Kilts on Jury Duty...

[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

[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

[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.