what ol'
Oedipus did to his Dad, _after_ he killed him.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
On 28 Mar 2008, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I'm curious about how [determining whether it
is/isn't more rather than less likely that a peremptory
challenge to a would be juror in a criminal case, if
unexplained, is the result of impermissible group bias]
works, because as a layman it seems to me there are
lots of opportunities to drag out a trial.
The trial judge is in this respect the proverbial "traffic cop"
besides adjudicator.
[If opposing counsel objects to a peremptory
challenge as racially motivated, d]oes the judge
hold a hearing in chambers?
Most such challenges are resolved by a brief "bench" conference,
perhaps even one the parties and judge will conduct off-the-record
although in such case all are aware that, depending on what that
discussion may entail, an on-the-record resum perhaps followed by a
full-blown hearing may follow.
This is explained and the basic procedures established in the lead
U.S. supreme court case dealing with these issues, Batson v. Kentucky,
476 U.S. 79 (1986), is further glossed/amplified in, e.g., Jay Shawn
Johnson v. Calif., 541 U.S. 428 (2004) and, especially, 545 U.S. 162
(2005), and was further elaborated by the U.S. supreme court just a
few weeks ago (on March 19, 2008) in Snyder v. Louisiana (U.S. sup.
ct. Dckt. No. 06-10119).
These issues are about to becoming the subject of ongoing news/media
discussion and further litigation in light of yesterday's
controversial (and at best dubious) majority ruling by the U.S. court
of appeals for the Third Circuit in the Mumia Abu-Jamal case (re.
which see, e.g., http://vls.law.vill.edu/Locator/3/ or
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/03/federal-appeals-court-backs-new.php).
How much defense must the first attorney give,
the one who issued the peremptory challenge.
A plausible/reasonable justification (re. which, again, read at least
Batson, Johnson, and Snyder if you really are interested).
Does opposing counsel have to give any
reason why she thinks the challenge was
racially motivated . . . . ?
Yes.
Is there any limit to the opposing counsel's ability to
protest peremptory challenges, other than the patience
of the judge?
Counsel's awareness that prejudice to the attorney's client and,
possibly, the imposition of contempt or other sanctions on counsel may
be the price paid for not behaving reasonably in this connection.
Has the upholding or denying of a peremptory
challenge been a significant issue raised at
appeal (so far)?
That, besides on other occasions, e.g., in the rulings also cited
below, the U.S. supreme court in Batson, then in Johnson, then again
so recently in Snyder, and in the cases also cited and the ruling
yesterday and soon expected motion for en banc Third Circuit
consideration in Abu-Jamal in light of the very vigorous dissent in
that case, ought provide you with most of "significant":yes?/no?
And a "P.S." - Don't forget that the "Batson rule" and procedures
established by Batson apply also to civil cases (e.g., Edmonson v.
Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 [1991]) and that the term
"group bias" (and not just "race") is used above to remind that not
only race-based but also other class-based challenges can be included
(see, J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)
[unconstitutional peremptorily to challenge based solely on sex]).
|
| |
| |
RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
The cited article and all the discussion in this thread, seems to be
about juries in the American courtroom. I have never heard about
jury consultants used in foreign countries. Does anybody have any
knowledge of it? I believe that England has gotten rid of peremptory
challenges. What would happen if that happened in the USA? Lawyer
riots?
Many countries don't use juries at all. In England they are only used
for criminal cases. According to wikipedia peremptory challenges were
finally abolilshed there in 1988. Here's the wikipedia article, that
talks about challenges in various countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Stu
|
| |
| |
Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:46:00 -0400 from Mike Jacobs
<mjacobslaw@gmail.com>:
defense challenges the jury array
Thanks for so many details, Mike! I had in mind that a peremptory
challenge was challenged right away, so that the challenged juror
(might) be seated on the jury anyway. But from your article I see
that it's the jury as a whole gets challenged on the basis that the
other side's peremptory challenges must have been ethnically
motivated to produce the resulting jury.
That makes sense to me, statistically. The Court came a long way in
the relatively short span of 20 years, when it decided (Swain v
Alabama, 1965) that a pool of 100 veniremen with only 8% blacks, in a
county that was 26% black, was not racially biased in selection. (All
8 blacks were excluded by peremptory challenges by the prosecution.)
I use Swain v Alabama in my statistics class every semester; it's
elementary to calculate that there are only 5 chances in a million of
randomly selecting 100 people from that population and getting no
more than 8 blacks. To this day I wonder why Swain's attorney didn't
consult a statistician in preparing his brief.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
Stuart Bronstein wrote:
Many countries don't use juries at all. In England they are only used
for criminal cases. According to wikipedia peremptory challenges were
finally abolilshed there in 1988. Here's the wikipedia article, that
talks about challenges in various countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge
Stu
Andy writes:
I had to serve on a jury just once, and the prosecutor asked me
the
question " Do you know who the defendant in this trial is ??
So I answered " I think it's either the clean cut young man over
there in the
brown suit, or the sneaky looking fellow in the blue suit "
I was accepted as a juror.....
Turns out that the guy in the blue suit was the defense
attorney.....
True story...
Andy in Eureka, Texas
|
| |
| |
AndyS <andysharpe@juno.com> wrote:
I had to serve on a jury just once, and the prosecutor asked me
the question " Do you know who the defendant in this trial is ??
So I answered " I think it's either the clean cut young man over
there in the brown suit, or the sneaky looking fellow in the blue
suit "
I was accepted as a juror.....
Turns out that the guy in the blue suit was the defense
attorney.....
Reminds me of two judges I heard talking. One said,
"Sometime this job gets to me - being faced with the dregs of humanity
day after day."
Said the other, "I know what you mean. And their clients aren't much
better."
True story...
Not mine, but not that you'd know it.
Stu
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 3:14 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
But I wondered why.
OK, now I'm impressed by the defense attorney's jury-picking skills. I
thought this was a pretty simple case, but no...
Kelley jurors listen to bits of testimony
Forewoman says panel split on Sebastopol case
By LORI A. CARTER THE PRESS DEMOCRAT April 02, 2008
Jurors deliberating the misdemeanor vandalism case of Sebastopol City
Councilwoman Linda Kelley are split on whom to believe, the forewoman
said in court Tuesday. The 12-woman panel began deliberating Tuesday
afternoon after meeting for about a half-hour Friday evening. About
two hours later, they told the judge they would like to hear some
testimony again.
After hearing snippets of testimony from the alleged victim, Michael
Zinsley of Alameda, Sebastopol City Councilman Sam Pierce, a body shop
worker and two police officers, the panel adjourned for the day
without reaching a verdict. The forewoman told Judge Dana Simonds that
jurors were having difficulty determining the difference between
evidence and opinion. "We're having disagreement on which evidence to
believe is true and which is false," she said. "Some believe one
thing, and some believe another."
|
| |
| |
On Mar 26, 3:14 am, "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
I was called for jury duty on a criminal case and was very happy to be
dismissed on a peremptory challenge by the defendant's lawyer.
OK, the wrap-up- hung jury, 9 for conviction, 3 for acquittal. I'm
impressed. I thought this was a slam-dunk for the prosecution. The
victim hears someone keying his car, looks out and sees the defendant
standing there with her keys in her hand. The explanation makes
perfect sense- he's parked in her usual spot, in front of her house
when she comes home from working a night shift.
Prosecution says they will re-try. Defendant also has a drunken
driving charge pending, so she's still in a lot of trouble.
-Paul
|
| |
| |
|
