Have You Ever Served On A Jury? (Civics R)

LaserWolf

I have been called to municipal jury duty twice, and served on 2 drunk driving cases.

Rockadelic

You sound like one of those Law 'N Order types.

TheKindCromang

I served on a murder trial last year. The case was two weeks long. We deliberated for about two hours until the entire jury could agree the defendant was innocent (self-defense). The defendant's family was in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. People cried and the defendant thanked us. It felt good to know justice had been served and we did our part to save a person from spending the rest of their lives in prison.

spivy

was picked as an alternate juror and sat on a grand jury earlier this year. basically a rubber stamp for the prosecution. waste of tax payer time and money. i think a judge should look at the evidence and indict. the 99.9% indictment rate in nyc is laughably high using a grand jury and most are buy and bust drug deals. the prosecutor basically leads the Q and A. no judge around. seemed antiquated to me.

LaserWolf

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

Snagglepus

You generally wrap these up in a day or two, right? I just received my first summons and the date is one week before a wedding I'm DJing. I'll request an extension just in case.

rootlesscosmo

http://www.soulstrut.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/52917/

http://www.soulstrut.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/35232/

Rockadelic

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

I know a guy who was on a murder trial jury where there was video of the crime.....two of the jurors said that they couldn't vote guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because the video could have been faked.....it's amazing anyone gets convicted in 2011.

Last time I was called I was in a jury pool of 40 folks and they told us details of the crime. It was an older gentleman in his 60's who was busted with less than an ounce of pot. When the lawyers were done they asked if there were any questions and I raised my hand and asked how they could justify the cost to taxpayers and the time of the jurors on such a trivial crime...I was immediately dismissed and haven't been called back since.

Unknown

Rockadelic said:

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

I know a guy who was on a murder trial jury where there was video of the crime.....two of the jurors said that they couldn't vote guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because the video could have been faked.....it's amazing anyone gets convicted in 2011.

Last time I was called I was in a jury pool of 40 folks and they told us details of the crime. It was an older gentleman in his 60's who was busted with less than an ounce of pot. When the lawyers were done they asked if there were any questions and I raised my hand and asked how they could justify the cost to taxpayers and the time of the jurors on such a trivial crime...I was immediately dismissed and haven't been called back since.

I would keep my mouth shut and get on the jury and vote to acquit in most drug cases.

I've been called 3 times but I've never ended up on a jury. I suppose I'd have an easy out by telling a prosecutor I went to law school and I know what weasels they are, but it hasn't come to that.

Bon Vivant

Rockadelic said:

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

I know a guy who was on a murder trial jury where there was video of the crime.....two of the jurors said that they couldn't vote guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because the video could have been faked.....it's amazing anyone gets convicted in 2011.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the standard they should have been using. Your guy should have said something to the judge.

Rockadelic

Bon Vivant said:

Rockadelic said:

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

I know a guy who was on a murder trial jury where there was video of the crime.....two of the jurors said that they couldn't vote guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because the video could have been faked.....it's amazing anyone gets convicted in 2011.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the standard they should have been using. Your guy should have said something to the judge.

He may have said "reasonable doubt"....but the point of the possibly faked video remains.

Unknown

Rockadelic said:

Bon Vivant said:

Rockadelic said:

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

I know a guy who was on a murder trial jury where there was video of the crime.....two of the jurors said that they couldn't vote guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt because the video could have been faked.....it's amazing anyone gets convicted in 2011.

"Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not the standard they should have been using. Your guy should have said something to the judge.

He may have said "reasonable doubt"....but the point of the possibly faked video remains.

There are far more bogus convictions in this country than there are stupid acquittals.

In the case you're talking about I assume the jury couldn't reach a verdict and the case was retried.

Rockadelic

NomoreGarciaparra said:

There are far more bogus convictions in this country than there are stupid acquittals.

Where can I find some stats on how many guilty people get acquitted of their crimes?

Yes, it resulted in a hung jury.

LaserWolf

I think one of the trials I sat on the judge said "A preponderance of evidence" or something, and explained that it was different than 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Then when we got in the jury room people started talking about 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

He also told us that the officers testimony carried no more weight than the defendants.
When we got to the jury room people started talking about "well, if the officer said it it must be true".

We had to go back to the judge to get both of those misconceptions cleared up.

Otis_Funkmeyer

I served on a manslaughter case in the Bronx two years ago. A guy died from being hit in the back of the head with a blunt object in a fight outside a bar at 4am. The witnesses tried to pin it on the local junkie to protect their friend/relative who probably did it. It took two weeks and we deliberated for a few hours. It was very interesting. Viewing graphic photos of this guys crushed skull while his wife and family were in the room was rough.
In the end we found him not guilty because the only testimony saying he gave the fatal blow came from a witness who had already been caught lying 2x in this case. He had every motive to lie, as he was the main guy in the fight and it probably was him who actually did it.

There was a lot of downtime but overall it was an amazing experience. The lawyers were both tough old guys who insulted and yelled at each other and the judge didn't take any crap.

The deliberation started out evenly split but after some people realized that they weren't being asked if they think he was guilty, but if it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was, they changed their minds.

Otis_Funkmeyer

I saw the defendant after the verdict when I was getting into the elevator and he said thank you. I felt sorry for him, he had been in holding for over two years waiting for this trial.

holmes

I did a rape trial here a few years back between two Japanese University students who had been in a relationship & then the girl decided to press charges against the guy. Everything was translated from English to Japanese as we went & it was gruelling. After 3 days of the girl replying with "I don't remember" to every question it was thrown out of court & the guy went free. It was a bit of a waste of time since the whole thing seemed a bit bogus & I couldn't believe such a flimsy case had made it to the High Court.

Unknown

Rockadelic said:

NomoreGarciaparra said:

There are far more bogus convictions in this country than there are stupid acquittals.

Where can I find some stats on how many guilty people get acquitted of their crimes?

Yes, it resulted in a hung jury.

I said "stupid acquittals." Many acquittals are called for by reason of insufficient evidence.

Most criminal cases in this country don't get anywhere near a jury. Some info from your own state:

http://resipsablog.com/2010/12/20/conviction/

Unherd

I was an alternate on a case a couple years ago. According to the prosecutor, the 3 colombian dudes drove down from Massachusetts, and got off the west side highway in washington heights. A half-hour later, they're pulled over for a broken tail light getting back onto the highway, with a couple ounces of heroin in plain sight on the backseat, in an open box of energy bars. The whole trial, a translator in the corner whispered into a mic for the defendants headsets.

The worst part was that as an alternate, i watched the whole 3 day trial, and then got dismissed. No deliberations, no verdict. I really needed to get back to work at the time, so i have no idea what happened to those dudes. The prosecutor definitely did a good job, and their lawyer looked out of his league. I assume it didnt end well for them, and they were all under 21. Drug cases suck.

DB_Cooper

I was the foreman on a possession with intent to distribute a class D and class A in a school zone trial. I'm pretty sure the judge picked me to be the foreman because I was the only one actually paying full attention. Leading the deliberation was like herding cats. I realized pretty quickly that by telling them what the judge's instructions meant, I could have gotten them to agree with whatever I felt the verdict should be.

It was a sobering experience.

vintageinfants

LaserWolf said:

I have heard prosecutors say that Law N Order type tv shows has made their job miserable.

Juries expect them to have a video of the crime, and to be able to rotate the view and zoom into an individual hair, then take dna from the hair in the video...

jdeez

I'm a trial consultant by profession, so I really don't think I will ever serve on a jury. This is all really insightful, however, and the "let's enhance" is the story of my life. Both in the court room and back at the office.

While I rarely do much criminal stuff (aside from the infrequent, hi-profile, white-collar biz), it is cool to read about jurors perception of "the show"