Kilts on Jury Duty...

[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.

[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>

[mudd]

</soapbox>

Well said.

[motorman4life]

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.

My preference for a 3 or 5 judge panel would be just to hear the scientific and technical evidence, rule on admissability and relevance so the 12-person jury does not have to be "educated" on these topics by both sides. I could give hundreds of examples, but suffice to say, the current system clearly favors those that can afford to buy the highest priced experts. This means the poor get railroaded and the rich get off scot-free.

Let's get this back on topic.
I have seen judges throw people out of the court for wearing shorts or cut-offs and tank-tops. I wonder if there is a judge somewhere that might object to a man in a kilt, juror or defendant?