U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2011, 06:17 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,750,520 times
Reputation: 14583

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman View Post
I have served on criminal and civil juries. In addition I served on a Federal Jury.

I have met all types of jurors. Those that needed to get back to work the boss was raising heck. The corn was coming in and the lady needed to be at home to put up the corn ... never forgot that one, I did learn 'corn don't wait for any one.' Others were easily swayed one way or the other. Not every jury I served on was like that but it did amaze me and make me question our jury selection system.

I learned from serving on jury duty I hoped to never get into any trouble that would require me to face a jury of my peers.
YOU and me both. They seem to eliminate the intelligent up front.

I've been on one jury before I graduated from college. Since then, they ask my occupation and education level and if the defense doesn't excuse me the prosecution does. They really need to quit sending me jury notices. I've been eliminated every time for over 20 years because I was an engineer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2011, 09:32 AM
 
18,852 posts, read 31,727,414 times
Reputation: 26118
Yes, higher education does seem to be a strike on serving on a jury...so...what type of jurors do they REALLY want...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Abilene, Texas
8,746 posts, read 7,742,619 times
Reputation: 55865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
YOU and me both. They seem to eliminate the intelligent up front.

I've been on one jury before I graduated from college. Since then, they ask my occupation and education level and if the defense doesn't excuse me the prosecution does. They really need to quit sending me jury notices. I've been eliminated every time for over 20 years because I was an engineer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasper12 View Post
Yes, higher education does seem to be a strike on serving on a jury...so...what type of jurors do they REALLY want...
That's not always the case. I had a B.S. degree when I was picked to serve on my first jury and an M.S. degree and had been employed as a professional in my field for several years when I was picked to serve on my second jury (both were criminal trials). I suppose I could have been a compromise of both sides during the voir dire...lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,750,520 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT Dave View Post
That's not always the case. I had a B.S. degree when I was picked to serve on my first jury and an M.S. degree and had been employed as a professional in my field for several years when I was picked to serve on my second jury (both were criminal trials). I suppose I could have been a compromise of both sides during the voir dire...lol.
What was your major? They're more afraid of some majors than others. Being an engineer was an automatic out. I was selected for one jury where, first the defense tried to dismiss me with prejudice then the prosecution but the judge wouldn't allow it. In the end, the prosecution had me dismissed because they were allowed, in the end, to dismiss up to two jurors without giving a reason. They tried to dismiss me with reason first to avoid using their free strikes.

I have been excused every time I've been selected since getting my BChE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Abilene, Texas
8,746 posts, read 7,742,619 times
Reputation: 55865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
What was your major?
Psychology (I just noticed my typo above: I have a B.A. degree, not a B.S.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,750,520 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by TT Dave View Post
Psychology (I just noticed my typo above: I have a B.A. degree, not a B.S.)
That's one I'd think the lawyers would run from.

Here they don't like engineering or medical of any type. They seem to keep you if you're liberal arts or business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,914 posts, read 4,226,004 times
Reputation: 5802
Kind of proves the whole system is flawed from the get go, doesn't it? Both the Defense and Prosecution try to stack the jury in their favor prior to trial anyway so, what's the point of a trial? Certainly not to seek the ultimate truth but, rather the favorable outcome of both sides.

If you are stacking the jury to begin with, how can the defendant really receive a fair, unbiased trial? Afterall, both sides have carefully calculated on years of empiracle evidence which way a juror is LIKELY to vote, no guarantee but, a hedge nonetheless. Can't be truth we are seeking, just a favorable outcome.....

I'm in favor of professional juries and would be fully willing to support them through taxes. That way, if selected carefully, the jury would be a better tuned machine hopefully constructed from a body of decision makers who use a process that seeks the truth and nothign but the truth so help them God.

Novel idea.

Now, setting the framework would/could be debatted endlessly but, at least, in the end, the Defendent and Prosectution would really have to do their work to prove their points and not sway a likely thought from a carefully cultivated group? Seems like the system would be more fair.

Also, a good 2 year program could educate them enough on procedure and rule to the point that if a mis-trial were declared or a breech in rule made, the jury would understand the outcome without fanfare and emotion. Not to make bar-room lawyers/Perry Masons out of them but, a modicum of competency in the court room where people may very well be fighting for their freedom is not too much to ask. No more so than making sure some dirtbag who has a smoking gun (cough cough Casey Anthony cough cough) get's theirs as intended by the system???

Just a thought....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 09:27 PM
 
Location: FL
1,716 posts, read 2,626,412 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
I don't think it is the jury system in general, but the sequestered jury system in particular.
With a sequestered jury, all the disadvantages you listed are magnified. Starting with the available jurists that are willing to sit in a courtroom and locked in a hotel for 3 months (all others the judge will excuse) - so you are stuck with the the old retired lady that has spent the last 10 years doing nothing but watching soap operas, the guy without a job that lives in his mom's basement, and the brainless lady that works at the driver's license office.
This, and I believe it had a profound affect on the outcome of this case. These jurors were uprooted from their natural day to day environment, shipped off 90 miles away and probably had less freedom to move around than Anthony herself. Three or four days into the trial they were complaining they couldn't watch the Lightning hockey game so Judge Perry apparently provided an edited version of the game. What happens if they don't think the Judge produced the game in a timely matter......strike against the State, plus for the defense.

I heard bright house networks rigged their hotel TV's so it would have been virtually impossible for them to view anything related to the case, they could've done that in their own homes. First of all I think a Pinellas jury should've heard this case in a Pinellas courtroom and a better idea would be to have a "live-in observer" to ensure they're not discussing the case, watching NG, etc. One would hate to think that it might have been possible that the outcome of this case was influenced by an unmade bed or poor room service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2011, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,789,719 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by didee View Post

Regardless, I wish Judge Perry would have said "veto" to their verdict. A system is ineffective when everyone knows (ok the vast majority) that someone killed their daughter and she gets away with it.
Even though Im convinced of her guilt I dont wish the verdict could haver been vetoed at all. If we start doing that, then the entire system breaks down.

Just think if YOU were put on trial for something you didn't do, { not saying CA didn't do it } and the judge didn't particularly like you or had his/her own opinion as to your guilt. The jury comes back with a not guilty verdict and the judge jumps up and says veto...... it completely undermines the protection the constitution affords to every citizen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2011, 04:37 AM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,393 posts, read 30,750,520 times
Reputation: 14583
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Even though Im convinced of her guilt I dont wish the verdict could haver been vetoed at all. If we start doing that, then the entire system breaks down.

Just think if YOU were put on trial for something you didn't do, { not saying CA didn't do it } and the judge didn't particularly like you or had his/her own opinion as to your guilt. The jury comes back with a not guilty verdict and the judge jumps up and says veto...... it completely undermines the protection the constitution affords to every citizen.
We can't give judges veto power. Unfortunately, the current system does allow the guilty to walk free and the innocent to be locked up based on the jury. At least in the case of the innocent, they get another day in court. The guilty just walk free never to be tried again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top