Federal Jury Service

[straightshooter1]

Actually, EricW, I think about the "intellect" in certain cases getting confused by the trees, missing the forrest and letting some child molester, rapist or murderer go.

Remember, I pointed out that in some cases an engineer would be great, but on others nope.

But school teachers, never. People who have been convicted of anything, especially drug charges or DUIs, never, people who have children who have been prosecuted, never.

Engineers-sometimes.

And the defense gets the same number of challenges and has their own quirks, too. No cops, no cops' wives, no one who has been the victim of a violent crime, no one who has been a witness. If we have lots of scientific evidence, do you think the defense wants an engineer or someone with a science background? Not a chance.

I guess the short answer is that we can't pick a jury that is going to favor our side, whatever one that is, but we can try to eliminate potential jurors who might torpedo the case because of some bias/prejudice they have. Occupations are one way of trying to pick the best jurors, & eliminate the worst. Some lawyers use bumper stickers, TV programs, magazines you subscribe to. It's all about having only a few minutes to decide which of these strangers would make the least worst jurors in your murder, rape or other serious case.

Bob

[EricW]

ss,

Trust me, I know exactly what you're talking about.

I have an engineering degree, but actually working with engineers about makes me want to go jump off a bridge. I have never met a group of people that make more damned excuses as to why we can't simply be reasonable and go get the doggone job done. It would not surprise me in the *least* that engineers have a reputation for screwing up juries.

Case in point: We're in Canada, at Whistler, which if you haven't been there, is basically one of the best ski resorts in North America.

"Holy s***! These lift tickets cost $60. I'm not sure I want to ski now"

"It's $60 Canadian numb nuts. Multiply by point six."

"Oh yeah."

"Oh yeah, you're skiing at one of the best resorts around for thirty six bucks. Now shut up, pay the man, and let's get going."

Eating out was equally as painful a process. I couldn't even get the losers to give up their seats when chicks started stripping in hotel windows. Oh...to go on ski trip with normal humans....

Edited September 4, 2006 by EricW

[Mjolnir]

This is kind of sideways from the thread subject, but it brings to mind one time when I was excused from a jury. It was probably 20 years ago or more. There was a local TV interview show where the person being interviewed ran an adult movie place. It must have been the best thing on TV that particular day, because the wife and I watched some of it. Then not too long after that, I got a jury duty notice.

Two days before I was due to report for jury duty, I got a call from someone taking a poll about magazines people read. The pollster made sure I first understood he wasn't selling magazines, and then he read off a list of magazines and asked which ones I would want if I got a free year's worth. A couple of the magazines the guy questioned me about were Playboy and Hustler (I think some other adult magazines, I don't recall now). I told my wife about it, and that the pollster sounded a lot like the adult movie theater guy we saw on TV.

Two days later I reported for jury duty, and found out it was for an obscenity trial, and the defendent was the adult movie guy. I was excused by the defense just before the lunch break. So I saw the judge in the hall and told him about the strange poll and pollster.

A day or so later I got a call from the judge thanking me. EVERY ONE of the jury pool had received the same poll.

[EricW]

So the defendant gets a copy of everyone's name, address, and phone #?????

[straightshooter1]

Depends on the State, I guess. Here all any of us know is that the potential jurors live in this county. We can ask if they live in Clearwater (north) or St. Petersburg (south) but no one gets their addresses.

A few years ago, after a police officer shot a young man trying to run over him in a stolen car, and after the Grand Jury declined to indict the officer, the local paper tried to get the Grand Jurors' names and addresses. They were unsuccessful as they are excluded from both our Public Records Law and the Rules of Judicial Procedure as being non-public.

I am sure it is different in different parts of the country.

BTW, getting back to topic, I got to talk to Blue Edge yesterday. I believe it is a jury trial summons and not for the Federal Grand Jury.

The poll like Mjolnir discussed shouldn't happen in Florida. Don't know about other places.

Bob

[Carmoney]

Guys, don't forget that it's entirely possible that it could be a civil trial.

Straightshooter's general criteria are offered from his perspective as a prosecutor. I can think of many instances when I would love to have an engineer, a schoolteacher, or maybe even someone who was convicted of a crime in the past, as a juror in one of my civil trials, depending on the type of case and which party I am representing.

In any event, the system needs capable, competent human beings who understand that jury service is a duty of citizenship and are willing to serve, even if it happens to be an inconvenience. Cases that proceed to trial are usually important cases--litigants deserve the kind of justice that can only be delivered when their "peers" are willing to step up, listen to the evidence, and follow the law.

[EricW]

I'm OK with doing my duty. What I'm not OK with is getting involuntarily roped into one of these all-too-numerous OJ-like marathon trials, be they civil or criminal. When I become king, if the prosecution and the defense can't wrap up their trial in two weeks, I plan to lock the whole lot of them up. Same rule for marathon jury deliberations. The evidence won't be any different two weeks from now than it was yesterday. Decide.

Bet the next group of schmucks coming through the courtroom grasp the concept of a speedy trial.

[Rob Boudrie]

Actually, EricW, I think about the "intellect" in certain cases getting confused by the trees, missing the forrest and letting some child molester, rapist or murderer go.

I wouldn't be surprised if a number of the people whose convictions were reversed by DNA evidence brought to light by the innocence project were convicted because a skilled prosecutor used this sort of logic to exclude jurors who whose "intellect" would cause them to be more concerned about rigorous proof than not letting a rapist or murderer go.

It's not always a case where you have a guilty person, a prosecutor who is more concerned with truth than winning, and a defense attorney trying to get a guilty person off.

[ima45dv8]

I'm OK with doing my duty. What I'm not OK with is getting involuntarily roped into one of these all-too-numerous OJ-like marathon trials, be they civil or criminal.

I appreciate what you're saying, but in reality these are often one in the same. We unfortunately have to embrace the full range of idiotic circumstances/excuses we may have to judge, including the marathon dumb-ass suits.

My one experience in jury duty was uneventful, yet successful. About 2:30PM the judge addressed us and said that the defendants had come to court that morning ready to plead Not Guilty and demand a full trial, 'knowing' that no one would be available to sit for a jury (their attorney should be hung for allowing that strategy to prevail). When they saw all of us waiting in the courtroom, they began the plea-bargaining process with renewed vogor.

[straightshooter1]

Prosecutors should always be more concerned with truth than winning. Yes, there have been some cases where DNA evidence shows the person convicted was innocent. Some others show the person convicted did not leave the item or thing or deposit from which the DNA was acquired and the cops/prosecutors can't retry the defendant for one reason or another. That is different than an innocent defendant.

What I am talking about are cases in which there is no DNA. Remember that DNA is a relatively recent science and it is evolving relatively rapidly.

I don't want someone on the jury who will not convict if there is no DNA when the witness or victim says that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, the person id'ing the defendant has no baggage to show why he/she would make a false id and the defendant has no alibi witnesses to testify he/she was somewhere else at the time of the crime.

Rigorous proof? I am not sure what that is. Do you have some definition in mind Rob? I know in EVERY criminal case I have the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond and to the exclusion of EVERY reasonable doubt. The Court gives the jury a definition of what is and what isn't a reasonable doubt. What I don't want is someone who adds to the burden I already have or wants me to prove the case beyond all doubt or by rigorous proof or something else that the law doesn't require.

All I am saying is that certain occupations IMO make better or worse jurors in certain cases. I already said these are generalizations and I only have a few minutes to talk to the prospective jurors and decide what I think they will do based on their background which includes their occupations, prior experiences with the system, etc.

Either 6 or 12 people from the venire (prospective jurors) ARE going to sit on the jury. If you were the defendant or the victim or the cop who made the case, wouldn't you expect both the prosecutor and defense attorney to try to exclude any prospective jurors who would decide the case based on something other than the evidence (whatever that may be DNA, eyewitness, fingerprints, circumstantial) and the law as the Judge instructs it?

That's all I am talking about-people who bring some bias/prejudice to the case because of something in their background. The thread has kind of seized on that being occupations, but contact with the criminal justice system, bad dealing with law enforcement, prior arrests, family members prosecuted and many other factors are things any prosecutor will consider in picking a jury.

Not to mention that I have to weed out all those people that think CSI is a reality show. Did you see the one where they found a clay pot made on a potter's wheel with grooves like an old 45 or 78 record? Yep, spun in at a certain speed, cleaned it up with the old computer, and heard the killer's voice.

Bob

[Rob Boudrie]

Prosecutors should always be more concerned with truth than winning.

Reality and ideal practice are often at odds.

There was a case in Boston a few years ago where the prosecutor's office secured convictions in two separate cases - by arguing two mutually exclusive theories as to who pulled the trigger.

Then there's the case where a prosecutor in VA argued against DNA testing of the evidence in a case for which the death penalty had already been applied - stating that the possible outcome of "proof of innocence" could undermine confidence in the system.

Or the case in CA where someone convicted of illegal possession of an AW appealed when a more expert attorney pointed out the gun was not, in fact, illegal. Instead of concurring and asking for reversal - or even seeking an AG's opinion on the weapon in question - the prosecution successfully argued that the merits of the case should not even be examined because an appeal deadline had passed.

Another interesting is one where a LA inmate who wanted DNA testing was fought every step of the way - and had to agree to waive any right to sue the state for his many years of incarceration in order to have a test performed which subsequently proved his innocence.

It may be a slightly jaded view, but the way I see it prosecution is a business and convictions are the product. Ever see a prosecutor bragging that "the truth prevailed" in xx% of their cases? Nope - conviction rates are what go on the resume.

I don't want someone on the jury who will not convict if there is no DNA when the witness or victim says that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, the person id'ing the defendant has no baggage to show why he/she would make a false id and the defendant has no alibi witnesses to testify he/she was somewhere else at the time of the crime.

Many cases which were later reversed due to DNA evidence met all of your criteria - no alibi and no reason to lie. Wittnesses who are honestly mistaken give very credible testimony. Obviously, every situtation needs to be evaluated in its entirety, but current research regarding the concept of inaccurate eyewittness testimony, offered in good faith by someone who believes it to be true, should be considered.

Not to mention that I have to weed out all those people that think CSI is a reality show. Did you see the one where they found a clay pot made on a potter's wheel with grooves like an old 45 or 78 record? Yep, spun in at a certain speed, cleaned it up with the old computer, and heard the killer's voice.

This was stolen from another show (X-Files?) where an ancient piece of pottery contained the voice of Jesus commanding the dead to rise - with potentially difficult consequences if it were to be played.

[John Heiter]

I seem to get passed over in the selection process because I know too many lawyers. The couple times I've been part of a jury selection, they invariably ask if anyone has any connection to either law firm. I explain that I know or am friends with a lawyer in one of the firms involved so I naturally would like to see their side win but that it will depend on the facts of the case and I have no doubt that I can be impartial. That's as honest as I can be but it must be a real red flag because I've never made it past the first round of interviews.

[kellyn]

FYI my comments come from the prosecution side of the house. I have no idea what civil lawyers look for.

Ah, the engineer contigent has spoken up! I don't mean to offend any engineers but my experience with engineers (especially my friends who are engineers) is that they tend to view the world in more of a black and white mathematical way. A+B must equal C. And the realm of criminal justice is rarely black and white and mathematical.

I have a lot of experience dealing with juries, especially Grand Juries. One thing that I have found is that most jurors who come from a middle class/ upper middle class/upper class and highly educated background is that they have very little idea as to what goes on in the "real world." It's funny to see Grand Jurors - who often come to service with all sorts of ideas and agendas usually thought up on a college campus or TV show - as they come to grasp the sheer amount of criminal activity going on in their midst. They're shocked and usually a bit frightened, as well they should be. It's everywhere.

I tend to like truck drivers and waitresses etc. because they live much closer to the real world and actually have to see a lot of this stuff in their daily lives. That and they have not taken Sociology 101 in college. I don't pick jurors who I think are dumb or lack intellect.

Rob, the idea that they are all these people wrongly convicted and that DNA is setting them free is WAY overblown. Yes, regrettably it happens and if I were to guess, it would be about .0001% of the time, if that. In my career in AZ, I have seen one case where a person had been convicted of a murder and DNA indicated that another person had committed the offense. And in that case, the guy still may have been involved but the case ended up being dismissed and he was freed from prison. Hopefully he was innocent.

The prosecutor role is a minister of justice, not simply to run around and convict people. I have no idea what "my conviction rate" is. I seek the truth in every single case I'm involved with.

Oh, and I always strike lawyers from jury panels, that's a given as we're the worst. Which brings me to my own jury selection experience. I was called to serve on a jury wherein a defendant was charged with a sex crime involving a minor. The crime was being prosecuted by a different office than mine so I did not have a conflict and could serve. Guess what? I was striken by the Court (not the defense!!!) simply because of my profession. So you engineers just relax, you guys get struck by one lone prosecutor using a peremptory strike, you don't get striken by the Court simply because of your profession!

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, regrettably it happens and if I were to guess, it would be about .0001% of the time,

.0001% is equivalent to one out of a million (.1% is a tenth of a percent or one out of a thousand, .01% is one out of ten thousand, etc.).

The innocence project has overturned 183 cases. Thie means that if there are any less than 182,999,817 others who remain convicted of similar crimes the figure of ".0001%" is too low. This is not a matter of speculation or opinion - just a simple reality of the conclusion which follows from the combination fo your quoted figure, and the clearance statistic claimed by the innocence project.

[straightshooter1]

Rob you really don't know what you are talking about when you say conviction rates are what go on the resume. Conviction rates don't mean anything. What may say something, but generally never appears on the resume, is the number of jury trials. Civil lawyers often count non-jury trials, and we have one guy running for judge locally who apparently counts hearings as "trials."

What counts is jury trials, where the jury was picked and the case tried to a conclusion. If you try a lot of cases, you are gonna lose some. We have a saying here, and I don't think it is just local, that if you aren't losing some, you aren't trying any. Some of the best lawyers I know are career Public Defenders, who lose most of their cases. But if I needed a lawyer to try a case I was involved in, one of these men or women would be who I would call.

I also have the impression some think the prosecutor (or maybe the defense attorney) can somehow stack the jury with robots who think like they want them to.

At least in Florida that can't happen (and never could based on my more than thirty five years of law enforcement/court room experience). First, as I said in a prior post, no one knows who the jurors are. They are picked to come there because they have a driver's license and reside within the county.

Secondly, everything is done in open court, reported by a court reporter. Thirdly, the trial starts with 35-50 or more prospective jurors in the room and the Judge inquires first, the prosecutor asks next and the defense attorney gets to talk to these folks last.

Then, either at the bench or after sending the prospective jurors out, the prosecutor and defense attorney each exercise possible challenges to each juror, starting with the first one in the first row. The challenges can be for cause (for some reason they are not qualified to serve or have some physical or other serious problem or indicate a bias or prejudice). Then peremptory challenges (which I mentioned in a prior post) are exercised and finally there is a jury of 6 or 12 persons, depending on the case.

Lastly one or two jurors are selected as alternates if the case will last longer than one day.

Sometimes I don't exercise any challenges at all, sometimes I use all or most of the 6 or 10 I have for felony cases.

In Florida with its open discovery the defense gets everything in my file except notes I make about the case (they may get them after the case is final), everything the police have on the case and get to depose every witness, look at every piece of evidence and have anything they want tested/examined (i.e. get their own DNA experts/firearms experts).

Convictions come from the facts, not because of the lawyers.

kellyn-you are sure right about lawyers-they are the worst jurors and IMO the pits as witnesses. We have actually had prosecutors leave lawyers on juries before. All of them that I know of say they will never do that again.

Bob

[EricW]

Well...I have some good news! I was excused from jury duty this morning. And I didn't even have to flash my pocket protector and slide rule! (Always go to court prepared I say.)

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob you really don't know what you are talking about when you say conviction rates are what go on the resume. Conviction rates don't mean anything.

I'm referring to the background information prosecutors publish when presenting their qualifications to the public (generally when seeking elected office), not the data supplied to prospective hiring managers.

I plead guilty to misuse of the term "resume".

[straightshooter1]

I haven't seen anyone do that-not that it may not happen, just haven't seen it myself. I guess it might happen in smaller jurisdictions but, again, it doesn't mean anything and the opponent, without a lot of work, could take that away by looking at some of the cases the persons brags about winning. Most every time the case is made before the prosecutor gets it. Some places, here for example, we also do investigations, make our own cases (for example, I seem to do most of the crooked lawyer/corrupt cop type cases), but, IMO, most of the time the work is done, the DNA is matched, the confession is taped, the witnesses have given statements, etc. before the case is brought to the prosecutor.

Another saying: we don't make 'em, we just fly 'em.

We've gotten so far afield from the original thread, I'm gonna either bail or tag with kellyn and let him wrestle you awhile.

Bob

[kellyn]

Sorry, I meant .0005!

[raz-0]

I have an engineering degree, but actually working with engineers about makes me want to go jump off a bridge. I have never met a group of people that make more damned excuses as to why we can't simply be reasonable and go get the doggone job done.

You mean you've never met a manager?

I alwasy report for jury duty. Well except ofr one time when they called me up more frequently then they are supposed to by law. In that case I told them so and we moved on.

I think it is a duty that shouldn't be shirked, but at the same time, the provisions of law to make it work are about 40 years out of date in my state. You get on a complex murder trial or in the middle of some high-power corporate litigation, it can ruin your life.

[Liota]

Guys, Guys, Guys...

The easiest way not to get picked for jury duty is to serve your country in the Armed Forces. Wakal and I both got called and were told not to even report for an interview.

There are a couple of differing opinions on why it's so. The one I find most likely is that we have a nasty habit of getting deployment orders at inconvenient times.

Liota