Kilts on Jury Duty...

[GlassMan]

This is slightly off-topic but I'd like to mention it anyway.

Personally I detest the jury system. I know for a certain fact that I don't understand all of the intricacies of the law and I'm a very well-educated individual. I also know that even after years and years of training, even lawyers have disagreements over the meaning of the law.

So knowing that even the most qualified people to understand the law and legal proceedings get confused and get things wrong, I have a serious problem with taking 12 people who somehow weren't objectionable and expect them to decide an issue that may be a matter of life or death.

That's why I like the Napoleonic system. Get 3 respected judges who have tons of years between them of service and of studying the law. The let them be presented the evidence by both sides, have them discuss it amongst themselves, and make a decision. At least they'll have some clue about what they're dealing with especially on complex cases.

I say, if a panel of judges is good enough for appeals and the Supreme Court than it should be good enough for the average defendant in a criminal trial.

[motorman4life]

I tend to agree with GlassMan. It is frustrating trying to break down complex evidence and dumb-down good/solid science for a jury (called "spoon feeding") without giving the defense fresh territory to explore or areas to poke holes in the evidence (called "muddying the waters”).

The other thing that happens if the defendant has $$$, the defense brings in hired guns. So-called "experts" with PHDs that are paid to skew the science and lend doubt by confusing the jury. These hired guns will go to any length to earn their paycheck.

These are a couple of the biggest problems with the U.S. jury system. On the same token, the jury of 12 is your right in the U.S.

I would like to see a professional 3 or 5 person jury panel that hears technical and scientific evidence and their ruling on the evidence is presented to the 12 person lay jury, so it is one less thing they have to decide. Let all of the wrangling over DNA, GSR, trace evidence, physics, tidal charts and "transfer theory" take place in front of professional scientist/jurors. With all of these sci-fi police shows like CSI, it gives lay juries a false expectation of what can be done by police, within a publicly funded lab and within a realistic timeline. Under ordinary conditions, >90% of what those shows portray as routine everyday technology is beyond the capabilities of 99% of the police crime labs in the world. DNA results in 30 seconds. Fingerprint database search from a partial latent taken off a quarter found in a phone booth in 20 seconds. Yeah, right. Epithelials from a matchbook, c'mon! It makes fun entertainment, but it is not possible to enhance a usable facial image from a reflection in a victim's eye (or even a hubcap of a passing vehicle) taken off even the best closed circuit surveillance camera 30-40 yards away. Not even the NSA can do that.

Okay, rant over. Back on topic:
I'm glad I posted this thread. I will likely ever get a chance to be on a jury, but I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.

[Space Moose]

My understanding of a jury was that their job was to decide who's story was true. Thier job is definitely not to decide what is legal or illegal, there are laws which (theoretically) must go through a gauntlet of checks and balances to be enacted which decide which is legal or illegal.

Further, they absolutely shouldn't be deciding what's right or wrong, as that shouldn't even enter into the question.

You can't send sombody to jail for being a scumbag. You send somebody to jail IF they broke the law.

The prosecution will explain that the defendant broke the law, and the defence will explain that the defendant didn't. The jury has to decide what events really happened.

I personally think that people with convictions about a related subject shouldn't be on a jury, as they'd not be able to remain their objectivity...

Craig

[motorman4life]

Sorry Moose, if you were responding to my last post, maybe you misunderstood. The jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crime(s) s/he is being charged with. The problem comes when the prosecution has to rely on expert testimony or technology to prove their case and the defense counters with their experts and tries to cast doubt by relying upon the juror's lack of understanding. It becomes less a case of the truth and more a case of who's experts are more well spoken or who can convince the jury they know more about a particular area of science.

The other problem I mentioned was that because of TV and movies, juries are wanting to see scientific evidence that does not exist or was not collected because the reality is, the shows are based upon science fiction. We cannot immediately act upon or in some cases even present evidence that takes weeks or months to process. On TV, the plot usually hinges upon instant results and unlikely connections put together just in the nick of time. In reality, cases are solved differently. People on jury duty don't seem to understand that.

Back on topic. As I do watch Law & Order and CSI, it would be cool to have them present a show where they had a juror in a kilt become an issue... of course, I'd like it to turn out where the kilt-wearing juror was a hero of some sort!

[Space Moose]

Nope, I was referring to some previous replies mentioning that it seemed like people with strong opinions about anything get disqualified. I only think that people with strong opinions about topics related to the trial get disqualified.

I understood your post, and I've heard the same problem repported a lot more frequently lately. I've never served on a jury, but I wonder if a judge could take a more active role in guiding the jury on what they should and shouldn't expect.

Craig

[richardljohnson]

Sadly, wearing a kilt on jury duty is an act I doubt I'll ever get to enjoy.

As a retired firefighter and the spouse of a cop I get automatically excluded every time I get a jury summons. I check the box for both and give the department information on the reply form. Then I get notice back in the mail saying that I was disqualified from jury duty.

Apparently there is a presumption that being a former public safety professional and a cop's husband means that I will automatically side with the prosecution. ...

I was a cop for 18 years. I quit 5 years ago but still have my licenses for Texas as a Peace Officer. I got a notice to report for jury duty. When I did report I asked the judge when he asked for excetions about my serving. His comment was "Maybe you will get a civil case." At this I just said, "Yes sir." and sat down.

You gessed it, called. Ticket case 80 in a 60. Question from DA when selecting a jury. "So, you were a Police Officer for 18 years. Did you ever give a ticket that someone did not deserve?" Me, "No sir. Every ticket I wrote I felt was deserved." DA, "Thank you. Excused" What happened (I waited to see), Guilty, $200.00 fine and court cost.

Got to love the system sometimes!

Also, no kilt when I reported. I did not want to push it with the JP court.

Richard-

[MacMullen]

Nope, I was referring to some previous replies mentioning that it seemed like people with strong opinions about anything get disqualified. I only think that people with strong opinions about topics related to the trial get disqualified.

I understood your post, and I've heard the same problem repported a lot more frequently lately. I've never served on a jury, but I wonder if a judge could take a more active role in guiding the jury on what they should and shouldn't expect.

Craig

I know I said I wouldn't post again on this, but, I thought I'd explain myself a little more clearly.

Re: the trial I was called for, it's true, I do have a lot of strong opinions regarding teenage sex as well as underage drinking, and, they would likely have excused me from the jury for my opinion on what's moral and what's not, and if they had asked me, I would've said that, yes, I have a problem with that. When I said that we have morals dictated by society, I meant that, we do have laws, and, e.g., underage drinking is against the law, so I do have a moral problem with underage drinking in general. At that point in jury selection, they weren't asking the juror's opinion on the case, only on general morality.

But, of course, as was mentioned, in a trial, the jury is not called to decide what's moral or not. The defendant was not on trial for underage drinking, or for having sex. He was on trial for statutory rape. If the evidence or testimony showed that he had broken the law, I would've likely voted "guilty." If the evidence or the witnesses showed that he was not guilty, I would have voted, "not guilty."

There may be some things that are immoral in my view, but are not illegal. Again, if the evidence shows civic guilt or innocence, I would vote guilty or not guilty based on the law, not on my view of moral or immoral.

As a jury member, my job is not to decide moral or not. My job is, based on the evidence, to decide guilty or not guilty. But again, if the lawyer (or anyone else, ftm) asks my opinion on morality, I will give my opinion.

[Mike n NC]

Don't forget, regardless of what the law enforcment and politicians will tell you, you have one more Constitutionally mandated duty. It is the duty of each and every American to question the contitutional soundness of each and every law.

I will cheerfully wear my kilt on jury duty as I refuse to vote guilty as charged, no matter the evidence, if law broken was unconstitutional to begin with.

Jury nulification, it is my right and duty under the Constitution of These United States.

Mike

[Riverkilt]

Jury Duty for me is either 135 miles away for County Superior Court or 250 miles away for Federal Court...so its no small thing.

My history of law enforcement, corrections, parole and probation usually excludes me. Yet to be called to sit. Have been to court kilted though.

Just to clarify the underage drinking...the reason the law is 21 is medical. The human liver doesn't mature until we reach about 21. Underage drinking is very rough on the liver and steady underage drinking very often sends on one a path to dependence on alcohol...

There may be folks out there who drank heavily and repeatedly when underage and are now social drinkers, but I ain't one of them...

Ron

[Angus MacSpey]

Don't forget, regardless of what the law enforcment and politicians will tell you, you have one more Constitutionally mandated duty. It is the duty of each and every American to question the contitutional soundness of each and every law.

I will cheerfully wear my kilt on jury duty as I refuse to vote guilty as charged, no matter the evidence, if law broken was unconstitutional to begin with.

Jury nulification, it is my right and duty under the Constitution of These United States.

Mike

I was just about to write exactly the same thing in response to a couple of other posters who are unaware of the power of an American jury. Maybe it's different in Canada, but absolutely our juries are able to nullify laws.

That means, if you are serving on a jury in a case where someone has been charged with "hate speech" (don't laugh, these laws are already being debated in legislatures here, and already exist in Canada), and the evidence is clear that the accused has broken said "hate speech" law, you may take into account the fact that said law violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and vote not guilty.

A juror cannot be held liable for his or her decision, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Unless you piss off the petty tyrant - I mean judge - as in the case of Laura Kriho a few years back here in Colorado.

Prosecutors do not like potential jurors to know this. It might lower their conviction rate. Defense attorneys don't like it, either. People who know this stuff are likely to be very concerned about law and order. Either side is taking a chance with independent-minded, outspoken, politically aware men and women.

I saw this personally when I was called for jury duty. During voire dire I saw which potential jurors could intelligently and articulately answer questions from the attorneys, and which ones had a difficult time understanding the simplest questions.

At the end of their little game of Twenty Questions, the articulate folks were thanked and dismissed.

With such a rotten system, I can side with GlassMan - because that system is broken. But the idea is perfect. The idea was to have a jury of 12 of your PEERS - that is, people who live in your town, maybe know you, and are of similar social status, etc. People who are like the accused, who can render a fair judgement after thoughtful and intelligent analysis. Instead, we have juries full of welfare bums and Oprah-zombies.

If we used the jury system the way it's supposed to be used, the notion of 3-judge panels would be abhorrent to any lover of liberty.

</soapbox>