Jury pool stupidity

[BobR]

I am into my second year of jury duty here. In this county, you are selected for a year at a time. Last year, the only case I was called for was continued into the new year. So far, I have not been called this year, but I expect to sometime.

I can hardly wait, really, I want to go and use my powers of persuasion to convince the other jurors to send the scumbag to jail for a long time, if I feel he is guilty, of course!

bob

[Robert Sears]

Brad,
  Apology is accepted but really I took no offense.

Bob

[peteinct]

No offense intended, I think jury duty is one of the most important parts of a citizen's duty to the community. It is one time when the voice of the people, the ones in the jury box, are heard. I hate it when I hear people smugly saying how they gamed the system to get out of it. I hate hearing how lawyers exclude anyone  they think may vote against their side.
Maybe just maybe if we had people who owned a business in a jury pool we wouldn't get such cockamamie results like a woman getting millions because she poured hot coffee on herself.

I know, I know that it is hard for a small business owner to miss time. The one time I was called I talked to a guy who owned an auto repair shop. He was excused about halfway though the first day. I had to spend a day there but wasn't called. All it cost me was a day off. It is hard to pay taxes also and I would rather be on a jury than pay taxes.

The worst I have ever seen was a guy at work who was on a Federal Grand Jury. He had to go 3 days a week for 6 months.

I guess I just think that if more people were involved in the system it might be better.
pete

[crt360]

pete, most juries are actually made up of a lot of good people, including plenty of small business owners.  Sure, you get a goofball here and there, but most people that end up on juries take it very seriously and try to do the right thing.  It is true that lawyers try to exclude people that have already made up their mind about the outcome of the case - the law provides for it in an attempt to create a more fair, open-minded jury.  Why even try a case if most of the jurors already think your client should burn in hell and have admitted that nothing will change their mind?

As for things like the McDonald's coffee case, it's mostly media sensationalism (promoted by big business interests in an effort to convince all who don't know better that the legal system is an out-of-control, abusive monster that treats them unfairly at the expense of everyone) - do some research and find out why such a large amount was awarded by the jury, then find out what the plaintiff actually received. 

It's good to know that people like you take the responsibility seriously and want to make the legal system as fair and effective as possible.    I also understand when a small business owner can't risk being away from work at certain times and have no problem with them making an effort to be excused.

[cordex]

cordex, were you called as a potential jury member in my cousin's court (Judge Love in Hendricks Superior II)?

No sir.  Judge Boles was presiding.

I have heard ... interesting things ... about Judge Love from a local attorney.  This attorney has something of an ongoing dispute with Mrs. Love, and has made no secret of their mutual dislike.  I always thought that if you were interested in winning cases you probably didn't want to get on the Judge's spit list, but hey - it's not my livelihood.

[MechAg94]

Never heard of a "spit" list before. 

I have seen some details of that McDonald's case and it wasn't as cut and dried as the headlines would lead you to believe. 

I do think juries have a long way to go with technical issues in trials.  It is difficult for a company to win by presenting research.  Dow Corning is a great example of a company who had a rock solid case, but still lost.

[cordex]

Never heard of a "spit" list before.

APS.

[MechAg94]

I am reminded of the end of Billy Madison:  "Man, am I glad I called that guy!"
Different kind of list.

[crt360]

I do think juries have a long way to go with technical issues in trials.  It is difficult for a company to win by presenting research.

That is true and I imagine it will only get worse.  Reducing complex, technical data to layman's terms is a big challenge for lawyers and some cases are won or lost depending on how well they do that very thing.

[El Tejon]

None of it is true, cordex.  My family is about peace, love and understanding!

[cordex]

None of it is true, cordex.  My family is about peace, love and understanding!

I might believe that about Karen and "mp", but how do you explain yourself?

[MechAg94]

I do think juries have a long way to go with technical issues in trials.  It is difficult for a company to win by presenting research.

That is true and I imagine it will only get worse.  Reducing complex, technical data to layman's terms is a big challenge for lawyers and some cases are won or lost depending on how well they do that very thing.

But would they allow an engineer or someone with a technical background in there?  No, No, No!!  Not gullible enough and can't think in terms of emotional arguments. 

[CAnnoneer]

But would they allow an engineer or someone with a technical background in there?  No, No, No!!  Not gullible enough and can't think in terms of emotional arguments. 

Bingo. If you are an engineer, scientist, medical doctor, or architect, you are out. I have always wondered about the constitutionality of asking jurors any questions beyond "Do you know the defendant?" Any lawyers, please enlighten me.

[French G.]

I learned something fun a few years back. I went to jury duty a couple of years back in my Navy Uniform. After the pure fun of telling the Senior Chief Shore Patrol lackey to get bent and get out of my city (he is there to catch bad sailors that sneak to court to face charges without their command representative in tow) I got to the jury pool. First I was appalled at how jury members were treated like cattle, told where they could and couldn't go, escorted by a deputy and such. On the jury I was appalled that I was elected foreman. As a 26 year old 1st Class I was the youngest person there by far. I was inexperienced, never sat jury duty. Yet they pick me as foreman. That subconcious appeal to authority clicked on by the sight of a uniform scares me, especially when they should have been thinking ice cream (summer whites) Why do people cede all to anything that appears in uniform? If I could answer why the jury did that I could answer why most Germans went along with Hitler. Stupid people. And yes, the jdge gave those sorry-ass illegal "judge the facts of the case, not the law; I will tell you what the law means" instructions.

[CAnnoneer]

Why do people cede all to anything that appears in uniform? 

Read up on Milgram's experiments and check his book "Obedience to Authority".