I just got back from Day 1 at the Courts Building. I sat through two selections one in the AM and in the afternoon. Those of us who were not selected are on-call all week. I was hoping to be excused because of the pain and discomfort I still feel from the shingles but never got called. One lady wanted to be selected but come the afternoon she had a change of heart because she was sleepy. One gentleman actually fell asleep and the baliff woke him up and told him he couldn't go to sleep. Another time on break she went looking for someone who was actually selected but then he was dismissed later in the proceedings. I learned more from the second selection about being a juror than the first. The representatives from the State and for the defendant explained much more and in detail about what is expected and required from a juror. We can't talk about the case and we can't investigate the case were statements stressed throughout. Both times were close to three hours long with a 15 minute break. Those of us who were not selected during the AM were assigned to report to another courtroom that afternoon. I was ready to go by that time because the pain was starting and I was getting tense from it. The baliff, Mrs. Treat, was pretty good at making everyone feel comfortable. When she said that she named her first daughter Ima we all had to laugh. Don't know if it's true but it was funny. If it wasn't for my condition right now believe I would make a good juror.
Have watched a lot of factual programmes featuring Jury decisions The one I watched last night I felt was the wrong decision of 'not guilty'. Even the judge presiding stated his shock and had to read the verdict twice before handing it over to be stated So, I wonder - should jurors be trained to become jurors, therefore it becomes a profession Would like to hear your thoughts on this
The last thing you would want to see, is professional jurors. They would become entrenched and corrupt. Law clerks or tipstaffs are a good example. Regular folks may make mistakes, but on the whole they are conscientious.
No. Before I got to old was called up three times and sat on about 9 juries trials two at Snarsbrook and one at the Old Bailey. Not one of the verdicts that as us simpletons had any training we did not need training for that. If fact a talk given to us before the start of a trial was "You MUST draw on your experience what is the truth of the evidence"
Thanks for your views - seemed like a good idea People seem to lack 'sense' especially today, so it seemed a worthwhile suggestion No - I haven't seen 'Bull' Gloria - is it a load of bull ?
I just got out of jury duty for today. I would have love to gone if it wasn't in downtown Fresno. My request to be excused was granted. Cost me $25 for a drs excuse.
I am not in favor of the Jury system since you have no idea of their intelligence and hidden prejudices. I rather go before a panel of experts. It would greatly reduce the cost and time it takes for a jury trial. Perhaps a trail by jury can be an appeal option in case of a split decision.
Yep - tend to agree with you but I see what others are saying too Seen so many jury mistakes but that's the way it is, interesting subject though (well for me anyway )
The same can be said of a panel of experts--you don't know the intelligence or prejudices of the experts either. That is essentially what we have with the IRS and other bureaucracies. They make the regulations, interpret the regulations, enforce the regulations, and try the offenders. I like the jury system with all its flaws.
From my view, the quality of the jury is solely in the hands of the lawyers representing the plaintiff and the accused. Ideally, until both entities are in agreement over a juror’s ability to come to an informed opinion > conclusion, they weed through the potential jurors until both are content that a fair and just verdict will be forthcoming. In essence, the more valid the barrister, the more qualified the juror. Note: I wrote “ideally” because in the higher profile jury trials the barristers will attempt a form of psychological jury tampering by loading the jury with those who might keep a subconscious bias toward one side or the other. During the trial period, both sides have the opportunity to present their cases complete with “experts” and witnesses and before a jury (our peers) is sequestered for their review and vote, everything that needs to be explained is explained and if something needs further review, it can be reviewed. The bottom line is that we are guaranteed a quick and speedy trial, in front of our peers or rather, those in our community. Not an automaton, not a paid panel of legal experts, but those who live and work in the community we are a part of. I am nearly always a black and white sort of a person. No shady or areas of grey, just right or wrong but when it comes to the determination of another person's future, there are times when the areas of grey really matter because in truth, not everything is black and white. As I explained in the preface, the whole process isn’t fool proof because the people picked by the human barristers are also human. Even the laws by which we live aren’t perfect and the machinery used such as a polygraph aren’t perfect so what makes us think a professional panel (hired by humans) with which we have no control, or even a futuristic automaton is going to be any better? Any other system that can be devised would be all black and white, all right and wrong with no human element in the mix and I for one, no matter the failings, would rather face my peers. As an afterthought: If we peruse our present political arena, anyone who has to be confirmed by congress must fit into a sort of political, left or right mold. It’s all about bias so how much bias would be apparent whilst attempting to pick permanent expert jury panels for each city, county and state in the U.S.?