-
Pray and Grow Rich
May 16, 2013 | 68 comments
-
Ruthie’s Way
May 2, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Free and Indivisible Union
April 25, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Revoke Obama’s Peace Prize
April 18, 2013 | 80 comments
-
What the New Atheists Ignore
April 11, 2013 | 103 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Jury Duty
They also serve who only sit and wait.
Jury Duty. A civic obligation. A shared American tradition. A chance to see the inner workings of our justice system, big hairy warts and all.
I had been summoned to jury duty once before, when I lived in rural Monroe County, Illinois. That case, if memory serves, involved a young fellow who had walloped his best friend with a Louisville Slugger. I believe they had been inhaling compressed air. I wasn’t selected for the jury, so I was in and out of the courthouse in less than two hours.
This time would be different, beginning with the fact that there were 1,100 of us crammed into the airless jury selection room on the first floor of the Civil Courts Building in downtown St. Louis. After three and a half hours of twiddling my thumbs, my number was called. The panel — consisting of 54 city residents — seemed a good cross section of St. Louisans: a half dozen hipsters, a few hillbillies, a couple ghetto fabulous playas, some garden variety eccentrics, and a half dozen retired codgers who remembered their Cardinal ball caps, but not their hearing aids. After an interminable wait, we were escorted to a sixth floor courtroom.
The defendant, represented by the standard young female Asian lawyer, was straight out of Central Casting: late twenties, overweight, neck tattoos, scruffy beard and a stained necktie. He stood accused of marital rape and domestic assault.
Presently the prosecutor, a dumpy brunette squeezed into a navy blue pantsuit, commenced voir dire — the chore of weeding out the panelists of average intelligence or better. Joseph Wambaugh’s description of jury selection came immediately to mind. “They’re looking for people they can manipulate,” said Wambaugh. “Both sides are.”
Her first question seemed intended to set the modesty-be-damned tone for the rest of the trial. “Has anyone been a victim of abuse or of a sex crime — or does anyone have a family member who has been the victim of abuse or a sex crime?” This being the city, about half the women sheepishly raised their hands. Each one was asked to elaborate. Anyone who still maintains a rosy view of modern civilization ought to listen to the horror stories of a random panel of prospective jurors.
The prosecutor then asked if any panelist had been charged with a crime other than a minor traffic offense. About half the men eagerly raised their hands. No jury duty for them.
I judged that about 26 panelists remained, from which the prosecutor and the defense attorney had to scrape together 12 jurors, plus an alternate. The next question concerned religious beliefs. Did anyone hold — despite what Missouri law says — that a husband cannot rape his wife? One middle-aged African-American woman raised her hand. “A wife’s duty is to submit to her husband except in case of sin,” she said flatly. You could kiss her goodbye.
SO FAR THE PROSECUTOR had been going through potential jurors like a warm knife through butter. And she was just getting started. Would we be open to a conviction if there were no evidence save the wife’s testimony and the wife was considered a credible witness? “The law does not require we present any evidence other than the victim’s testimony,” the prosecutor intoned.
So this was to be a “He Said, She Said” case with no other evidence. No 9-1-1 call. No medical report. No DNA evidence. Nothing. With no statute of limitations on rape, the alleged crimes could have occurred a dozen years ago. The male panelists were not comfortable with this dearth of evidence. We wanted more. It wouldn’t have to be much more. A previous conviction. A conversation between the alleged victim and a friend. Anything.
So much for us guys. That left only about a dozen women who had not been disqualified for one reason or another, and our alleged wife-raper could hardly get a fair hearing before an all-woman jury. Not that it mattered; jury selection dragged on for a second day, and, the next morning, two of the potential female jurors failed to show up and a mistrial was called. Which was good, since the case never should have gone to trial anyway.
Personally, I don’t see why the judge didn’t simply pull twelve names out of a hat and be done with it. This would be a lot more representative of the general public and seems a lot fairer than asking 54 random individuals a lot of personal questions about their religious beliefs, while dredging up unpleasant memories.
A huge waste of time and taxpayer money? You betcha. And yet I left the courthouse feeling very gratified at doing my civic duty and once again helping to steer the course of justice.
Who am I kidding? I was just glad to be out of there.
About the Author
Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Christopher Orlet
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/21/jury-duty
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 6.21.12 @ 6:41AM
Potential jurors are treated contemptibly in Texas. They are required to appear at their own expense, to pay for their own transportation and parkind, and receive a nominal fee of $6.60/hr., while all court employees receive many times that amount. They are treated like criminals, or military draftees. The state sorely needs a Juror's Bill of Rights to establish their constitutional rights as US citizens.
RichTex| 6.21.12 @ 10:55AM
Your county must have plenty of money if they are paying $6.60 per hour. Dallas County pays $6 for the first entire day, then $34 for each additional day. And the increased amount for subsequent days is something they’ve added only recently. They do provide a free transit pass and reduced parking fees at the courthouse garage.
John Navratil| 6.21.12 @ 11:22AM
Aristocat,
Agreed! I know no one who has been called more than me. I must have been in multiple lists because two years couldn't go by without me being called. Once I was called twice in 10 months - different courts, no exemption.
I've been empanelled once by a woman arguing pro se. She'd been through three lawyers. Every other time, it was dismissal as soon as it was apparent that I think for a living.
I wish I could say that doing my civic duty was an honor - the judge certainly did his best to convince me. All I can say is there is too much demand for juries.
PolishKnight| 6.21.12 @ 1:49PM
Minimum wage? Amazing. I remember jury duty in California and I got $25 for the whole day.
beebop2| 6.22.12 @ 4:55AM
Ohio pays NOTHING until day 11. You get parking paid for and that is it. But? It isn't about the money. We need serious reform. I sat through a case that should not have been brought. If the losing side had to pay all court costs fewer cases would be brought and jury duty would be a SERIOUS commitment, rather than a pain.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.21.12 @ 7:01AM
You should have gotten that African American woman's name an accomplished an interview with her. Most American women believe that sex is at their discretion when and where they want, and if it doesn't happen under those circumstances, then it's rape.
PolishKnight| 6.22.12 @ 12:02PM
Bill, that IS the definition of rape, isn't it? In marriage, though, sex is a legal obligation and even for these demanding women, a guy is guaranteed it at least once on his wedding night (ironically, many couples are exhausted from the wedding to bother.)
Us men understand that when we're dragged to go shoe shopping with them or help them pick out outfits, it's not kidnapping and torture but definition of the law, but the fact is I'm miserable and feel that I've been abducted.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 7:45AM
“So this was to be a "He Said, She Said" case with no other evidence. No 9-1-1 call. No medical report. No DNA evidence. Nothing. “
It is difficult for anyone to say whether or not the case should have been brought until you heard all of the evidence and judged its credibility after it was subject to cross examination by the defense, Mr. Orlet. You would be gratified to know that under sharia law, a rape charge cannot be sustained unless there are four corroborating male witnesses. Your time would not have been wasted in this matter at all, inshallah. Salaam Aleichem.
fmm| 6.21.12 @ 9:32AM
Cases with no hard evidence to corroborate the plaintiffs charges should never be brought to trial. Not even hearsay is permissable in a court of law. As to your comment on rape charges under sharia law, where is the requirement for four corroborating women witnesses?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 1:45PM
Criminal cases in most jurisdictions (and I presume Missouri is so situated) don’t have a plaintiff per se, they proceed as the State or the People versus the defendant. The accuser or complaining witness is generally referred to as “the victim”.
In addition, there are many hearsay exceptions even in trial. Business records, excited utterances, dying declarations are but a few examples. Hearsay is generally prohibited because the one who spoke the words related is not available for cross examination.
Not every case has “hard” evidence (not a legal term, and given the subject, a loaded term) associated with it. There is basically physical evidence and testimonial evidence. Physical evidence is often circumstantial (unless it is a videotape of the crime in progress, for example). In a rape case (rape being defined as sexual intercourse without the consent of the victim), the presence of semen may demonstrate that sexual activity took place, and if DNA links it to the defendant, it is not dispositive if the issue in dispute is whether or not there was consent. In cases like this (which includes the type of case described as “date rape”), the testimony of the victim and how a jury determines to evaluate credibility when subjected to permissible cross examination may be all that is at issue.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 1:46PM
(cont'd)
These cases present challenges for investigators, prosecutors and jurors because they do often come down to “He said, She said” (ask DSK for his thoughts, which are even more relevant than mine, or Kobe Bryant if Strauss-Kahn is not available.). Nonetheless, over the last 50 years, most state legislatures have passed “Rape Shield Laws”, which have changed jury instructions, and limited cross examinations regarding irrelevant sexual history, etc.
This is not an issue in shariah compliant societies, though. There, women are considered inherently unreliable witnesses (it requires the testimony of two women to equal that of a male adult witness), and as such, to sustain a complaint of rape, an accuser must have four male witnesses in order to prevail at trial. As most sexual intercourse (consensual or otherwise) tends to occur in more private circumstances, these charges are almost impossible to sustain in this system. In a number of cases, where a woman makes such a complaint in the absence of four male witnesses, in so doing, she has admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse, and she is charged with fornication or adultery and punished (often by caning, flogging or stoning), despite the absence of consent or use of force against her.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 1:48PM
(cont'd)
I recognize the problems inherent in proceeding to trial in criminal cases based only on the word of another, but I am not willing to cede that it can never be appropriate to do so. Hopefully, the decision to do so will be made by prosecutors interested in the pursuit of justice, and not merely grinding a personal axe or trying to further an agenda beyond giving a credible accuser and the accused their day in court.
I do not, however, wish to live under shariah (which is a real “war on women”), despite the advantages that I would acquire as a man. I prefer to succeed or fail based on my own merits and actions, and not be advantaged or disadvantaged based on whether I possess XX or XY chromosones. While our society may be imperfect in how it deals with issues of sex and gender, I find it preferable to the shariah alternative.
JimH| 6.21.12 @ 8:02AM
Regarding jury duty as a civic obligation, I was called some years ago to be in the jury pool at the Queens County courthouse on Queen Blvd. and Union Turnpike. This is the center of possibly the most ethnically diverse place on Earth. Many of those called were naturalized Americans of many different origins. One thing most of them had in common was that since achieving citizenship they claimed to have lost the ability to read and understand English sufficiently to sit on a jury.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 8:34AM
It has been my experience that many of the native born population also does not have the ability to read and understand English sufficiently to sit on a jury.
JimH| 6.21.12 @ 8:52AM
My point was that these naturalized citizens can communicate fine outside the courtroom. It is just ‘no speak English’ inside to dodge jury duty.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 12:41PM
I understood and appreciate the point. With regard to that, though, I'm not sure as a defendant (and I know as someone who has made and prepared cases for the state against defendants) that I would would someone with an imperfect ability to comprehend testimony and jury instructions sitting in judgment on my case.
In his autobiography "Will", G. Gordon Liddy describes how Judge Sirica almost empaneled a non-English speaking juror not trying to dodge jury duty in his case during the Watergate scandal.
Derek Leaberry| 6.21.12 @ 8:17AM
Remember that the quaint American tradition of a jury trial goes back to when America was a rural, agrarian nation without the vast parasitical horde of lawyers that we have today. There were few trials and those trials were usually held at times of the year that did not interfere with the most intensive work in the field.
Today, lees than 2 % of Americans farm for a living. Most with jobs work from 48 to 50 weeks a year. Small businessmen abound, most of them leery about spending time on a jury when running a business is such a financially perilous situation. America is increasingly litiginous and slip and fall lawyers abound as many as the stars in the sky.
If the old-fashioned concept of jury duty is to thrive, it must be made easier for the more intelligent and more responsible to sit. Saturday trials should be normal. There should be a way to throw out silly law suits that waste time. Time consuming antics as witnessed in the OJ Simpson trial- an open and shut case if there ever was one- should be strangled by the judges.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 8:51AM
The last time I was called for jury duty and placed in a pool for a specific defendant’s trial, I was questioned if I knew any of the principals or witnesses. Other than the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney, I was a supervisor in one of the Task Forces with the expert witness, knew the arresting officers, and had participated in arresting the defendant under similar circumstances a dozen years previously. I was quickly disqualified and returned to the general pool to wait out the day.
Pecos Pete| 6.21.12 @ 9:22AM
Generally speaking, in my experience, if a potential juror has intelligence and common sense then they will be excused from the jury pool.
fmm| 6.21.12 @ 9:35AM
In my experience, any potential juror with these characteristics can easily get himself disqualified by answering the questions judiciously.
Gary B| 6.21.12 @ 10:17AM
Get a haircut, wear a nice suit and carry the Wall Street Journal. No defense attorney will want you around if it's a criminal case.
The Big E| 6.21.12 @ 1:42PM
You obviously don't know much about defense attorneys. I win a lot more cases when I have educated people on my jury. In my experience, they are more likely to understand the arguments presented, the instructions given by the Judge, and the burden of proof they're supposed to apply, and actually hold the State to that burden of proof. I've found that uneducated jurors are more likely to take the lazy-man's way out - i.e. - they charged him, so he must be guilty - rather than put the intellectual rigor into the case that is required to consider it properly.
PolishKnight| 6.21.12 @ 1:55PM
Absolutely BigE, the bored, uneducated jurors are likely to vote to go along to convict rather than try to stick to their convictions and possibly go for a mistrial. Judges love them because they take their instructions as gospel (which is basically lean the direction the judge and prosecution indicates.)
As an educated juror, I'm aware of such concepts as jury nullification and won't be bamboozled by razzle dazzle!
My best story is I sat on a jury similar to this marital rape case: A grandmother and her single mother daughter had a domestic dispute with the father (all hispanic) and the prosecutor wanted a kidnapping charge on top of the other nonsense. A female juror said that it was a woman's right to hit men and not get hit back AND the judge let her stay! Amazing. I felt for the guy, but I was an alternate and was going to waste my time so I gave the judge a piece of my mind on the matter when I was questioned before she bumped me out.
Gary B| 6.21.12 @ 8:05PM
I have a low opinion of judges. Common sense seems to be a rare trait with them. I was a co-plaintiff in a case involving breech of contract. It was right there in black and white. The judge ruled against us (no jury). He later went to jail for bribery. We believe our attorney threw the case in chambers to help cover up the judge's previous bogus decisions. Whatever you do stay the hell out of court. Anything - and I mean anything - can happen on a courtroom.
PolishKnight| 6.22.12 @ 11:11AM
The judge gave us jurors a lecture that as the jury, we only decided upon facts while she determined law. Fine, I thought, if the judge or a juror asked me why I was throwing out a case because it was a BS application of the law, I would say I determined it to be a fact the defendant is not guilty and the evidence didn't meet the qualifications, IMO, to convict. Done.
In the case of the above minority guy, I felt for him as a man. I see in his eyes that he wanted to take his daughter out to disneyworld, that's all, and the baby momma threw a temper tantrum and the cops, judge, and prosecution was going to railroad him to jail. What good was that going to do ANYONE including the taxpayers, the girl, and even the baby momma in the long run?
But the prosecutor probably gave the guy a deal like 2 years in jail and probation or face 20+ years from the hanging judge. That's why he took to to court hoping someone would hang the thing if necessary. I would have, but as an alternate it would be unlikely I'd be in that position.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 2:01PM
Gary B: Judge Roberts---example A for low common sense.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 2:02PM
Yeah, but you might not want me when I start discussing the shortage of transplantation organs, Big E. :-)
Achmed| 6.21.12 @ 9:49AM
A few years ago I had a privilege to be a "Juror#8" in a criminal case involving stealing a number of truckloads of emergency supplies from the Red Cross warehouse. I could live in NE PA for many years without mixing up with local population, been comfortably cocooned in my IT office, mingling up with white-color co-workers, many of whom, like me, plants from all over USA, India, Pakistan etc. Really, you should count your blessing, if you are an employed specialist, living in rural America.
Anyway, spending a week in the court, and especially, juror room was an eye opener. A mix of Army vets, construction workers (on and off work), housewives, unemployed ex-factory workers, all in their 50s and 60s, a single young guy with undetectable occupation...A Wall mart crowd, if you catch my drift. The defendant could comfortably mix up with this crowd - a professional "rescue specialist", guy in his late 40s, collecting worker compensation (allegedly injured in car accident) for the last twelve years. With his "injuries" he could not work, but could go all over the USA, drive supply trucks in disaster areas. Would you not admire such a civic spirit? Anyway, watching prosecutors (gloomy) and defense lawyers (upbeat and folksy), I realized, that the prosecutors and police detective, actually did not have a sliver of hope of winning the case. They just knew the folks better than I had.
Achmed| 6.21.12 @ 9:49AM
Damn the evidence, the hell with guilt and the law. "He's one of us (defendant)" and she (Red Cross administrator) is not. Pure and simple class envy, resentment, bitter, honed haltered of the "upper" classes. Not even a pretense of objectivity. You see, here in rural PA, the upper classes actually live up the mountains and the lower classes - below on the plains. My vote was all it stood between acquitting the perp and sending him to jail. Not only the lawyers, but also prosecutors could not believe the guilty verdict, when it was announced. Even the judge woke up and shook his head when heard it. True. All it took was for me to announce "I will stay here another week, if necessary, until the guilty verdict". "Ah, well...the hell with the guy, he's not my brother and we had enough and want to go back home to watch Ophrah".
Be live me or not, but I came out of this experience with better appreciation of the American judicial system. The lesson is - you can not just keep complaining and moaning, you've got to do the right thing. It only takes a few people with conscience to right the wrong, one case at a time. And don't expect the gratitude - you will be hated.
PolishKnight| 6.21.12 @ 1:59PM
Yeah, if the guy's guilty as hell and robbing then I'd hold out for a guilty verdict too. I'll acquit someone for a BS case but this is NOT a BS case. Good for you.
Achmed| 6.21.12 @ 2:21PM
Thanks PK!
One more comment - the common folk have deep distrust and animosity toward any authority, specifically - police and judicial system. More than a few of my co-jurors wanted to acquit the perp just for spite. True.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 3:00PM
If you had said western PA instead of NE, I would think it was the district that elected John Murtha over and over.
Achmed| 6.21.12 @ 3:31PM
Event better - we had privilege to be represented by "Put him (Florida Gov.) against the wall and shoot him"Paul Kanjorski (see http://www.redstate.com/moe_la.....kanjorski/). Served 1985-2010. All you need to know about PA-11.
PolishKnight| 6.22.12 @ 11:17AM
Achmed, PA district 11!!!!! That includes Wilkes-Barre where I was born!!! What a mess of a place. I can partly understand why they distrust authority since the place is a crony run mess and Wilkes-Barre last time I visited was like a ghost town after a war. Seriously. I grew up there and traveled to Poland and sections that were post communist and post WWII and found the latter a significant improvement!!!
I hate to use the left technique of dismissing those who disagree with me as "stupid", but that section of PA really has some thick headed voters who can't seem to figure out that the same guys promising them the moon every year aren't delivering. At least if they became a battleground state, they might get some slush money like the head of Louisiana purchase did when that senator voted for Obama's healthcare law.
Indeed, Carville is right: PA really is mostly Arkansas between Philly and Pittsburgh with one difference: Arkansas WISED UP!!!!
Denver Todd| 6.21.12 @ 9:51AM
My recent jury duty experience was pretty good. They had free parking, wi-fi in the waiting room too. The judge was incredibly gracious as the selection process proceeded. I was dismissed, just in time for lunch.
Gary B| 6.21.12 @ 11:32AM
LOL
The Big E| 6.21.12 @ 9:57AM
I've picked a couple of hundred criminal juries over the years, in addition to having sat on one a few years ago, and it's obviously a lot easier to be excused in Missouri than it is in NC. In a small town like this, if we excused everyone who knew someone, or everyone who had ever been charged with a crime, etc., then we would never have enough people left to make up a jury (witness the fact that, as I mentioned above, I was left on a criminal jury a couple of years ago despite personally knowing and working with the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and cop involved in the case). And as for the question of whether the victim's word would be enough without other evidence, well, I've never seen a Prosecutor attempt to ask such a question, and I've never known a Judge who would allow such a question to be asked.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 1:52PM
Yes, E, but from all I see, you are actually one of the Five or so attorneys I respect as people. You, sir, have NO IDEA how rare you are in your field.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.21.12 @ 10:24AM
Best thing to do: bring a couple of good books. No matter how shabby the process is, use the time for a good purpose. The two times I've been called for jury duty, I managed to get through a book on Abraham Lincoln, and another book on the history of racism.
"Maritial rape." I would have gotten out of that jury pretty easily, as I would have argued with the judge that there is no such thing. Assault yes, marital rape no. That would have been enough for the prosecutor to knock me off the list.
PolishKnight| 6.21.12 @ 2:02PM
Exactly. This ties in neatly with gay marriage being the most minor threat to marriage in recent years. For a long time, it's been a one-way contract with men being expected to financially provide for a spouse and children, for life, not allowed to commit adultery, but simultaneously not entitled to sex. Then aging career women fret: "Why aren't there anymore guys out there ready to pay all of our bills while we go shopping?"
If she doesn't want sex, she should file for divorce and that's the end of it. If she loses her meal ticket, so be it.
Petronius| 6.21.12 @ 2:34PM
Right on CVC and make sure the lawyers at the council tables see what you are reading. Want to get bounced before you state your name? Carry a hard copy of The Tyrannicide Brief.
cicero| 6.21.12 @ 11:25AM
Over the course of my career, I have picked dozens, if not hundreds of juries. It is always a crap shoot. Personally, I prefer the most intelligent jurors I can get. They underestand your arguments, and can be schooled on the law. However, I find that over the last 43 years, the jurors have become less learned on the American system. They seem to have gotten edducated more by t.v. than by the classroom. They actually believe that the police and prosecutors go to the ends of the earth to make sure that only the guilty be brought to trial. In actuality, they grab the first poor mope they can get their hands on, and try to make the evidence point to him.
One of my favorites was a "chop shop" case in Detroit. During voir dire, I asked the entire array whether any of them, or a close relative, had ever had their cars stolen. Every hand went up. They still acquitted my client. (One of the benefits of the practice of law is that you get better stories than just about anyone else.)
Stuart Koehl| 6.21.12 @ 12:06PM
Now you can come clean: your client did it, right?
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 1:54PM
Cicero: Try psychiatry for better stories. Fortunately, as I grow older, less shocks me, and I have developed a Frog's approach to food view of my job: if it ain't buzzing and annoying me, I ignore it.
Frank Natoli| 6.21.12 @ 11:49AM
Was called to jury duty for a felony narcotics trafficking and statutory rape case. Was seated with the initial 14 (12 plus 2 alternates). Judge then instructed that there would be testimony from state police as well as from convicted and/or confessed narcotics dealers, and we were to accept their testimony with equal belief, and did anyone have a problem with that? Me and another guy raised our hands. Judge directs me to approach the bench. I find myself flanked by both the prosecutor and the defense attorney. "What", says the judge softly to me, "problem do you have with my instructions". I said "I'm not going to accept the state police without question, and I'm not going to reject the narcotics dealers without question, but common sense says I can't believe them equally". She looked at me and simply said "you may return to your seat".
Would you like to guess who exercised his preemptory challenge on me? The prosecutor. At which point the stenographer, who heard the bench conversation, smiled at me.
All I can conclude is that all the other jurors were either liars or asleep.
Ran into the prosecutor at the supermarket some months later. Asked what happened. Convicted of everything.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 1:56PM
Frank: the prosecutor would excuse you because he wouldn't want the conviction appealed.
Cobalt| 6.21.12 @ 11:52AM
During the John Edwards campaign-finance trial in Greensboro, N.C., the four alternate jurors had to attend trial each day.
The last week of the trial, the four alternate jurors (three women and one man) started wearing color-coordinated outfits each day. They wore a different color (matching red, yellow, purple, etc.) each day.
When the jury started deliberations, the judge told these alternate jurors they no longer had to attend trial, and sent them home.
The judge said, "We will miss your cheerful faces," Federal Judge Catherin Eagles told the alternates. "And we will regret not knowing the color for tomorrow."
Stuart Koehl| 6.21.12 @ 12:01PM
I've never been called for jury duty, but my wife and my mother have. Both were excused after preemptory challenges, I suspect because both of them are intelligent, well-educated women of strong character and opinion. Were I to be called, I doubt I would ever be selected, simply because, without any false modesty, I just know too much about too much.
I am firmly convinced that both prosecutors and defense attorneys want the dumbest, most malleable people they can manage to sit on juries, because such people are more likely to be swayed by theatrics or bamboozled by pseudo-scientific expert testimony than people who have a firm understanding of logic, probability, history and basic science.
Derek Leaberry| 6.21.12 @ 2:54PM
That's why John Edwards became worth $ 50 million and has a beach house on Figure Eight Island, NC. To think America came within 60,000 Ohio votes from having this incorrigible person one heartbeat away from the presidency.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 1:58PM
Stuart: yup. Of course, I also have the advantage of being the psychiatrist for the local RURAL state PSYCHIATRIC hospital. As I'm very good at my job, people don't want me away from it for more than a week. When I'm not on call.
mmercier| 6.21.12 @ 12:58PM
I get bounced every time. A dui in 81'.
Waste of my time... every three years or so.
JD| 6.21.12 @ 1:06PM
Lawyers of all roles, like all people, have an innate desire to control their own destiny. We as conservatives should know that better than anyone. That desire is a conflict with collectivist systems that undermines them to the point of ultimate failure.
Lawyers don't want their won/loss record in court to be solely dependent on the facts, over which they have no control. They want their "skill" as lawyers to matter. It's human nature. Accordingly, they seek juries they can influence, not cold, hard, analytical types.
None of this should surprise anyone. The question is, is this a good way to carry out justice?
FlaJim| 6.21.12 @ 1:12PM
On five occasions, I've been summoned for jury duty and dismissed for a variety of reasons. Most had to do with having intelligence and reason. One who was immediately selected claimed to never follow the news and had absolutely no opinion on anything at all. She'd never voted in her life, either.
If you want to know why jury decisions defy common sense, look no further than the jury selection process.
Dolor en el trasero| 6.21.12 @ 1:18PM
In Florida, each county is purging illegals from the VOTING ROLLS. They review all of the JURY requests for excusal, noting the ones who claim not to be citizens. When they find one, then crosscheck and find the person is register to VOTE, they purge them. Obama & Holder say that this is discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics. What do YOU think?
MelvinNC| 6.21.12 @ 1:25PM
I seem to have one of those popular names for jury duty. During my go round of being selected, I notified the DA that I was extremely hard of hearing. The he started speaking to me slow and loud. I wanted to tell him I'm hard of hearing not illiterate. But to keep the process moving, I just nodded.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.21.12 @ 4:42PM
An affliction not uncommon in your old MOS (who wants to be seen wearing those little foam plugs every time you pull a trigger?).
cicero| 6.21.12 @ 2:08PM
SK To this day, I am not sure whether he did it or not. That is not my job or duty. In fact, I generally do not ask the client whether they did what they were accused of. That will come out in conversation. If they profess their innocence, I ask them to tell me their story. If it is not credible, I recite it back to them. If they don't believe heir own storyt, we start over. I recently had a client recant to me merely by showing him the police discovery material. At that point, the representation shifts from exoneration to damage control.
An ethical attorney cannot allow a client to take the stand and make statements that the attorney knows are false. Criminal trials are not games of upsmanship. They are, perhaps, the most important dramas that occur in a free society. All parties in the courtroom have a function. The prosecutor is there to present ALL of the facts. The judge is there to control the proceedings, and make rulings on the law. The jury is there to be the trier of the facts. And the defense attorney is there to present the defendants' story, and to make sure the defendant is accorded all of the rights of due process. If they all do their respective jobs, the system works well. If any of them step out of their bounds, the system fails.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.21.12 @ 2:29PM
cicero, the problem is with the quality of the jurors. The best, most thoughtful people cannot survive the challenge process, so we end up with middling people, or dolts, on most juries.
Petronius| 6.21.12 @ 2:57PM
BTDT Chris. We missed each other by a few weeks. And apart from the proximity of the pond life to our person as the circuit courts have been transmogrified into the cloaca of what once was a culture, I found it hard to decide which aspect was worse: having to set foot in a building with Carnahan's name on it, or endure what went on inside it. It was also a domestic type of case which didn't belong on the docket anyway. The judge didn't like my honest opinion on that and told me to my face he didn't understand. He's the one with the JD and the black robe. Duh! And we are compelled to pay for this nonsense. it happens for one reason. The legal establishment is the only institution that is totally unregulated. Nothing stops them short of The Almighty. Hence we have millions of statutes and ordinances to enforce 10 Commandments.
cicero| 6.21.12 @ 3:44PM
CVC I agree with you to a certain extent. Much depends on the ethical quality of the attorneys on the case. One of the problems I have seen is that often the quality of the entire array is sometimes lacking. But, by and large, it is still the best system yet devised by man.
The system of justice depends on the quality of the people who are placedd in a position to participate. The voting public is not doing its job in the selection of judicial officers; the law schools are doing a lousy job in teaching the philosophy of the law; and the result is what we see. I have long advocated the appointment of judges, who after one term have to run against their record. They would then have to run against that record after every term. If not reelected, another would be appointed. That way, even our lame press wuld have a chance to concentrate on the quality of the individual judge. As it is now, in my state, they might as well pass the benches down by way of hereditary succession.
Bill84728| 6.21.12 @ 5:00PM
The prosecutor actually asked if the venire person would convict if the only testimony was that of the wife, and she was found to be a credible witness?
That prosecutor was mixing up the civil burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) with the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt); that kind of thing is at best marginably ethical. In fact, as I consider it a bit more, it's highly questionable. Her supervisor needs to keep an eye on her; she's an accident waiting to happen. Let's hope she doesn't pull something like that in a murder trial.
Bill84728| 6.22.12 @ 9:03AM
Asking a question like that could be seen as an attempted end-run around the prohibition on referring to a criminal defendant's exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Anyone But Obama| 6.23.12 @ 8:10AM
Yeah, I had a month long Grand Jury gig a few years back. I think there were about 20 people on it. We were asked if you could speak English and those who couldn't were gone.
I sat there for 4 weeks and there were about 3 who obviously COULD NOT speak English, they just sat there and raised their hands when everyone else did. What a joke. There were a few who were dumb as rocks and had no clue as to what was going on.
The system is a mess and needs to be overhauled drastically. Never again, I just don't show up when called. I ginore the mail they send. Let them come and get me.