Have you been a juror before?

[famousdavis]

This past Friday, I finished a 3-day stint as a juror in a criminal trial. Picked among 36 panelists to participate in a 6-person jury, I got to hear the State of Florida bring 5 charges against a young male who allegedly robbed a pizza deliveryman by gunpoint. The 5 counts were: 1) robbery with a firearm, 2) assault with a deadly weapon, 3) battery on a police officer, 4) resisting arrest without violence, 5) discharging a firearm in public.

The case was interesting and not as cut-and-dry as you might think. There was no physical evidence, and the State's case was constructed on the strength of the testimony by the victim himself, and on the testimony of an 18-year-old eyewitness (who is now incarcerated herself awaiting her own trial on aggravated battery charges in an incident unrelated to this trial).

I've been a juror only once before, and I offered to be the foreman for our jury because of my experience (the others had no jury experience and so they all readily agreed). As we deliberated, we wound up finding the defendant guilty on a lesser charge of attempted robbery with a firearm, not guilty on discharging a firearm in public, and guilty on the three remaining charges.

What an interesting theatric the trial was! As the prosecution and defense took turns interrogating witnesses, you could see the points both sides were trying to make, without stating those points flatly until it was time for closing arguments.

In the end, I was extremely satisfied with our varied verdicts. Unlike a prior jury I was on, this was much easier to deliberate, although it was a much more complicated and serious charge than the simple drug case I sat on some years ago.

Have you been a juror before? Was it a criminal case or a civil case? What was your experience like? What verdict did you render?

[Kati Compton]

I have been "summoned", but I voted that I hadn't because since I was a student, I was excused. I didn't have to go to the court or anything, just mail a response.

So, the evidence didn't support that he *actually* robbed the guy? Just that he tried?

[famousdavis]

I have been "summoned", but I voted that I hadn't because since I was a student, I was excused. I didn't have to go to the court or anything, just mail a response.

So, the evidence didn't support that he *actually* robbed the guy? Just that he tried?

The question was whether the defendent, by accepting the pizzas handed to him by the deliveryman and then placing them on the front door steps, illegally "took" property in the course of the robbery. It seemed to be a fine point -- taking something vs. receiving something. Turns out, the pizzas were taken by *somebody* by the time the event unfolded fully...and that even included the hot pizzas in the deliveryman's vehicle that were to be his next delivery stop! Erring on the side of caution and resaonable doubt, we felt "attempted robbery" was the better-fitting charge against the defendent. I would imagine there isn't much greater penalty between "robbery with a firearm" and "attempted robbery with a firearm".

[dmacburry2003]

Come on, this belongs in the "Judge Judy" forum!!! :wink:

[famousdavis]

Come on, this belongs in the "Judge Judy" forum!!! :wink:

You know, dmac, what makes participating in a real-life, jury-decided trial is that it is unvarnished and real in every possible sense. The shades of human emotion aren't manufactured for a TV audience, and the proceedings and drama that unfolds before you deals with a very real person facing a potentially very real long penalty behind bars.

I've never watched Judge Judy, but I remember her predecessor, The People's Court, and I watched a few episodes of that show years ago. But watching courtroom drama from an easy chair is much less dramatic as participating in the real-life drama of being on a criminal jury case.

IMHO, of course! :?

[Anthony Caruana]

I was on a jury a few years ago on a date rape case (in Australia). I was foreman and it was a really interesting experience.

The legality of the case aside, I found the interaction of the jurors very interesting. We had a very broad cross section of people, from retired people, naturalised immigrants, blue collar, white collar, male, female, etc. Seeing those people locked away together and having to not only get along but also form a coherent group trying to mae some very important decisions was a fascinating thing.

BTW, we acquitted the accused as there was no physical evidence and we believed that the evidence pointed to consent at the time but a chnage of heart about the relationship after.

Don't ask for more details as I don't have a really complete memory of it as it was some years ago.

Another interesting thing was that the trial I served on was in the same court house as a major criminal case involving a very high profile local businessman. It was pretty cool having to ppush through reporters to get in each day.

[Candygogo]

I got lucky 8)

About 8 of us on jury duty found ourselves on Day 2 still not picked for a jury. After lunch break until the end of the day, we still hadn't been called for jury selection.

Soon, it was time to go home, but the 8 of us were still sitting around wondering what was going on. It seemed that our cards had been lost; tis the reason we weren't getting called all day. That meant not only were we excused from jury duty, but that we couldn't get called upon for the next 4 years as if we HAD served!

Prayers do get answered :wink:

[famousdavis]

That meant not only were we excused from jury duty, but that we couldn't get called upon for the next 4 years as if we HAD served

Wow! In Florida, you're eligible to serve as a juror every 12 months!

[buckyg]

I've never been summoned. Everyone I know who has been has never actually served on a jury. They tell these boring stories of "hurry up and wait", then you do your best to get out of there.

Seems like most people I've worked with seem to think serving on a jury is stupid, thus jurors are stupid. After all, they weren't smart enough to make up an excuse to get excused and sent home. So if you get summoned, all you have to do is say ___, etc.

So I can understand not wanting to sit around all day. Yeah, I would want to avoid that too. But the rest of what they're saying makes me a bit concerned.

Just my opinion, it may change assuming I ever would get summoned...

[famousdavis]

I've never been summoned. Everyone I know who has been has never actually served on a jury. They tell these boring stories of "hurry up and wait", then you do your best to get out of there.

Seems like most people I've worked with seem to think serving on a jury is stupid, thus jurors are stupid. After all, they weren't smart enough to make up an excuse to get excused and sent home. So if you get summoned, all you have to do is say ___, etc.

So I can understand not wanting to sit around all day. Yeah, I would want to avoid that too. But the rest of what they're saying makes me a bit concerned.

Just my opinion, it may change assuming I ever would get summoned...

Well, I will tell you that a jury pool does collect representatives from all walks of life, and I realized just how insulated my life really is. In our pool, there was a middle-aged web designer, a metals dispatcher, an ADT security system installer, a machinist, and two women that I can't remember their vocations. Among these, the long-haired, middle-aged machinist was the most "colorful" -- he spun a story about how he and a buddy drank 7 or 8 beers, then drove "140mph" on I-95 and got stopped by a state trooper. The trooper noticed the open container held in the machinist's buddy's hand, but failed to notice the beer dribbling from underneath the machinist's own seat. Moreover, supposedly the trooper didn't notice the machinist's beer-saturated breath and didn't even ask him to step out for a breathalyzer test! This same machinist laughed and laughed as he told his story, and the other jurors in the room laughed -- and I was dumbfounded and speechless. 8O :evil: All I could think was, "Thank God my wife and 4 kids weren't driving on the road when YOU were." I was shocked at his braggadocio and disappointed that everyone else (well, one of the two women also seemed to not enjoy his story, either) seemed to affirm him.

All that to say, being on a jury is interesting for what it teaches you about yourself, your own prejudices, the prejudices of others, and the way we insulate ourselves from other classes of people. It's also an interesting way to see our justice system work in real life, apart from the ubiquitous and slanted TV portrayals.

Yes, it is easy to get off of jury duty by simply saying that you wouldn't render an unprejudiced verdict, for whatever reason -- and in our panel of 36, there were more than a few that said just that (for good reasons, too, as most had suffered or had a close family member who had suffered badly by a prior criminal action).

Being on a jury is a duty and a privilege. No one likes to wait around, of course, but that's why I brought my PPC .... and a textbook I'm behind on reading. 8) It made my wait-time pass easily, and I was able to participate fully and proudly in the duties of being an American citizen.

[buckyg]

Yeah, I always thought it was a duty as a citizen, which is why it bugs me. I can understand not wanting to serve due to the haslle but to say people who do serve are stupid...

[Steven Cedrone]

To be judged by a jury of your peers...

This is one of the most important actions to be taken by the citizens of this country, and it is also the one thing most of them don't want to do. Regardless of the problems associated with jury duty (boring if you are not picked, loss of income, etc.), we have a responsibility to serve as jurers. It's one of the things that comes with being a citizen (not just American citizen, as many other countries use this form of jury system).

Steve

[famousdavis]

To be judged by a jury of your peers...


Interestingly, I didn't feel that our jury was a good representation of the defendent's peers. He was a minority, and our jury didn't have any (obvious) minorities of his race. He was young, and only one of our jurors appeared to be under 40. He lived in a destitute part of a city in Palm Beach county -- others of us (all of us) lived in much better parts of the county.

I'm not saying that our jury didn't give this guy a fair shake -- we did -- but I wonder what the Founding Fathers meant when they provided juries made up by peers? Obviously, in practice, the definition of a peer is rather broad (probably out of necessity).

[Steven Cedrone]

To be judged by a jury of your peers...


Interestingly, I didn't feel that our jury was a good representation of the defendent's peers. He was a minority, and our jury didn't have any (obvious) minorities of his race. He was young, and only one of our jurors appeared to be under 40. He lived in a destitute part of a city in Palm Beach county -- others of us (all of us) lived in much better parts of the county.

Yes, I suppose that's true. But the defense and the prosecution have to agree on the jury before the trial starts. Seems to me, the defense should have done a better job at trying to get younger people/minorities in the jurors box.

Steve

[famousdavis]

To be judged by a jury of your peers...


Interestingly, I didn't feel that our jury was a good representation of the defendent's peers. He was a minority, and our jury didn't have any (obvious) minorities of his race. He was young, and only one of our jurors appeared to be under 40. He lived in a destitute part of a city in Palm Beach county -- others of us (all of us) lived in much better parts of the county.

Yes, I suppose that's true. But the defense and the prosecution have to agree on the jury before the trial starts. Seems to me, the defense should have done a better job at trying to get younger people/minorities in the jurors box.

Steve

In this case, the defense attorney was rather constrained. There were only two people that shared the defendent's racial profile. Both of them had devestating experiences involving crime/guns, and both admitted that they weren't likely to deliberate impartially without prejudice against the defendent. The youngest member of the jury pool was chosen to be on the trial, but nearly everyone else seemed to be pretty middle-aged or older. Out of 36 potential jurors, more than a few admitted that for whatever reason, they would be prejudiced against the defendent because of unpleasant experiences with crime, guns, the justice system.

[PetiteFlower]

There's only so much you can do because 1)jurors are randomly selected, 2)they're selected from the area where the crime was committed not where the defendant lives, 3)each side can reject a limited number of jurors without cause, other then that they have to take who comes unless there's a compelling reason to reject them(obvious bias). So if a minority commits a crime in a mostly white area, it's going to be harder to get minorities on the jury because not as many live there. Same thing if a white person commits a crime in a mostly minority area.

I got a letter once, but the way it worked in my county was you call the night before to see if you have to come in, and I didn't :) Nice that they can eliminate some of the need to sit around and do nothing all day! But they can keep calling you until you actually have to take off of work for it, as far as I know. I've moved since then so I don't know how it works in the new county. I'd love to be a juror, I think the legal system is fascinating, and even though trials in real life are pretty boring compared to TV, it's still a civic duty and a chance to use my brain and also a chance to do something that matters, you know?

[foldedspace]

I'd rather they picked the jury at random...maybe a couple of challenges for cause, but no more. I'd like to serve, but have never been called. If you are ever called, I suggest:

http://www.fija.org/

[Rod3]

I've served a bunch of times. Criminal (robbery) in Florida 'way back in the early 70's, and it was obviously a put-up by the prosecution. We decided the defendant was innocent so quickly that the jury foreman suggested we wait about 30 minutes before going out so it wouldn't seem so hurried. I've also served a bunch of times in South Carolina on civil and criminal cases. It seems that if your name is drawn here, you'll be called every couple of months. You can't serve on a magistrate's jury or a regular jury but every year, but you can do either of them even if you just finished the other. I think I've been on three different types of jury within one year. Just hope I get to be 65 before I have to do it again. Then I won't have to! I've done my duty on this one.