Kilts on Jury Duty...

[MacMullen]

I also would love to serve on a jury. I've only been called once and they picked the jury before they needed me. It was a statutory rape trial and the defense attorney asked the potential jurors, and I quote, "Does anyone here have a moral problem with underage drinking or with teenagers having sex?" Not a single juror raised his or her hand. I wanted to stand up and raise my hand, but I chickened out.

That was a couple of years ago, so no kilt for me either.

As a Lutheran pastor, I'm sure they would've excluded me from the jury anyway.

[Graham]

I also would love to serve on a jury. I've only been called once and they picked the jury before they needed me. It was a statutory rape trial and the defense attorney asked the potential jurors, and I quote, "Does anyone here have a moral problem with underage drinking or with teenagers having sex?" Not a single juror raised his or her hand. I wanted to stand up and raise my hand, but I chickened out.

That was a couple of years ago, so no kilt for me either.

As a Lutheran pastor, I'm sure they would've excluded me from the jury anyway.

I've never been asked for jury duty, but reading this i can't help feeling sad that we have gotten to the point where Godfearing men are not considered desireable for such an important duty. (if I understand the post correctly).

sick world..

[David Thornton]

Graham, it's worse than they are telling you. If this offends, sorry, just reporting from personal experience.
I have been called a few times, been dismissed most times. Both sides have an agenda and try to load the jury with acceptable jurists. Sounds like it should be fair right, both sides question the potential jurists. But, who are the potential jurists? The first time I was called, I had paid for a trip to Argentina. Judge said dismissed, you are back on the call list. I was in fact called again very soon. Military duty, being a business owner, having a decent living wage and having an opinion kept me off most other cases. So when I finally served, the other 11 were either women with already grown children or the unemployed.
You will never have a representative jury under thew current system. When those with money or connections are dismissed, and those with convictionms are ineligable, it's just not possible.
Sorry, I'm ranting.
David

[MacMullen]

I've never been asked for jury duty, but reading this i can't help feeling sad that we have gotten to the point where Godfearing men are not considered desireable for such an important duty. (if I understand the post correctly).

sick world..

Yes, Graham, your understanding was correct. They weren't asking me, they were asking the panel, and no one raised their hand. In fact, that was the very last question before they swore the jury in. The Judge even asked the Prosecutor if he had any other questions and he said that, no, he was satisfied. From that, I'm sure that the Defense would have excluded me if I had been chosen and they had asked my occupation.

I never did hear how the trial turned out.

As far as the makeup of the jury, there were a few middle aged women, a couple of younger women, a couple of older retired guys, and a few of local businessmen or salesmen, so I thought it represented a pretty good cross section of our local population. I was surprised to see so many turn out for jury duty.

[Blu (Ontario)]

A couple of years ago, I was called in for jury selection and was not picked... not that I particularly wanted to be selected. I had contemplated wearing a kilt to help avoid being selected. Fortunately I was not selected and now cannot be called up for several more years. Suits me just fine, thanks.

[cormacmacguardhe]

Interesting thread. I have been called to jury duty twice, served both times. The first was a possession case which was plea bargained before the jury got the case, the second was a 2nd degree attempted murder. That was interesting because of what was not allowed by the judge to be presented. We found the defendant guilty. If I ever get called again, I will gladly serve. Besides being one of our civic duties, it is very interesting.

[mudd]

I have been called for jury duty many times, in two different States. Only have only gotten chosen once for a small civil case.
I have found that if you show that you have any opinion about anything, you will probably not be picked.
And to keep in topic; the next time I get called, I am going to have on a Kilt.

[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