choosing a jury

[itsmecindi]

I was supposed to be on jury duty yesterday but I was excused because I can't stay gone during breeding season. Jill's boyfriend Paul has to go today. His mother had to go last week. I don't know what's going on, but it seems like they are going through every person in the county trying to build a jury.

This really ticks me off. I don't think lawyers should be able to choose a jury based on which persons they think will relate to them well or will help them win their case. I think they should take the first twelve people who show up and get on with it.

Why should lawyers be able to discriminate against a potential juror because they ask a series of questions and are not satisfied with the anwers or the way they relate to a particular juror.

If an old lady shows up for jury duty for a case where someone was mugged, and she herself had been mugged, they would excuse her. I think they should do the opposite. She oughta know if the details ring true is she's been through it.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I think they should take the first twelve people who show up and get on with it.
)</font>

Sounds good in some ways, but too simplistic; just wouldn't work. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif There really are people who would be so prejudiced in one direction or the other that a fair trial would be a joke. Naturally I don't agree with all the things that are done in picking a jury and think far too many "potential" jurors are called in to pick only a few, but . . . well, it's a complex issue and I don't have the answer. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I've wasted several days myself reporting for jury duty and not being selected to serve on a jury, but I've also had to serve on two juries. And attorneys sometimes really surprise you in selecting. There was a time in this area when any police officer, retired officer, and/or relatives or even friends of police officers were quickly and almost automatically excluded from serving on any criminal case, but the last time I was called for jury service was for a capital murder case and I expected to be quickly excused, but instead wound up as the jury foreman. /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[itsmecindi]

Oooooh! What happened! You can talk about it now of course right?

As to the juror selection, I think as a freind of mine once said, if you are under sixty five you should not even be considered. Let the tribal elders settle it. It would make these young punks think twice about how they treat the elderley and they've been around long enough to be pretty good judges of character.

 

[Bird]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Oooooh! What happened! )</font>

Cindi, we sent the guy to death row, but the appeals court decided that the trial judge made a tiny error in one part of his instructions to the jury, so they set aside the death penalty, which left it up to the prosecutor as to whether to retry it or let it just be a life sentence. He's serving life. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( if you are under sixty five you should not even be considered. Let the tribal elders settle it )</font>

That idea has a certain amount of appeal /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif, but would that be a jury of the defendant's "peers"? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif And in Texas, at least, being over 65 is one of the ways to avoid jury duty. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[jpr62902]

Cindi,

A little food for thought. If they simply took the first 12, you wouldn't have been excused for the breeding season.

Typically, each side is given only 3 "peremptory" challenges -- meaning they can excuse 3 potential jurors without a reason, although it can't look like its based on some taboo basis (i.e. race). After that, all challenges must be for cause. I got called for jury duty about a year ago. The case was a criminal charge against an "exotic" dancer for prostitution. When certain potential jurors were asked if the evidence in that case would offend them, they quite honestly said, "yes." and were excused for cause. They probably couldn't give an unbiased vote.

I agree, the system ain't perfect, but its a heck of alot better that the "judicial" systems in other countries. Oh, and I didn't get picked for that case either. They had the panel selected before ever getting to me.

 

[jpr62902]

Bird,

I have to tip my hat to you. A couple of friends of mine served on capital murder cases, and they were left with some very disturbing images. Same goes to law enforcement. It can be pretty darn emotionally wrenching to be up close and personal with the lowest, most base animal elements of human nature.

 

[Bird]

You're right, Jim. Serving on that jury was definitely an emotionally wrenching experience for all the jurors; not something you'd want to do, and I'm sure we all hope to never have to do it again.

 

[itsmecindi]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( If they simply took the first 12, you wouldn't have been excused for the breeding season.
)</font>

No, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be excusals (new word?)

I'm saying the first twelve people who can and do show up.

Imagine this scenario. Jurors are our retired citizens. They are chosen at random and compensated in much the same way you would be if you were called away from work. They get to make a few bucks, they have more years behind them and in most cases are wiser. Also in most cases they have no small children at home or a job to interfere. Why is it so critical to have a jury of our peers. Why aren't our peers just other humans? Why do they have to be in the same age bracket and so on? Why does that matter?

 

[jpr62902]

I'm sure some "retired citizens" on TBN would take issue with your proposal (often "retirement" means "I have to work harder now"). On the other hand, 60+ years of life teaches you a heck of alot more than any law degree. Shoot, I'm only 37 and still keep saying to myself, "Boy, if I only knew then what I know now...." Anyway, age isn't critical in establishing who the Defendant's peers are, but your ideas certainly have some merit.

 

[Gatorboy]

It's hard for me to take your arguments seriously, Cindi. Perhaps you are just baiting the forum for what you know will be a large number of posts that oppose your view.

I am waiting for your next post to say, "How about creating Professional Jurors, and they are employed full-time to just sit on juries."

A jury of your peers does not just mean humans -- peers means (from the dictionary):

<font color="brown">A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age: children who are easily influenced by their peers. </font>

This is why the jury selection works the way it does -- to try and create a jury of your peers -- not just senior citizens.