Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Post Juror Gets Fined, Removed, Assigned Homework
eldavojohn writes "A Michigan judge removed a juror after a Facebook comment and also fined her $250 and required her to write a five-page paper about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her, saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
I find it disturbing that anyone in the courtroom (or associated with the process) even knows the names of the jurors.
When I was a juror we were assigned numbers before we even arrived at the court for selection. AFAIK the judge didn't even know our names.
During selection, we were asked if we knew the accused, the victim, any of the lawyers, the police officers involved, or any of the witnesses (and their names were listed) or if we had any dealings with anyone in the small town that they had all come from. Any of those would make you not able to sit on the jury for this case.
We were also strongly warned not to speak about the details of the trial with anyone other than the other jurors. Ever.
Of course, that''s the Canadian court system. In other countries, YMMV.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
People can't change their minds now? Of course a juror is going to think the defendant is guilty after hearing the prosecution. If she didn't think so, the prosecution wouldn't be doing their job.
Don't people know all defendants are guilty period?
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them. :P
I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:
It's expensive and overloaded.
As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?
You dont know much about the process do you.
you AGREED to it when you signed up to vote. That is where they pull jury choices from Voter records.
Here in michigan they use TWO. Drivers license records and Voter records. If you do NOT agree to being on a jury, then dont have a drivers license and dont register to vote.
This is spelled out clearly in the State and Federal EULA you agreed to when you became a US citizen.
Let me guess, you are one of those people that knows NOTHING about your rights, and responsibilities as set forth by your Laws and constitution.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And I was on a jury for a murder trial where we debated for many hours before finding the person not guilty (the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case). The point being that your experience is interesting but not universal.
Yes people make up their mind beofre things start.. But that is why yu are supposed to deliberate, supposed to discuss. To make sure
a) everyone understands the evidence
b) everyone understands what the evidence MEANS
c) everyone can explain their reasoning.
Sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions. But if yu are on the jury with other people who have a brain they will see through that and make you explain yourself.
My Grandpa used to say: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
Sadly that is what the juror system has become.
If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it.
What is fucking scary is without FB she would have already convicted this person without hearing any evidence just because of their (insert looks, ethnicity, race, etc) and sadly this is all too common. True Story:
My mother always taught us to do our civic duty, so when she was chosen for jury duty she used her vacation time at the hospital to go. At the end of the trial she came in white as a ghost and said "If you ever get in trouble NEVER have a jury, always ask for a judge!" and when I asked her what spooked her here is what she said. The trial was an arson case, and she thought it was pretty obvious from the get go there wasn't any case there at all. There was no motive, the guy didn't have enough insurance to cover his losses and ended up losing everything. On top of that even the state's arson investigator admitted on the stand they had NO clue as to what had started the fire or where, and couldn't rule out a short or a grease flare up. Yet she had to hang the jury at 11-1 to CONVICT! Why? "Because he is Italian and Italians are in the mob and burn things. Haven't you ever seen "Goodfellas?"
So yes, this man if it wasn't for my mother would have done 15 years because he was Italian and even though he was in mudsuck AR he must be in the Gambino crime family and do arson jobs because of a movie!
And frankly with the absolute shit pay they give juries most with a brain like my mom simply can't afford to walk away from their good paying job to attend, so we literally have juries made up of "12 folks too stupid to get out of jury duty". Sad but true, my friends. Sad but true.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I can't believe no one has referenced the Richard Dawkins paper where he points out some serious flaws in the idea y jury trials.
If you haven't read it there is a copy here Three herring gull chicks...The reason juries don't work.