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.
I served on a jury for a case involving a landlord and a tenant who was injured on the property. There was a disagreement about who owned the space heater, who was responsible for its upkeep....
As jurors we took our duty very seriously and looked at every document.
I admit that it was very, very difficult to avoid being swayed by the incredibly unattractive, crude, loud, disrespectful defense attorney...
I wouldn't be able to serve on a jury. I had a loved one falsely accused of a crime and I know the jury only got to see a carefully control bit of truth by the prosecution. Most of any beneficial evidence for the defense was supressed.
there's a great site here:
While I was attending law school, I was called to serve on a jury. Because I was a law student, I was rapidly dismissed from the panel and sent home. I expected that and it was no surprise. What still leaves me in shock though were several of the people prospective jurors I was sitting next too during voir dire. Several mumbled comments and expressions that left me with no doubt that they had already decided the accused was guilty of the crime he had been charged with. Pretty interesting considering that the trial hadn't even started yet. So much for "objectivity" or "innocent until proven guilty".
What I have observed since is that many people are quick to form opinions instead of review facts. The other thing that I find really surprising is that a great many people will literally lie to a judge when asked questions like "have you formed any opinion before this trial about the guilt or innocence of the accused". Everyone will say "no". In reality, maybe half the people there have concluded that since the guy was charged with a crime than he must be guilty.
How such people rationalize their behavior I do not know. I pray that I never falsely accused of a crime and forced to stand trial before the citizens of the community.
Indeed I haven't been called for jury duty yet, but I'm sure I would be rapidly dismissed as well. Lol.
And I completely agree about people lying to the judge. They know they have formed opinions. Don't even know why they are pretending otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
While I was attending law school, I was called to serve on a jury. Because I was a law student, I was rapidly dismissed from the panel and sent home. I expected that and it was no surprise. What still leaves me in shock though were several of the people prospective jurors I was sitting next too during voir dire. Several mumbled comments and expressions that left me with no doubt that they had already decided the accused was guilty of the crime he had been charged with. Pretty interesting considering that the trial hadn't even started yet. So much for "objectivity" or "innocent until proven guilty".
What I have observed since is that many people are quick to form opinions instead of review facts. The other thing that I find really surprising is that a great many people will literally lie to a judge when asked questions like "have you formed any opinion before this trial about the guilt or innocence of the accused". Everyone will say "no". In reality, maybe half the people there have concluded that since the guy was charged with a crime than he must be guilty.
How such people rationalize their behavior I do not know. I pray that I never falsely accused of a crime and forced to stand trial before the citizens of the community.
I've served on one jury for a drug case. From my experience, a lot of the time jurors completely ignore instructions and often misunderstand some of what the attorneys say, etc.
The only positive in this case, was that the jury was overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal, so at least their disregard of instructions, etc., didn't result in someone going to jail for 20 years [it was a fairly large amount of drugs.] One guy held out and thought the defendant was guilty [no, it wasn't me---although I thought he was *probably* guilty, I felt the arresting officer had made quite a few mistakes regarding handling of evidence to where I felt there was "reasonable doubt."]
We were deadlocked after 4 hours and they ended up making a deal where the guy got probation for 10 years. Apparently they'd tried the case at least once before and could not come to a verdict then either. The funny part was that afterward, the judge met with us informally and let us know all the stuff they could not tell us while the trial was going on, and also told us at least one argument the defense attorney used was full of holes [it was regarding fingerprints.] While the trial is going on, the judge can't challenge things like that, it's the job of the opposing attorney.
I can see why in many cases they prefer to settle if possible, it is definitely true that anything can happen if a case goes before a jury. It's also eyeopening to see how much goes into trying even a low level type of case.
Man charged with Possession with intent to sell.
Undercover officer observed him sitting at a bar, being handed a brown paper lunch-type sack and asked to pass it to the next person down. (Much as you pass a hot dog at the ball park) Bag purported to have marijuana in it.
Undercover officer in a "relationship" with said defendant being "given" a Quaalude by defendant when agent said she was having trouble sleeping.
Undercover officer going to a bar with the defendant and observing some people doing coke in the back room.
At no time was there ever any testimony that stated the defendant sold or intended to sell anything. But the jury found him guilty.
I have no desire to be tried by a jury of my peers.
Since I work for a foreign company and travel so much outside the USA, when called for jury duty, I'm always picked because they could be talking about a headline grabbing case and I can honestly answer that this is the first I'm hearing about it . I have served on several juries and I have formed an opinion of juries and jurors that is a bit different that most people.
First I belive that criminal trials are always stacked againg tthe accused. As other have said, the fact its criminal for some reason changes it from innocent till proven guity to Guilty unless you can prove you are inncocent.
I also find city jurors are more likely to weight the facts in criminal cases where rural jurors belive everyone is guilty if the law brought them to court.
I find that in civil cases, its all emotional. have a person in bandages and a wheelchair claiming injury over big bad business and even with a video showing the person jumping off a building 2 states away, telling hos buddies abiout the scam, and the factt he business wasn;t even built when they say they were hurt, pull out the emotions and tears on the jurors and they will back the poor injured person despite the evidence.
Pretty girls who wear revealing cloths always seem to get hung-juries if there is one male on it even though the pope testified she was the one who committed the crime. (although her smile and leg movements had no bearing on my not-guilty vote)
Speaking of the thing about "innocent till proven guilty" that was a point the defense attorney made in the opening statement, that it should actually be "innocent UNLESS proven guilty." When the various cop shows and so on say "until" that basically presumes the suspect will be proven guilty at some point in the future.
Two cases of drug dealing. (Also served on a jury in a civil case.)
Quote:
2. Did you feel that the jury really looked at the evidence?
Absolutely. Very carefully.
Quote:
3. If you were to serve on a jury, would you look at everything?
Of course, but some of it is basically given little weight due to the source. (If you know that a witness is lying about some things, or that he/she is generally not someone you'd believe, their statements carry little weight.)
Quote:
4. Would you be swayed by the prosecution?
Swayed? I'd certainly be influenced by it, just as I would be by the defense. I'd be influenced by all the evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "swayed by the prosecution".
I can't be sure that the juries I served on rendered proper decisions, but in each case there was very serious and open, detailed discussion about the evidence before handing down a decision. Even though the defendants in both cases were found guilty by us, I felt comfortable in my belief that we handed down the correct verdict.
In one of the cases in which I served, the defendant had been married to one of my recent/former employees. I'd been to parties with her and had spoken with her at work. I mentioned this when being interviewed as a possible juror and was surprised when I was chosen, especially since I was also editor-publisher of the local newspaper. (Editors and reporters are often dismissed from jury duty.) I also personally knew the defense attorney and had been to parties with him.
A day or so after the trial the defense attorney stopped by my office for something and I asked him why I hadn't been released from the jury after stating that I personally knew the defendant. His reply: "You knew her? I didn't know that."
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.
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.
because they could be talking about a headline grabbing case and I can honestly answer that this is the first I'm hearing about it 
. I have served on several juries and I have formed an opinion of juries and jurors that is a bit different that most people.
always seem to get hung-juries if there is one male on it even though the pope testified she was the one who committed the crime. (although her smile and leg movements had no bearing on my not-guilty vote)
