Anyone Here Ever Been on a Jury? (or involved in choosing a jury?)

[Orlando Buffalo]

I have twice been through voir dire and I was rejected both times based on my answer to a couple questions. I gave honest answers but in the one case it was clear the prosecutor wanted people who believed the guy was guilty because of almost exclusively testimony, where I need solid evidence 

[muppy]

I was dismissed by the defense attorney. It was a murder and attempted murder case. I would have been the last person seated

 

The judge asked the jury pool if anyone had ever been a crime victim. I answered yes. They asked what the crime was. I told them.

 

BOOTED. Biased and unable to be impartial. BALONEY. But the attorneys have split second to make snap judgments I get it.

 

I didn't like it but I get it.

[dhg]

On a jury 3 times. Foreman one time on federal trial.

[wnyguy]

The one trial I was on a jury was a malpractice case. I knew the plaintiff and the doctor being sued. I told them this during voir dire and they asked if my knowing both parties would cause me have an opinion before the evidence was presented. I said no and then they named me foreman.

[The Frankish Reich]

Sean Combs (let's stop using his infantile nicknames) acquitted of the big RICO charges, convicted on the little Mann Act felony.

 

The jury got it right. Overcharged. Clearly guilty of a lot of domestic violence that wasn't prosecuted thanks to playoffs, now convicted under the old morals charge about transporting people (in a weird turnabout, people with penises) for the purposes of prostitution.

 

Sometimes juries really do work the way they're supposed to.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Sean Combs (let's stop using his infantile nicknames) acquitted of the big RICO charges, convicted on the little Mann Act felony.

 

The jury got it right. Overcharged. Clearly guilty of a lot of domestic violence that wasn't prosecuted thanks to playoffs, now convicted under the old morals charge about transporting people (in a weird turnabout, people with penises) for the purposes of prostitution.

 

Sometimes juries really do work the way they're supposed to.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.  He's got some real issues in dealing with the women in his life, it would seem, and he's living a life of debauchery (from my humble perspective), but there sure seemed to be an awful lot of willing participants. 

 

 

[Wacka]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Sean Combs (let's stop using his infantile nicknames) acquitted of the big RICO charges, convicted on the little Mann Act felony.

 

The jury got it right. Overcharged. Clearly guilty of a lot of domestic violence that wasn't prosecuted thanks to playoffs, now convicted under the old morals charge about transporting people (in a weird turnabout, people with penises) for the purposes of prostitution.

 

Sometimes juries really do work the way they're supposed to.

So you support a pervert?

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

So you support a pervert?

Of course not.

1. He should have been convicted for domestic violence assault. The hotel video tells the story. He paid off the victim. 

2. He is, as the jury found, clearly guilty of the Mann Act crimes. Those have been criticized as puritanical things that should have fallen by the wayside decades ago, but they are still the law, and he still violated it. Given the circumstances surrounding the Mann Act violations, I hope he gets a very substantial sentence. I think he's exposed himself (hah!) to about 20 years. I'd like to see him get 5-10.

3. The RICO counts were a legal stretch, and the evidence just didn't clearly support them beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

There was a failure of the criminal justice system in allowing this perv to get away with his conduct for a long time, but that failure isn't fixed by charging unsupportable crimes now. In a weird way, justice has finally been done (assuming the sentence is sufficient).

[4th&long]

6 hours ago, Wacka said:

So you support a pervert?

You do, trump. Who are you to talk?! 

[JFKjr]

Anybody follow the Karen Read trial up in Massachusetts?

[The Frankish Reich]

33 minutes ago, JFKjr said:

Anybody follow the Karen Read trial up in Massachusetts?

I did, at least generally, and from what I saw I think the jury got that one right too. (DUI conviction but acquitted of murder/manslaughter)

[AverageAllensSuspensor]

Never on a jury. Do not have a jury system in Sweden (with a very rare exception). But I have tried hundreds of criminal cases as a judge.

 

In Sweden at district courts criminal cases are normally tried by a legally trained judge and three laymen judges. Each vote has the same "value". If it is a split (2-2) there will be no conviction. However at least 90-95 percent of the time the laymen will agree with the legally trained judge. And if not the court of appeal will usually change the verdict. In the court of appeal there are three legally trained judges and two laymen judges. In the Supreme court there are no laymen judges. But they rarely try cases.

 

The laymen judges are elected four years at a time. So no risk of getting called up if you do not want to "serve".

 

Legally trained judges are appointed "for life".

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said:

Never on a jury. Do not have a jury system in Sweden (with a very rare exception). But I have tried hundreds of criminal cases as a judge.

 

In Sweden at district courts criminal cases are normally tried by a legally trained judge and three laymen judges. Each vote has the same "value". If it is a split (2-2) there will be no conviction. However at least 90-95 percent of the time the laymen will agree with the legally trained judge. And if not the court of appeal will usually change the verdict. In the court of appeal there are three legally trained judges and two laymen judges. In the Supreme court there are no laymen judges. But they rarely try cases.

 

The laymen judges are elected four years at a time. So no risk of getting called up if you do not want to "serve".

 

Legally trained judges are appointed "for life".

Thanks.

Interesting system from our U.S. perspective. 

I've long lobbied for something like your "layman judges" - in other words, ordinary citizens who apply, are given some training, and then sit on juries for a period of time. 

I'm a semi-retired lawyer who recently served on a jury. (Don't ask why they picked me; I have no clue.) Chaotic as our system is (and depressing as I watched people scramble and make up laugh-out-loud excuses to be excused from serving), in the end the 11 others with me took their job seriously and I thought we reached a fair and considered verdict.

[BillsFanNC]

A middle school English teacher opines on a celebrity trial?

 

 

 

[AverageAllensSuspensor]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Thanks.

Interesting system from our U.S. perspective. 

I've long lobbied for something like your "layman judges" - in other words, ordinary citizens who apply, are given some training, and then sit on juries for a period of time. 

I'm a semi-retired lawyer who recently served on a jury. (Don't ask why they picked me; I have no clue.) Chaotic as our system is (and depressing as I watched people scramble and make up laugh-out-loud excuses to be excused from serving), in the end the 11 others with me took their job seriously and I thought we reached a fair and considered verdict.

 

I get very confused when I watch documentaries about US criminal cases.

 

I think I kind of understand the jury system, although I would like to know how much input the judge gives the jury prior to the deliberation. I guess it varies. Having heard the things the laymen judges sometimes say during deliberation I would be very worried letting them deliberate on their own.

 

What really confuses me is the appeal system in the US. In Sweden you can always appeal to the court of appeal. And they will try every criminal case unless the sentence was just a fine (or if someone is found not guilty and the sentence would have been just a fine). It seem to vary in the US. Different in different states maybe?

 

All in all the legal systems are very different. Which is interesting but confusing.

 

What kind of law do you practise as a lawyer?

[The Frankish Reich]

2 minutes ago, AverageAllensSuspensor said:

 

I get very confused when I watch documentaries about US criminal cases.

 

I think I kind of understand the jury system, although I would like to know how much input the judge gives the jury prior to the deliberation. I guess it varies. Having heard the things the laymen judges sometimes say during deliberation I would be very worried letting them deliberate on their own.

 

What really confuses me is the appeal system in the US. In Sweden you can always appeal to the court of appeal. And they will try every criminal case unless the sentence was just a fine (or if someone is found not guilty and the sentence would have been just a fine). It seem to vary in the US. Different in different states maybe?

 

All in all the legal systems are very different. Which is interesting but confusing.

 

What kind of law do you practise as a lawyer?

I did all kinds of things. Started out doing securities litigation, then spent some time as a federal attorney. Left the federal government but came back after 9/11 and did national security type work. You hear about people who signed up for the military after 9/11; I guess at my age by then this was the next best thing. Then spent most of the rest of my career in that type of work, generally national security related work (including plenty of immigration; again, the post-9/11 thing) and appeals work. Now I just pick up private work when I feel like it or when I think there's an important issue.