Got brutally rejected from Jury Duty today

guess it was my honest answer to the question about drug policy in this country. (waste of resources - time to try something else - guess the prosecuter didn't like the idea of reducing his workload???:evilgrin:)

It was a possession w/ intent to sell meth and pot, plus a convoluted sounding charge of what I took to be pulling a knife on the cop or cops that were involved.

Same courtroom, same judge, same bailiff, same defence attorney as my last time (got chosen for that one) which was a meth possesion case as well. Gave the same answer then and they still took me. We found guilty on that one.

Always interesting. Lots more folks getting excused on questions of having connection to these kinds of crimes than 2 years ago, and lots of questions about being able to tell the difference between reality and tv shows - they seemed especially to be displeased with something called CSI? (I don't have tv, but assume it is making "experts" of the general public and causing real problems for the courts)

all kinds of amazing forensic tests. Obviously does not happen in real life.

Only the "high profile" gets the full treatment ... to expensive otherwise.

too many people watch these shows and think the prosecution can do amazing things with dna and trace evidence.

I think I am ... but how would I know if I wasn't? :shrug:

...cause I started asking questions.
It was a case about drunk driving, and I was asking questions about absorbtion rates, stress, what the guy had eaten...
"Thank you for your time, we don't need you."
Hey, it was an easy $10. Totally legal, too.

that the so called "war on drugs" is a crock of shit, and a lot of people are waking up to that fact. And the powers that be damned well know it.

Solving problems means looking at cause and effect, not attacking symptoms until you run out of resources and no change has occured.

Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy. Anyone who tries to get on a jury, or get off a jury, well...ya sure don't want them, but you clearly put your cards on the table and you got smashed in a preemptory challenge...

Whatever. Speak the truth, the truth will set you free!

Don't change. You are a good citizen.

I was surprised and somewhat depressed that honesty kept me off jury duty.

See below.

I spent a shitload of time on MCMs--Military Courts Martials....and half the time, I was stuck with the duty because I was out in East Jesus, I was SENIOR, and I was not attached to the command of the defendant. There was no wiggling out of that shit.

It is not a pleasant experience to have someone's life or liberty in your crusty paws. You weigh, you consider, you do what you feel is the right thing, but you never know, at the end of the day, if you are getting the FULL story, owing to the rules of evidence horseshit they put up.

It is a tough judgment call. If they can't handle your truth, well, just as well. You don't really need the psychic crap that it will lay on you.

At any rate, you are a fine citizen, for showing up for jury duty, first, and for being truthful, second. Would there be more like you!!!

Patcherself on the back!!!

about those who sat quietly and didn't voice any conflicts. I just made me wonder how anyone can really obtain justice if they are poor or unattractive.

they draw the public defender straw of some idealistic bastard, or a rich one, who believes that WINNING is everything. It's why the good defense attorneys put the "extreme makeover" at the top of the list, and that scary sumbitch in the mug shot is suddenly transformed into a choir boy, with a nice white shirt, neatly tied tie, and perhaps a softening sweater, with a conservative haircut to boot!

Of course, some poor bums get a lawyer who sleeps through the trial....it is a crap shoot.

Hopelessly honest? heh

they will reject you. I couldn't pretend I didn't take an immediate dislike of one defendant. In other cases I knew the lawyers and a Plaintiff. I had to be truthful, and it appears the truth will disqualify you for jury duty.

that claimed they could be objective rather than me...:eyes:

I've picked many juries in my time. Honesty is great (and we can usually tell who's lying). The thing is, I want a juror who is likely to be sympathetic to my case, and I want to challenge someone who is sympathetic to the other side. The other side has the same mindset. In the adversarial system we have, that usually ends up with about as fair a jury as you can get.

There are always those, however, who have their own agenda and will tell you what they think you want to hear to get on the jury.

Bake, Esq.

someone like me on the jury. I could have gotten out of it with an excuse of hardship - I live 62 miles from the court (one way) and often have vehicle problems etc, plus the usual crises that are a normal part of ranch life!

Just thought it was kind of interesting the difference in two years.

(Brutally rejected is part of a line from the movie Dark Star - when Pinback is taping his 8-track diary and speaking of trying to provide comraderie to the other crewmembers - must be said in a kind of whining, nasally voice)

it's so over-the-top I find it unwatchable

bright enough to get out of jury duty???"

These films have much to say on the state of the American Jury.

This is the longest period of time in the last 12 years I haven't been summonsed. Two years ago, I was called three different times for jury duty. I noticed during my last stint that jurors are asked to fill out long questionnaires now before they even get to voir dire; most are weeded out (I'm guessing,) because of the answers on the questionnaires.

I must be the only person in America that doesn't watch "CSI", "Law and Order," or other crime shows.
Julie

I don't watch them either.

if you served on a similar case 2 years ago. Of course, your answer probably didn't help!

but no lawyer on either side is going to want to risk having a juror bring stuff they learned in a previous trial into *their* case.

I've been interviewed three times. Always been the victim of pre-emptory dismissal, always by the prosecution team. Once, i answered the question as to my educational background. I wasn't even done yet (yeah, it takes a little time), and the prosecutor said "Dismissed!". Ok, see ya!
The Professor

if anyone has any preconceived presumptions or bias before there has been any evidence, I always raise my hand. When the question me, I explain that a presume the criminal defendant is innocent in the absence of any evidence as the constitutionally mandated burden of proof requires. I do not wonder why I have never been seated on a jury, although I would like to serve, but it gives me the creeps that such a forthright statement of constitutional principles will cause the prosecutor to strike you (at least it causes him to use a peremptory strike instead of a strike for cause).

he talked about presumption of innocence and then about something else for a little while then said so if you went to the jury room right now (before the trial started) how would you find in this case? Ha ha trick question.

Peremptory challenge. The juror is excused just because one side doesn't "like" him/her. Can be for any reason (other than race/gender) or for no reason (except it can't be race/gender).

Challenge for cause is when a juror's answers in voir dire make it clear that he/she cannot be fair.

Bake, Esq.