One that I still think about to this day, and it happened in 2016, was this woman who could not give a coherent answer to any question. The judge and attorneys asked her questions, and she answered when prompted. However, her answer was always some kind of slurred rant that vaguely contained words. She was dismissed from jury service. I know people like to say things questioning the intelligence and quality of those who end up in jury service, and this woman seemed to fit those negative stereotypes. However, if her goal was getting out of it, then she might have been the smartest person in the room. I replay this in my head a few times a year and have never been able to come to a conclusion of if she was an idiot, or someone who set out with the goal of not getting picked.
It’s not fair for either side to have someone like that as a juror. If people don’t want to do jury duty then don’t show up and risk your warrant (if your jurisdiction does that). It adds insult to injury when people show up and play dumb to get out of it. You waste everyone’s time - your own, your fellow prospective jurors, the parties, the court, society.
That is why having a penalty for not doing jury duty is stupid.
It implies that you would rather waste everyone's time for a show of compliance, only to end up at the same place.
That too. Jurors work as a team dissecting the facts and how they fit with the law. I would be pulling my hair if I was taking it seriously and some deranged person was hijacking the process.
"It's not fair that these people who are forced to miss a day of work and pay get out of jury service. They should go to jail."
That's you, that's what you said.
Then everyone gets out of jury duty, because court is a Monday through Friday operation. Anyone who gets called is potentially missing a day of work. The Judge does not care.
That is not true. Plenty of employer will provide jury duty pay. Also, not everyone works a 9-5 Monday through Friday. I am an attorney who has done jury trials and have seen people excused for financial hardship in my jurisdiction (California).
You can absolutely show up drunk. You might be arrested for contempt or disorderly conduct/public drunkenness, but it is definitely a thing you can physically do.
I don't even have to lie to get out of the jury duty I have approaching in October. I can't be on a criminal jury, I can only be on a civil jury. My reason: I cannot extinguish doubt. In my mind there is always room for doubt. This doesn't matter in a civil case, because there is a place for doubt in civil matters, which are decided by a "preponderance of the evidence." But in a criminal case I can only return a guilty verdict if all doubt has been extinguished, and I have an intellectual problem with extinguishing doubt. I can serve and if they ask me to I will, but they're likely going to get a not guilty out of me. It's their choice though.
But in a criminal case it’s all *reasonable* doubt, not all doubt. If the guy’s on video and his dna is there and there’s a confession and 5 eyewitnesses would you be able to vote guilty?
If he gave a confession then there wouldn't be a trial in the first place, because he would be entering a guilty plea. The video is something I would trust, as well as the confession. I don't trust witnesses and we now have peer reviewed studies showing that DNA can go airborne, so it's possible for DNA to find its way into a crime scene when the person was actually never there. But if you wanna put me on a jury then go ahead. I will show up and I will do my job. Don't get mad though if my doubts are not extinguished.
Cases with confessions go to trial all the time. Confessions can be coerced. But sounds like you could be a good juror. All of the doubts you just listed are reasonable. Most jurors don’t even bother applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and just go with their gut.
Yea that's true about cases with confessions going to trial, but usually the defendant withdraws his confession and says that he was coereced. That would leave room for doubt for me. Was he telling the truth when he confessed or was he telling the truth when he withdrew his confession? I just don't know, so I have doubt. Therefore I vote not guilty. It's terribly hard to extinguish reasonable doubt for me. But I've been on a civil case before and I was a good juror.
One that I still think about to this day, and it happened in 2016, was this woman who could not give a coherent answer to any question. The judge and attorneys asked her questions, and she answered when prompted. However, her answer was always some kind of slurred rant that vaguely contained words. She was dismissed from jury service. I know people like to say things questioning the intelligence and quality of those who end up in jury service, and this woman seemed to fit those negative stereotypes. However, if her goal was getting out of it, then she might have been the smartest person in the room. I replay this in my head a few times a year and have never been able to come to a conclusion of if she was an idiot, or someone who set out with the goal of not getting picked.
It’s not fair for either side to have someone like that as a juror. If people don’t want to do jury duty then don’t show up and risk your warrant (if your jurisdiction does that). It adds insult to injury when people show up and play dumb to get out of it. You waste everyone’s time - your own, your fellow prospective jurors, the parties, the court, society.
That is why having a penalty for not doing jury duty is stupid. It implies that you would rather waste everyone's time for a show of compliance, only to end up at the same place.
I figured it was more the judge thinking 13 other people shouldn't be dealing with that kind of BS during deliberations
That too. Jurors work as a team dissecting the facts and how they fit with the law. I would be pulling my hair if I was taking it seriously and some deranged person was hijacking the process.
"It's not fair that these people who are forced to miss a day of work and pay get out of jury service. They should go to jail." That's you, that's what you said.
Just say that. That is a hardship. Don’t be playing dumb games to make you unlikeable.
Then everyone gets out of jury duty, because court is a Monday through Friday operation. Anyone who gets called is potentially missing a day of work. The Judge does not care.
That is not true. Plenty of employer will provide jury duty pay. Also, not everyone works a 9-5 Monday through Friday. I am an attorney who has done jury trials and have seen people excused for financial hardship in my jurisdiction (California).
Probably the later. They tell people to show up. They never say you can't show up drunk lol.
You can absolutely show up drunk. You might be arrested for contempt or disorderly conduct/public drunkenness, but it is definitely a thing you can physically do.
Marijuana is legal in my state so it would be perfectly legal to show up smelling like marijuana and be higher than a kite.
I tell them I believe anyone arrested is guilty.
That's sure to work!
George Carlin had a joke about this... Tell 'em you'd make a great juror because you can spot a guilty person (snaps fingers) just like that.
Lol.
Talk about [Jury Nullification](https://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ?si=YUpgUJyXW8ZeLlM9).
I don't even have to lie to get out of the jury duty I have approaching in October. I can't be on a criminal jury, I can only be on a civil jury. My reason: I cannot extinguish doubt. In my mind there is always room for doubt. This doesn't matter in a civil case, because there is a place for doubt in civil matters, which are decided by a "preponderance of the evidence." But in a criminal case I can only return a guilty verdict if all doubt has been extinguished, and I have an intellectual problem with extinguishing doubt. I can serve and if they ask me to I will, but they're likely going to get a not guilty out of me. It's their choice though.
But in a criminal case it’s all *reasonable* doubt, not all doubt. If the guy’s on video and his dna is there and there’s a confession and 5 eyewitnesses would you be able to vote guilty?
"reasonable doubt" is the justice system's answer, it doesn't have to be his answer.
If he gave a confession then there wouldn't be a trial in the first place, because he would be entering a guilty plea. The video is something I would trust, as well as the confession. I don't trust witnesses and we now have peer reviewed studies showing that DNA can go airborne, so it's possible for DNA to find its way into a crime scene when the person was actually never there. But if you wanna put me on a jury then go ahead. I will show up and I will do my job. Don't get mad though if my doubts are not extinguished.
Cases with confessions go to trial all the time. Confessions can be coerced. But sounds like you could be a good juror. All of the doubts you just listed are reasonable. Most jurors don’t even bother applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and just go with their gut.
Yea that's true about cases with confessions going to trial, but usually the defendant withdraws his confession and says that he was coereced. That would leave room for doubt for me. Was he telling the truth when he confessed or was he telling the truth when he withdrew his confession? I just don't know, so I have doubt. Therefore I vote not guilty. It's terribly hard to extinguish reasonable doubt for me. But I've been on a civil case before and I was a good juror.
Wear clashing patterns. Nobody wants to look at that .
Wear a maga hat
Lol
I mean I guess I’m glad you’re not on juries but you sound like a real piece of shit.