Jury Duty report

[chicken]

I got to sit through the entire trial, but when they put the names of all 14 jurors into the drum, I was not one of the 12 selected for actual deliberations. Pfooey. I really would have found it very interesting, especially after sitting through the whole trial. However, in a way I'm glad I didn't have to be responsible for deciding someone's fate.

Comments

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

Well, you had the fun of the trial without actually having to do the deliberations. That's not fun.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Well, I wanted to do it because I thought it would be 'interesting'. I didn't expect it to be 'fun', heh heh. But I suppose 'not fun' trumps 'interesting', so I suppose you are right.

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

When I was on the murder trial, I got so frustrated and was totally amazed by how stupid most of the people on the jury were.

For one thing, the order from the judge read that if we *agreed* the defendant was guilty, but if we did not agree on degree of guilt, we had to move down to the lesser charge. The judge read it to us. The jury foreman we elected read it to us again. It was written in very plain English.

We voted and we all agreed guilt. We voted and some thought First degree and some thought (whatever the next level of guilt was) and the foreman said, "Oh well, I guess we can't agree so we have to find him 'Not guilty' and everyone just sat there looking at him as he reached for the paper that we would have checked and signed and started to fill out the 'not guilty' part of the verdict.

I had to scream "No, you don't mean to do that," and I leaned way across the table (almost leaped on it, actually) and grabbed the court documents from him before he could fill them out.

Everyone just looked at me. They all started in, "If we can't agree on the degree of guilt, we have to change it to not guilty." I kept saying, "Would someone please read the judge's charge to the jury one more time, please?" And finally, this retired gentleman started reading it, and everyone finally listened with both ears.

They all looked at me when he was finished and said, "Oh my god. We thought we had to let him go if we couldn't agree on everything."

Just imagine all the times you've heard jury verdicts and thought, "WTF?" Now you know why.

I was embarrassed to be in the same room with these people. There were 3 teachers, one restaurant owner, a restaurant manager, and the rest of them were white collar workers and executives with college degrees and advanced degrees.

They were so amazed by my *save* they decided I was some sort of legal genius. It really was embarrassing. Totally.

They would blather on about something, and I'd say, "Well, the court reporter's transcript is right there." Then they'd say, "What do you think?" and I'd say, "I think we should look at the court reporter's transcript right there," or "we need to look at the exhibits. They're right there."

I left truly frightened for our judicial system.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Well, before we went to even get picked for the jury, the jury commissioner told us he was performing a simple test to see whether or not we were (in your words) "listening with both ears". He put his finger and thumb in a circle and told us to do the same, then said "put the circle of your finger and thumb on your chin." He put his finger-thumb circle on his cheek, and nearly everyone (including me, to my shame) did what he did instead of what he said -- we all stupidly put our circle on our cheeks. It was so embarrassing, so "Simon Says" -- and we all felt so stupid for not paying enough attention.

I think he was trying to make your point, that you have to be *very* detail-oriented and really pay attention in order to fulfill your duty as a jury member.

Our case had a similar instruction. If the person was not found to be guilty of possessing between 1 oz. and 1 kg of cocaine while operating a motor vehicle, then and only then were we to consider a lesser charge of simple possession of that same amount (not in a motor vehicle). Apparently some people were confused by this, because I heard confused muttering to my right, the second the judge said this.

Of course, the part of the instruction that didn't make any sense to me was that the law stipulated weights and measures in a mixture of English and Metric (between 'x' ounces and 'y' kilograms -- huh?). But you can't question the wisdom of the law (much less the wisdom of the very existence of the law, or the fact that the state spends huge sums of money tracking down petty drug offenders instead of spending money to feed the poor). You have to take the law as a given and proceed from there. That is confusing, too -- the two issues cannot be conflated.

And of course the definition of "reasonable doubt" can flummox people as well -- it's a miracle that there is any justice at all in the system, given how many details and facts people have to focus on and remember.

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't even get me started on how people interpret "reasonable doubt."

Our drug laws are so draconian and unfair. I hate them. I really hate that someone with a small amount of crack gets legally hit a lot worse them someone with a much greater amount of cocaine. It's ridiculous.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Yes, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But it is not for a jury to think about that, only to think about how the existing laws (no matter how unfair) apply to the case before them, if at all. I was glad the judge reminded us of this, because it is very easy for us to get emotional over this sort of thing, and let the issues become clouded.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Also, the fact that the Texas courts provide you with a copy of the court reporter's transcript seems VERY advanced compared to Rhode Island. The judge said everyone questions Rhode Island's failure to provide such a transcript, but that "the technology" does not allow such a transcript to be printed (it is all in shorthand, and would have to be transcribed, and that would take too long, blah blah), and that we "just have to remember". He said that juries have successfully "just had to remember" for over 400 years, and that we could do it, too. He said that if necessary, we could ask for small portions of the transcript to be 'read aloud' to us by the shorthand-trained court reporter, but that it would be enormously time-consuming for her to even find the right place in the transcript, and that we were therefore highly discouraged from asking for such a favor. And that under no circumstances were we to take notes, as that would detract from us paying attention.

The Bunny told me about a shorthand note-taking device she saw in one of her classes that was being used by a stenographer on behalf of a disabled student, and that it was hooked up to a laptop, providing instantaneous transcription and searching capabilities. I wonder why the courts cannot invest in such a useful technology? ARGH!

That part sounds better in Texas.

[kaydee23.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's common or not. On another trial (not criminal) we asked for the court transcript, and the judge said it wasn't available, and we should have been paying attention.

I think some judge's are asses about it, and sometimes the court reporter is not as efficient as she could be.

I sat there flabbergasted during the deliberations of the murder trial while all the jurors took turns telling anecdotes that had not a *damn* thing to do with our trial. I nearly bit my lip off most days because I wanted to scream, "Shut up about your nephew. This has nothing to do with your nephew. Your nephew's not on trial and charged with murder. Shut up shut up." Thankfully, I never did.

[chicken-cem.livejournal.com]

Yes, well, some people just love to grandstand and waste everyone's time. Getting off track is not useful! I guess if you are lucky, the judge appoints a fore-person who is able to keep control of such outbreaks and bring them to a swift end.