Jury duty

[Rudynate]

Now that's just silly. Driving on a curve is not an experiment, although I suppose one could call it research (or fact-finding). The weather, traffic, and other conditions should have been presented at the trial if those were relevant. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated/ Since no particular factor is manipulated, I don't see this as an experiment. I don't think I would be do experiments in most cases, but I would feel obliged to do fact-finding to the extent possible if I'm presented with various "versions" of "the truth."

 

 

And that ^is the jury's role - finder of fact. But just like in scientific experiment, fact-finding by the jury is subject to all manner of controls to minimize the possibility of things going awry.

[Guest]

"Juror experiment" is the legal term for any attempt jurors make to simulate some aspect of the case in order to confirm or reject some theory. They're not true experiments with hypotheses, manipulated variables, and random assignment to experimental and control conditions.

 

Even if weather and traffic conditions were presented at the trial, jurors may not necessarily conduct the "experiment" under those same conditions.

 

Just like lawyers to try to twist words in order to make something appear like something it isn't. Like calling something an "experiment" that isn't an experiment. I think it's pretty obvious that if you want to know how safe it is to drive on a certain curve, the best way to do this is not to listen to two arguments, and then get a feel for which argument is more persuasive. The way to factually find out is to drive the friggin' curve under the conditions described in court, then discover the truth yourself. Typical of American rhetoric, and why we have so many people who don't believe in global warming or evolution. If the argument against evolution feels better, why look at the fossil records and carbon dating in order to find out real facts? If the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, why look at the real evidence? If that's what your preacher passionately argues, that's good enough. I will take observation over argument any day. I guess that's why I became a physician instead of an attorney.

[Guest]

I was placed on a speeding ticket trial. I think the defending attorney told us that if we thought the defendant was speeding, but didn't believe the defendant was speeding at the exact speed as designated in the complaint, we had to vote not guilty. We as laymen and women thought that was crazy whether that was the actual law or not. So we voted the defendant guilty. But I don't think we fined him/her too much.

 

Yikes! What state are you in, that speeding tickets can go to a jury trial? You guys must have a lot of jury trials. Here is California we have crimes that are classified below the level of a misdemeanor, called infractions. One cannot get jail time for infractions, but one does not have the right to a jury trial on infractions, either. If your state has a law that states that a person cannot be found guilty unless the person was speeding at the exact speed as designated on the complaint, that's pretty crazy, too. I agree that I would have to ignore the law in that case, too, because that's just plain nuts. Of course, in California, it's not necessarily against the law to drive over the speed limit, unless the speed limit is 55 MPH or higher.

[Guest]

GRAND Jury duty TWO weeks every day

 

That's another US legal process I have a big problem with. Plaintiffs get an attorney, and defendants don't (at least that's how it's done in California)? I believe that the proper way for deciding whether or not a case should go to trial is via a preliminary hearing, where both sides are entitled to legal counsel.

[+ purplekow]

That's another US legal process I have a big problem with. Plaintiffs get an attorney, and defendants don't (at least that's how it's done in California)? I believe that the proper way for deciding whether or not a case should go to trial is via a preliminary hearing, where both sides are entitled to legal counsel.

A Grand Jury simply decides if there is enough evidence to go onto trial. I was a witness at a Grand Jury. I was asked three questions. When the trial came, I was on the stand for several hours of examination and cross examination. Clearly the Grand Jury felt there was a need to hear more after I testified that I was robbed of many thousands of dollars and I spent many thousands more on a forensic audit to find out where the money had gone. The details, were flushed out at trial. The third question was a simple one: After the forensic audity were you convinced that Jane Doe had embezzled the money from you? Yes. And off to trial we went. If I had said no, perhaps the Grand Jury may not have indicted her.

[Rudynate]

If the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old, why look at the real evidence? If that's what your preacher passionately argues, that's good enough. I will take observation over argument any day. I guess that's why I became a physician instead of an attorney.

 

No, the answer is easier than that. They're stupid.

[Rudynate]

That's another US legal process I have a big problem with. Plaintiffs get an attorney, and defendants don't (at least that's how it's done in California)? I believe that the proper way for deciding whether or not a case should go to trial is via a preliminary hearing, where both sides are entitled to legal counsel.

 

 

I think you're conflating civil matters and criminal matters.

[+ Gar1eth]

I was on a petty jury once. The kinds of cases in this court were people speeding, keeping chickens, stealing electricity, and the like. I was placed on a speeding ticket trial. I think the defending attorney told us that if we thought the defendant was speeding, but didn't believe the defendant was speeding at the exact speed as designated in the complaint, we had to vote not guilty. We as laymen and women thought that was crazy whether that was the actual law or not. So we voted the defendant guilty. But I don't think we fined him/her too much. Of course there were court/attorney fees as well.

 

Gman

 

Yikes! What state are you in, that speeding tickets can go to a jury trial? You guys must have a lot of jury trials. Here is California we have crimes that are classified below the level of a misdemeanor, called infractions. One cannot get jail time for infractions, but one does not have the right to a jury trial on infractions, either. If your state has a law that states that a person cannot be found guilty unless the person was speeding at the exact speed as designated on the complaint, that's pretty crazy, too. I agree that I would have to ignore the law in that case, too, because that's just plain nuts. Of course, in California, it's not necessarily against the law to drive over the speed limit, unless the speed limit is 55 MPH or higher.

You made me curious. So I decided to try looking up whether jury trials were permitted for traffic tickets in the states I have lived in.

 

So from what I found out from the National Motorist Association website

 

Texas-yes you can have a jury trial for speeding.

 

Wisconsin-ditto

 

Ohio- jury trials are only allowed if being found guilty would lead to jail time

 

Louisiana - no right to a jury trial

 

Washington State - no right to a jury trial

 

 

As for not being able to find the defendant guilty if we thought he was speeding but not at the velocity stated-it has to do with the charge. The charge was for speeding at a certain speed (velocity). That's important because there are different penalties depending on the speed.

 

A lawyer who was on our jury said he wasn't sure the defense attorney was correct with that interpretation of the law. We actually sent a question to the judge while we were in the jury room to ask if the defense attorney was correct. He replied back something not helpful. And the more I think back on this case (it happened about 22 years ago) I think the defendant's argument was that he was speeding. But he claimed he wasn't going as fast as the charge stated he was going. We the jury decided that if he admitted to speeding, he probably was speeding the amount the charge stated. So we found him guilty. We were even allowed to set the penalty fee. One older woman on the jury was ok with a really high fee-something like $150 which would have been an incredibly expensive fee in 1980, but the rest of us reduced it.

 

Gman

[Guest]

We the jury decided that if he admitted to speeding, he probably was speeding the amount the charge stated.

 

Hmm. So if he was at least partly telling the truth, then he must have been lying some too. Hopefully there was more evidence that left you convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

[Tonyko]

That's another US legal process I have a big problem with. Plaintiffs get an attorney, and defendants don't (at least that's how it's done in California)? I believe that the proper way for deciding whether or not a case should go to trial is via a preliminary hearing, where both sides are entitled to legal counsel.

No, (at least here anyway) when plaintiffs CHOOSE to appear and be grilled by the DA re the evidence they're presenting, they ARE allowed to have their attny present beside them. The attny however is NOT allowed to speak, but the plaintiff IS allowed to confer etc with them sotto voce during questioning :-)

[jawjateck]

Called three times. Seated the first time when I was still a 20-something for a murder trial.....icky!! Dismissed the last two times. Each time was in a different courthouse. I was not impressed with either trip inside those hallowed chambers. I hope my one time was enough.

[Rudynate]

Called three times. Seated the first time when I was still a 20-something for a murder trial.....icky!! Dismissed the last two times. Each time was in a different courthouse. I was not impressed with either trip inside those hallowed chambers. I hope my one time was enough.

 

 

Three times?!?!? I get called every year, like clockwork. In San Francisco we don't have to go in. We're on call for a week. You may get through the entire week without having to go into the courthouse. The last time I served, I had to into the courthouse and everybody was dismissed at about 9:30A.

[jawjateck]

I had a dispute with one courthouse. They sent me a threatening letter to show up for duty on a certain date because I failed to appear on a previous occasion. I never received a notice. I immediately suspected and later found out that they often did this. Their first notice was a threat for failing to appear on a previous occasion.

[+ Gar1eth]

I once had moved out of state for a 6 month period and then moved back in state in Texas. I had address change cards for each move. I had a jury notice sent to me in Houston thinking I still lived there, forwarded to Ohio, and then forwarded to my new address back in Houston. I didn't show up for jury duty. My excuse in my own mind was they wanted the 'prior' me when I had previously lived in Houston the 6 months before. This was a new me in a new address.

 

Gman

[Lookin]

The way to factually find out is to drive the friggin' curve under the conditions described in court, then discover the truth yourself.

 

You'd probably have to borrow the defendant's car too.

 

I had a low-slung MG that could zip around a curve like it was on rails. I also had a used Datsun B210 that was forever searching for a lane it liked; coaxing it around a corner was never a sure thing. http://www.4smileys.com/smileys/scared-smileys/scared_smiley.gif

 

Especially when I had been a bit lackadaisical about tire rotation. http://www.boytoy.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

 

http://msc.wcdn.co.il/w/w-635/615680-5.jpg

[bostonman]

Called three times. Seated the first time when I was still a 20-something for a murder trial.....icky!! Dismissed the last two times. Each time was in a different courthouse. I was not impressed with either trip inside those hallowed chambers. I hope my one time was enough.

 

In MA, you're only eligible once every three years, regardless of whether you serve or not. I've only wound up in the actual courtroom twice - once I was dismissed, the other (this past summer) I was on the jury. (I was even made foreperson due to where I was sitting - though it turned out to be a simple responsibility.) It was a civil case that lasted 2 days - it was actually rather fascinating, and I'm glad I served. They always show you that little film at the beginning of the day in the jury pool room, where they try to get you to feel good about why you're there, with testimonials from people that said it was a worthwhile experience that they would gladly do again. I think by default, most of us view that with a jaded eye - but I have to say, I *would* be willing to do it again. Yes, it's inconvenient, etc, but for me it turned out to be a good experience.

[sincitymix]

Three times?!?!? I get called every year, like clockwork. In San Francisco we don't have to go in. We're on call for a week. You may get through the entire week without having to go into the courthouse. The last time I served, I had to into the courthouse and everybody was dismissed at about 9:30A.

I must be lucky. 1st time I got a jury summons, I was starting my freshman year in college, called up spoke to a live person, told her how many credits I was taking, she said excused no jury duty for you.

2nd time I received a summon for a grand jury. went in, started the selection process, judge said every other person raise your right hand. I did.. judge said dismissed thank you for your time. ... and because I wasn't selected for the grand jury, I was excused for jury duty for the next 10 years lol.. how sweet was that!

[trav05]

I retired 3 years ago and moved from Oakland to So.Florida. I got picked yearly in SF And Oakland. I received jury notice for what was 2 weeks after I was leaving Cali. I wrote a note back that I would no longer be a resident.

Over the next year I received a couple of threatening notices saying I didn't show up. I returned them saying I wasn't a resident .

Finally got a phone call. I still have my 415 area code phone. Told girl I wasn't a resident. She told me to mail 2 pieces of ID showing I lived in Fla. Kind of angry now. I know so many people that get notices and just ignore them, with no follow up. I get the feeling because I did go every year, they didn't believe. I didn't sent her anything, and never heard back.

[Rudynate]

I must be lucky. 1st time I got a jury summons, I was starting my freshman year in college, called up spoke to a live person, told her how many credits I was taking, she said excused no jury duty for you.

2nd time I received a summon for a grand jury. went in, started the selection process, judge said every other person raise your right hand. I did.. judge said dismissed thank you for your time. ... and because I wasn't selected for the grand jury, I was excused for jury duty for the next 10 years lol.. how sweet was that!

 

It's easy to get excused for illness, vacation, family matters, etc. You just mail a form back asking to be excused and giving the reason. But then they summon you again in six months.

[sincitymix]

It's easy to get excused for illness, vacation, family matters, etc. You just mail a form back asking to be excused and giving the reason. But then they summon you again in six months.

I guess Nevada must have been very lenient. The Clerk I spoke with the 1st time said no jury duty for me for the remainder of my college years as long as I went full time and took at least 13 credits worth of classes. easy thing there.

2nd time the Judge said during his dismissal, thank you for your participation, you who are dismissed are excused for the next 10 years. see the clerk on your way out.

[Zman]

I got called two years ago. At the courthouse we filled out a jury questionnaire. One of the questions was to mark if you were available for a "long trial". I was and, yup, I got picked. The trial took 3 or 4 weeks. Not everyday. So I still worked some days during that time. It was a criminal trial and the defendant/criminal had robbed 5 hotels at (fake) gunpoint. "The hotel hoodie bandit" they called him (guess what he wore). It was long and dull. I liken it to having to take a cross country flight every day for 3 weeks. Virtually any criminal trial these days will involve cell phone and texting records. So you have to listen to them describe all that and the expert witnesses from the phone companies. I wonder how much Verizon, ATT, and the rest make from renting out expert witnesses.

[+ Charlie]

I retired 3 years ago and moved from Oakland to So.Florida. I got picked yearly in SF And Oakland. I received jury notice for what was 2 weeks after I was leaving Cali. I wrote a note back that I would no longer be a resident.

Over the next year I received a couple of threatening notices saying I didn't show up. I returned them saying I wasn't a resident .

Finally got a phone call. I still have my 415 area code phone. Told girl I wasn't a resident. She told me to mail 2 pieces of ID showing I lived in Fla. Kind of angry now. I know so many people that get notices and just ignore them, with no follow up. I get the feeling because I did go every year, they didn't believe. I didn't sent her anything, and never heard back.

I lived in Pennsylvania for 38 years and got called for jury duty three times. Since I have lived in California I have received summons about every 18 months. Here at least I can be excused if I claim a medical problem, without providing any proof, because I am over 70. Yesterday my next door neighbor received a warning about not responding to a summons, but he has a foolproof excuse: he died more than a year ago.

 

I generally do go when I am summoned, because the first time I served, in Philadelphia many years ago, was an educational experience. It was a complicated assault case, and the jury members were divided on whether the defendant was guilty as charged. I was chosen as the foreman, and it took everything I knew about managing people to get twelve individuals to agree on a verdict. The first time I was summoned in California, we were told that it was a murder case with two victims and two defendants. It sounded like an interesting challenge, until the judge said, "I expect the case to take about six months. Does anyone have a problem with that?" Almost every hand shot up, including mine.

[Guest]

Yesterday my next door neighbor received a warning about not responding to a summons, but he has a foolproof excuse: he died more than a year ago.

 

[+ WmClarke]

How do they pick people to summon for possible jury duty? I have a drivers license, listed phone number and address, register to vote, own property....and have never been called for jury duty in the 30+ years I have been eligible.

[Zman]

How do they pick people to summon for possible jury duty? I have a drivers license, listed phone number and address, register to vote, own property....and have never been called for jury duty in the 30+ years I have been eligible.

 

I think you've hit all the likely sources. Some cities/jurisdiction just have more cases than others. I know in Manhattan they allow very few excuses from JD. They have a lot of potential jurors but also a lot of cases. So they call a lot of people. Maybe your city just has less need for jurors. Some places just tend to be well-behaved .

 

State laws may play into this. I think lots of cases in court stem from traffic accidents and car wrecks. The liability and insurance laws in a given state may greatly affect how many cases end up in court.