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.'"

Comments

5 page paper?

[GodfatherofSoul]

She didn't snap a bra in chemistry class. I'd expect some community service at least.

Re:5 page paper?

[gandhi_2]

Well, technically she isn't guilty of anything until she's had a fair and speedy trial by her peers.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

clone53421 likes this.

Re:5 page paper?

[bluefoxlucid]

The judge would have a field day with me. My first instinct when I meet someone is to use some sort of latent psychic ability to peer directly into their soul and evaluate what kind of person they are on a very basic level. Something I learned to do... long before I remember, probably since I was born.

I've never had to serve on a jury criminal trial.

Re:5 page paper?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Umm, yes she is, as part of the "service" in Jury service; you agree not to talk about the case with anyone else, outside the court or jury room. The possible penalties are made abundantly clear.
Guilty as charged m'lud.

Re:5 page paper?

[Dyinobal]

I use my latent psychic ability to detect BS in online posts. It's just something I learned to do long before I remember probably since the internet was made.

Re:5 page paper?

[tophermeyer]

This is something that humans are just hardwired to do. Rapid evaluations of new individuals helps us in evaluating potential threats, and in assessing the credibility and trustworthyness of anyone we meet. It's something that we just cannot avoid doing, it happens very quickly and outside of our awareness. The problem is that these initial perceptions are incredibly difficult to change. One chance at a first impression if you will.

We all do it. Some of us are more aware that we are doing it than others.

Re:5 page paper?

[Sancho]

Wow, all three replies to the grandparent completely missed the point/joke.

Re:5 page paper?

[jgagnon]

There is a whooshing sound near you at the moment that you may want to listen to.

Re:5 page paper?

[tomhudson]

Technically, the judge HAS tried her. The judge has the authority to convict her of contempt of court. Up here, when a juror does that, they're looking at up to 2 years in jail, which is one reason why you don't see jurors talking about jury deliberations even decades after a trial - what is said in deliberations is forever secret.

Ex-parte communication with the defendant is also a good way to go to jail.

Re:5 page paper?

[delinear]

Everyone knows humans make knee jerk assumptions about people. Everyone should also know that, if you're sitting on a jury, you don't post those knee jerk assumptions on Facebook - it highlights the mockery of the fair trial process, and judges don't like that at all.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's yet another reason you don't want to have anything to do with courts, jury duty, lawyers, judges, or cops.

They can and will ruin your life if they feel like it.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

Yeah, I know, but this is still a whoosh...

Her “peers” are, logically, people who are just as dumb as she is... and what better way to flush out dumb people than by posting something dumb on facebook and seeing who “likes” it?

Re:5 page paper?

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

you agree not to talk about the case with anyone else

Agree?? When do you have an opportunity to agree to anything in jury service? You are required to show up on such-and-such date at such-and-such time. You may not wear shorts, tank tops, beach shoes or t-shirts, or any clothing with offensive language or logos. Don't do this, and for heaven's sake, don't do that! Jurors lose quite a bit of freedom when they get that notice in the mail.

The possible penalties are made abundantly clear.

Yes indeed, the penalties are stacked neatly up to the ceiling.

Re:5 page paper?

[TheLink]

For scenarios and for many people those initial perceptions are often right[1] (and good enough).

But going by guesses does not make for a fair trial.

[1] See: http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2005-01-07-blink_x.htm

Quote: "On the basis of those calculations, Gottman has proven something remarkable. If he analyzes an hour of a husband and wife talking, he can predict with 95% accuracy whether that couple will still be married fifteen years later. If he watches a couple for fifteen minutes, his success rate is around 90%. Recently, a professor who works with Gottman named Sybil Carrère, who was playing around with some of the videotapes, trying to design a new study, discovered that if they looked at only three minutes of a couple talking, they could still predict with fairly impressive accuracy who was going to get divorced and who was going to make it. The truth of a marriage can be understood in a much shorter time than anyone ever imagined."

But I disagree with the conclusion over the "doctors being sued" part. The conclusion was to avoid certain doctors, but to me that study could just indicate people are more likely to sue doctors they don't like rather than that those type of doctors are more likely to commit sue-worthy mistakes. Unless of course the study also analyzed the success/failure rates of those doctors. It would actually be interesting if that was done and it turned out that the doctors who had a less friendly tone were actually significantly worse, but I don't get that from the article.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

Well... you always have a choice, as this juror demonstrated...

Re:5 page paper?

[GodfatherofSoul]

"Women seem wicked, when you're unwanted"

Re:5 page paper?

[kdemetter]

True , but there is a selection process , to ensure you are not biased.
So , if you want to get out of jury duty , just behave very biased when they interview you . You should never get selected.

However , it doesn't work perfectly , as you can see in this case.

Re:5 page paper?

[mayberry42]

That's the problem: the law realizes that and hence the strong "wait until it's over" attitude in the court system. This woman, didn't just make "preliminary assumptions" and judge the defendant based on that (which, as you state, is natural), but seemingly REALLY made up her mind about it. She didn't care about seeing the other side, but only to hand out the guilty verdict.

Re:5 page paper?

[causality]

Yeah, I know, but this is still a whoosh...

Her “peers” are, logically, people who are just as dumb as she is... and what better way to flush out dumb people than by posting something dumb on facebook and seeing who “likes” it?

Dumb people aren't all that hard to identify. They're usually rather eager to advertise this fact about themselves, though unwittingly.

There's nothing like a good old car(-related) analogy so I'll give a driving analogy as an example. A lot of people don't seem to understand that the long turning lanes on many major roads are there for a purpose. They exist so that a driver doesn't have to start slowing down for the turn until after going into the turning lane, eliminating the need to slow down all of the traffic behind them just to make a turn. Yet a lot of drivers don't understand this and will gladly slow down everyone behind them, needlessly, completely oblivious to how their actions affect others. If you ever see traffic slow to a crawl on a day when there aren't that many cars on the road, it's because of a multitude of people who may be several miles ahead doing inconsiderate things like this.

That's generally the mark of stupid people everywhere. They are capricious, self-serving, and do not act in a deliberate fashion with a full awareness of how their actions affect others. Most of them are not malicious because malice would require intent and an ability to plan one's actions according to that intent, something the stupid are generally unable or unwilling to do. A juror who, if not for this judge, would have conducted a jury trial with an obvious bias without regard for the jeopardy the accused is in would be another iteration of the same pattern.

Re:5 page paper?

[Cwix]

And that's yet another reason you don't want to have anything to do with facebook, twitter, ping or other social networking sites

They can and will ruin your life if they feel like it.

FTFY

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

then the person responsible is the person who didn't screen her out. Ultimately, the judge. Will he be writing an essay too?

Re:5 page paper?

[morgan_greywolf]

You may not wear shorts, tank tops, beach shoes or t-shirts, or any clothing with offensive language or logos. Don't do this, and for heaven's sake, don't do that!

Not from the South, I take it?

You will wear appropriate attire. In my courtroom, son, that's a suit and tie. This court will now recess while this...this..."juror" returns appropriately attired! *slam*

Now get out of here and don't ever return to my courtroom dressed like that!

-- Hon. Morgan Greywolf, aka "The Hangin' Judge"

Re:5 page paper?

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

The issue isn't getting out of jury service, the issue is that once you are a juror you are given no choice but to "agree" to a number of rules. There is no meeting of minds so a juror isn't really agreeing, just complying.

I might add that it is getting harder to avoid jury service, even if various tricks work in some courts. I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

Re:5 page paper?

[jgagnon]

"I can look at someone and instantly know if they are guilty or innocent."

"I've slept with at least 3 of the other jurors and I'd sleep with you if you'd let me."

Re:5 page paper?

[Tekfactory]

The problem here is I may not like the defendant, I might not want to be friends with him or her, I may feel that come the Zombie-Apocalypse they'd be unworthy of my trust and wouldn't let them in my shelter/getaway-vehicle.

However courts of law aren't about you, your friends, or your personal tastes.

The law is about a rational hearing of the facts in evidence and deciding whether the prosecution can make its case. Not liking someone isn't enough reason to put them in jail.

To put it another way, we like Yoda, we like Ben Kenobi, but Darth Vader is the only Jedi that never lied to Luke.

Re:5 page paper?

[NonSequor]

Maybe the judge would accept a video essay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81ymA_3MrXI&feature=related

Re:5 page paper?

[NevarMore]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

I don't. Then you get busybodies, bored seniors, moral crusaders, wannabe cops, wannabe lawyers, wannabe judges, and people desperate for the small paycheck instead of a jury of my peers.

Re:5 page paper?

[gfreeman]

The issue isn't getting out of jury service, the issue is that once you are a citizen you are given no choice but to "agree" to a number of laws.

FTFY.

Re:5 page paper?

[rbphilip]

how do you write 5 pages about something like this? 3 words per page?

Re:5 page paper?

[Altus]

A friend of mine came up with a name for the group of people who drive in these kinds of passively inconsiderate ways, impeding everyone's forward progress.

He calls them "The Anti-destination League"

Re:5 page paper?

[bennomatic]

The marriage judgement may take a short time, but it's based on a huge amount of rigorous analysis which allows Gottman and Carrere to identify important factors over a small period. It's not that anyone could accurately make that judgement; anyone *with the appropriate training and/or experience* could accurately judge divorce rates quickly because they know what to look for and what to ignore.

The whole point of "Blink" was that an untrained snap judgement is worthless, but with proper effort and practice, you can train yourself to make good snap judgements. Unfortunately, most people, like the woman in this story, have not done so.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

all citizens agree to all laws. Not random people who get extra rules foisted on them for varying lengths of time which can get them jailed without a proper trial if they break them.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

random people who get extra rules foisted on them for varying lengths of time which can get them jailed without a proper trial if they break them.

You’re a citizen? Okay, you already agreed to that law.

Re:5 page paper?

[morgan_greywolf]

You swear an oath stating that you'll abide by the rules. It's still an agreement. The judge can't make you do anything, as you have free will, but he can put in you jail if you fail to comply.

Besides, if you want to get out of it, it's easy. For example, if the defendant is a minority, when you're asked if there is anything that would keep you from being impartial in this case, just claim that you're a racist. Assuming you're a man, if the defendant is a woman, when you're asked if there is anything that would keep you from being impartial in this case, claim to be a misogynist. You get the idea. Furthermore, you can be excluded if you have certain disabilities, or if serving on the jury would otherwise prove to be an "undue burden" on you.

Re:5 page paper?

[I_Voter]

Constitutionally, the U.S. Jury is not about a Judge's view of fairness. It functioned as a citizen check on the power of government. I will not comment on the actions of the individual Juror in this case, but I wonder if her paper will include some background on the original constitutional function of jury trials.

The Constitutional Relationship Between the People and the Law

Re:5 page paper?

[Windows Breaker G4]

Is it double or single spaced?

Re:5 page paper?

[capnchicken]

Wait ... I thought registering to vote determined one's eligibility to serve on a jury. Not registered to vote? No jury duty.

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid society should ask something of you in return for all the things it gives you the rest of the time.

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

Unfortunately the law does not allow judges to keep stupid people off of juries. Some kind of anti discrimination thing...

Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.

Re:5 page paper?

[DeskLazer]

I was pretty sure that didn't apply; there are plenty of non-voters out there who could serve on a jury. I bet things like taxes, driver's licenses, birth certificates, and other proofs of citizenship qualify you for jury duty.

Re:5 page paper?

[hedwards]

That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

That's why the pool should be 50% random selection and 50% required of all 18 year old adults.

Graduated from highschool? Great! Here's your juror number. It's time you learned how the judicial system works instead of the bullshit they fed you in school civics class.

Re:5 page paper?

[morari]

No one gets a fair trial. Even if the justice system itself wasn't corrupt and inept, the jurors themselves would allow for huge biases. Typically, only the dumbest (or most bored) of people even show up for jury duty. Trial by peers? Yeah, right.

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

Those dont work as well as mine.

Mine works 100% of the time and will get you ejected before selection....

"I firmly believe in Jury Nullification"

Judges do NOT want that dangerous of a juror on a jury.

Re:5 page paper?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

I wish you would reconsider your position by imagining juries bursting with bible bashing evangelical volunteers.

Re:5 page paper?

[spleck]

I have identified you as a non-dumb person. Thank you for reminding me that someone else in the world understands turn lanes.

Re:5 page paper?

[Luckyo]

I just wish they'd mandate a course on impartial trial BEFORE they are called for jury service. What about all those cases that are heard by men and women like her who don't get caught?

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

Not liking a law they are charged with is FULL REASON to ignore the Judges instructions and perform Jury Nullification.

The Jury is the last line in the law. Unjust Law? Say not guilty in face of the law.

Honestly, if more Americans had the balls to do this, more unjust laws would be destroyed in the courts as they create precedence.

Re:5 page paper?

[Hatta]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

It is. If you want to get out of jury duty, just use the magic words "jury nullification".

Re:5 page paper?

[blincoln]

They exist so that a driver doesn't have to start slowing down for the turn until after going into the turning lane, eliminating the need to slow down all of the traffic behind them just to make a turn.

Most of the lanes I know of like that are shared between both directions of traffic. Not slowing down before moving into them sounds like a good way to end up in a head-on collision at high speed.

Re:5 page paper?

[RealGrouchy]

Something I learned to do... long before I remember, probably since I was born.

Oh, long before that too, I'd expect.

- RG>

Re:5 page paper?

[blincoln]

Wait ... I thought registering to vote determined one's eligibility to serve on a jury. Not registered to vote? No jury duty.

I'm reasonably sure it depends on where you are. In King County, Washington (where I live), the courts will find you by a variety of means, regardless of whether you're registered to vote or not.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

urgh, jury decisions don't create precedents. But, it has been historically the case that impossibility to actually get a conviction through even where the dfendant is clearly guilty has caused the politicians to pull their collective finger out and change the law.

Re:5 page paper?

[stephathome]

I believe they also use driver's license records. My husband heard about that when he got summons for two different types of jury duty within a couple weeks of each other. He had to find out which one took precedence since you're not supposed to be required to serve too often. He's one of those "lucky" people who gets called up every two years.

Re:5 page paper?

[Whelkman]

The "long turn lanes" he refers to are on the side, not the ambiguous "third lane" in the middle of traffic. Long turn lanes are seen most often on highways while the ambiguous third lanes are seen most often in commerce centers that grew greatly after initial planning.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ

No, it doesn't.

Re:5 page paper?

[ottothecow]

She may not have been biased going in to the trial...remember she had already heard the prosecution's argument.

It sounds more like she was just stupid and didn't think there was any way the defense could win (without knowing what evidence the defense intended to present)

Re:5 page paper?

[Zerth]

Most of the lanes I know of like that are shared between both directions of traffic.

So there aren't many curb lanes or exit-only lanes where you are?

Re:5 page paper?

[moondawg14]

These are the ones that are also commonly used as "pull out and wait to merge" lanes by the aforementioned stupid drivers.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

I find the easiest way to identify a dumb person is by seeing who makes narcissistic, holier-than-thou posts on Slashdot. Thanks for making my life so easy.

There’s no +1 for “Recursive.”

Re:5 page paper?

[JesseMcDonald]

You swear an oath stating that you'll abide by the rules. It's still an agreement. The judge ... can put in you jail if you fail to comply.

Can you even hear yourself? If the alternative is coercion—personal injury, detainment, loss of property, etc.—directed at you or others there can be no "agreement". You can choose to comply or not, but any oath extracted under duress is meaningless.

Re:5 page paper?

[Abcd1234]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

Funny, I wish voting was mandatory, not unlike jury duty.

Re:5 page paper?

[davidbrit2]

If you weren't at +5 already, you'd get all my mod points.

Imagine if the American judicial system more closely resembled the uptight strife of a stereotypical HOA. The prospect is genuinely unpleasant.

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

Nice, definitely worthy of an insightful, informative, funny, and troll.

Re:5 page paper?

[cjb658]

?

2/5 != 2/3

Re:5 page paper?

[CraftyJack]

voluntary duty

Huh? You'll have to explain that.

Re:5 page paper?

[Amouth]

... Thanks for making my life so easy.

You forgot your sarcasm tags..

Re:5 page paper?

[Amouth]

or move into them then slow down - but the trick is moving into them at a reasonable distance before you need to turn..

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

But the fact that actual IQ score samples form a symmetric bell curve centered on 100 does.

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

Unfortunately the law does not allow judges to keep stupid people off of juries. Some kind of anti discrimination thing...

Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.

Why can't we discriminate against 2/3rds of the population? And perhaps you were joking, but you know that 2/5 and 2/3 are not the same fraction, right?

Re:5 page paper?

[HarvardAce]

Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.

+1 Funny, just not sure if it was intentional or not...

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

Erm, no, it still doesn’t. At best, I’ll give you that it means there’s a good probability that 2 of them are below 100 IQ if the 5 people were randomly selected. I suspect this is what the Anonymous Coward was elusively hinting at. /pedantic

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

Thankfully, they use a sample of 12 jurors in typical criminal trials to avoid the sampling bias. If even one of the twelve decides to listen to the defense side of the trial, and the defense is successful, you at least get a hung jury and another trial (or statistically more likely: the prosecution gives up).

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

Technically, I was made a citizen without my consent, so claiming I agreed to that law is a bit of a stretch.

Re:5 page paper?

[allusionist]

That would be a median, not a turning lane. Assuming you're in the US, the turn lanes being referenced are for RIGHT turns, not left.

Re:5 page paper?

[characterZer0]

Wait, I had a choice not to be a citizen?

Re:5 page paper?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

There are 10 kinds of people in this world:

1) those who are good at math
2) those who aren't good at math
3) those who don't get the joke
4) those who don't make jokes in base 4

Re:5 page paper?

[A. Kim]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

I would argue that voting ought to be a mandatory obligation, much like jury service - as a citizen who enjoys the protection of government, it should be your duty to determine the standards of that protection.

Re:5 page paper?

[eth1]

I might add that it is getting harder to avoid jury service, even if various tricks work in some courts. I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

Ha... I don't *try* to avoid jury duty, but I've found that after it becomes apparent that you're not a clueless loser, whichever side is planning on trying to pull a fast one will try to get rid of you...

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

That's not eligibility, that's just how they find you.

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

I wonder what they do with people who can't afford a suit and tie, which is a pretty substantial number in the south.

Re:5 page paper?

[ricosalomar]

Getting out of jury duty is frightfully easy:
Carve pretty much anything into your forehead.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

There are ways to lose your citizenship, so if you really don’t want it you can probably find a way to be rid of it. Of course that means finding somewhere else to live...

Re:5 page paper?

[sanosuke001]

Me, I wish voting/jury duty was reserved for those that can prove they know something about whats going on instead of getting the most retarded people in the country deciding the fate of everyone.

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

I'd go with 4.5 pages of historical filler.

Re:5 page paper?

[cygnwolf]

Depends on the jurisdiction. IIRC, here, it's based on drivers license records. Don't want to ever be a juror? Resign yourself to using public transportation

Re:5 page paper?

[ricosalomar]

Now you just get people who are to stupid to get out of jury duty.

Re:5 page paper?

[MrEricSir]

Sarcasm tags? Sorry, I haven't learned HTML 5 yet.

Re:5 page paper?

[Idiomatick]

If you are in the states you can just say something like "glenn beck is such a leader" and whoever agrees with you... tada.

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

Yes, I assumed we were all prepared to deal with basic statistics. Statistically speaking, the average doesn't guarantee that the sample doesn't have a funny distribution, hence you could have 20, 120, 120, 120, 120, average 100. But if I tell you it is a bell curve, then two of those are below 100. You can always have a particular 5 people out of a larger sample be from anywhere on the curve, but the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context.

Re:5 page paper?

[Idiomatick]

You can still not agree. You might get in trouble and the agreement might be enforced. But you still have to agree. (There is a difference)

Re:5 page paper?

[willoughby]

Voluntary duty...

hmmm... let me think about that one...

Re:5 page paper?

[networkBoy]

Here here!
I'd like to add to that, Freeway on-ramps are for speeding up to match traffic not to drive to the end of and stop, and not to pass traffic when the freeway is congested.

Re:5 page paper?

[NetNed]

So to sum up could we use the iconic words of Forest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does"?

Re:5 page paper?

[wiredlogic]

The primary reason for longer turning lanes is to increase their capacity before turning traffic backs up into the main lanes. This is why they are only built at high-volume intersections. The ability to delay slowing down until after the lane change is a side effect but not the purpose.

Re:5 page paper?

[MindlessAutomata]

Then people like me, people that dislike people like you and the controlling dominant political structure, will vote for people like BasilMarceaux.com

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is satirical, right? I'm not quite sure, the content seems satirical but the tone could go either way.

Re:5 page paper?

[Luckyo]

This is still a problem, as there's a statistically significant chance of this going the other way and one retard on the jury letting someone clearly needing jail time go free (or more commonly, 3-6 retards making decisions on corporate issues they have no clue on).

Re:5 page paper?

[bsane]

Likewise

Re:5 page paper?

[wtbname]

Maybe you don't know very many roads.

Re:5 page paper?

[frangalista]

Perhaps stupid people are also prone to terribly long posts?

Re:5 page paper?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

You are born a citizen, but keeping that status is your choice. I absolutely agree with the notion that you agree to the laws of the land by claiming citizenship. Until you lose your ability to relinquish citizenship, that will be my stance.

Re:5 page paper?

[jeremymiles]

But Gottman didn't know what he was doing when it came to data analysis.

Re:5 page paper?

[Ephemeriis]

Agree?? When do you have an opportunity to agree to anything in jury service? You are required to show up on such-and-such date at such-and-such time. You may not wear shorts, tank tops, beach shoes or t-shirts, or any clothing with offensive language or logos. Don't do this, and for heaven's sake, don't do that! Jurors lose quite a bit of freedom when they get that notice in the mail.

You agree when you live in this country.

Yes, US Citizens have a number of rights... We also have a number of responsibilities. Don't like it? Go live somewhere else.

Re:5 page paper?

[Ephemeriis]

Try to think of citizenship as a job. You get "paid" in the various rights you are entitled to. Things like the right to a fair trial, the right to free speech, etc.

You also have responsibilities. You have the responsibility to serve in a jury if summoned.

If you don't like the job you can quit - by moving to a different country.

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

Voting should not be voluntary.

Re:5 page paper?

[i_b_don]

???

Did you mean bible "thumping" evangelical volunteers?

The bible bashing evangelicals sound like a fun group if you ask me.....

d

Re:5 page paper?

[crabboy.com]

Please mod parent to the moon.

Re:5 page paper?

[mtmra70]

You AGREED to it when you signed up to vote. That is where they pull jury choices from Voter records.

While I have always thought this, this is not true. I received a jury duty notice (so did my wife) years before we actually registered to vote. I was around 20 years old when I received my first notice and did not register until I was about 26 years old.

Re:5 page paper?

[eldepeche]

Me too, but then someone has to set the criteria to allow people a voice in civic life, and that person is necessarily a dictator. You want to live in a republic, you deal with dumbasses.

Re:5 page paper?

[egamma]

Me, I wish voting/jury duty was reserved for those that can prove they know something about whats going on instead of getting the most retarded people in the country deciding the fate of everyone.

That's exactly what they said about allowing women and black people the right to vote and serve on juries. Me? I'll take my chances with blacks, women, and "retarded people" on juries, and voting. Really, I just need one person on the jury that thinks I'm innocent. If 12 people agree that I'm guilty, then I probably am.

Re:5 page paper?

[dwiget001]

I was called to jury duty once, 1994. During the questioning of prospective jurors, I was asked a question about whether I could follow the judge's instructions on how to apply the law to the the case. I answered "There are two schools of thought on this, 1) that the jury must follow such instructions and 2) that the judge has no business instructing the jury on anything. I subscribe to the later." This got me a very dirty look from the judge, followed by her furiously typing something in about my answer. Needless to say, I was not picked as a juror that day. And, 16 years later, I have never been called back for jury duty. That may just be the odds of being called, however, I think the judge's note (whatever it was) was probably along the lines of "Never, ever summon this person for jury duty ever again!!!!"

Re:5 page paper?

[glop]

I received one and I am not even a citizen!

Re:5 page paper?

[NevarMore]

You're referring to jury nullification.

Quick reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Thats *why* you have a jury of your peers. They can apply community standards and even if you did break the law, if that law is wrong or they don't think you deserve to be punished, they can say you're not guilty.

Re:5 page paper?

[MrEricSir]

How is a long-winded post about being better than the person you're criticizing NOT narcissistic?

Re:5 page paper?

[MrEricSir]

No, no. You're supposed to say "I am rubber you are glue, bounce off me and stick to you."

I thought everyone learned that in elementary school.

Re:5 page paper?

[Nicopa]

You have all the moral crusaders, wannabe politics, religious zealots voting instead of the moderate peers, neighbours... Voting should be mandatory there as it is here in Argentina.

Re:5 page paper?

[Smauler]

Just to let you know, since we all seem to be in an asserting our superiority over others mood today, it's hear, hear, not here here.

Re:5 page paper?

[Iron Condor]

I absolutely agree with the notion that you agree to the laws of the land by claiming citizenship.

I absolutely disagree with it. If you want to live in my country, you better agree to live by the laws of my country no matter what citizenship you may hold. I don't care what the citizen of Pakistan think are valid offenses for stoning someone, if you want to live next door to me you better get comfortable with the way we handle the law in this country.

Conversely, you better not imagine you can do whatever you want in Shanghai just because you have American citizenship.

Fortunately, the police and the judicial branch of most countries agree with me (and disagree with you).

Re:5 page paper?

[Temkin]

Me, I wish voting/jury duty was reserved for those that can prove they know something about whats going on instead of getting the most retarded people in the country deciding the fate of everyone.

Your personal knowledge is disallowed and even illegal as a juror. Jurors adding testimony without cross-examination during deliberations is one of the other big things you can get in trouble for. It introduces bias of its own. That's why they usually dismiss anyone with any relevant expertise. In fact, I find having a science degree very nearly a "get out of jury duty free card".

Re:5 page paper?

[Gabrosin]

All wrong. Jurors should be a professional class.

1. The average person off the street has only a cursory understanding of the law at best. Professional jurors would be subject to regular testing to prove their qualifications. People who are ignorant of the way laws work wouldn't qualify.

2. Right now we yank people away from their regular professions and tell them that they have to do this whole other job for a week or two before getting to go back. Not only does this have a huge negative impact on the economy, it's thoroughly idiotic. In no other situation does this make sense. Would you grab 12 random people and stick them in a room to fix your car? To teach a second-grade class? To audit accounting records? To cook a meal? No, of course not. You'd find a mechanic, a teacher, a CPA, a chef. Can an average person fix a car, or teach a class, or do taxes, or cook food? Usually, probably, maybe. But are you going to get the same level of consistent performance and accuracy that you would from a trained professional? Nope. So why do this for jurors?

3. Boom, instant jobs. Sure, we'd probably have to pay a meaningful wage for these people instead of the peanuts that jurors currently get as compensation, but the net benefit on the economy as a whole would be huge. I'm 100% libertarian and I'd still support the taxes necessary to make jurors into a professional class; the courts are one of the few legitimate functions of the government and it's worth paying the money to make sure they work properly.

Downsides? Well, it would be harder for people who break the law to get off without punishment by playing on the emotions of the jury. I don't believe that's a negative. It would be important to ensure unbiased hiring and selection; if the juror class was 90% white men there would be a lot of legitimate appeals. But with comparatively little training required to enter the profession, I doubt that would prove to be an issue.

Jury of my peers? I'd much rather have a jury of people who know what the hell they're doing.

Re:5 page paper?

[tomhudson]

How is a long-winded post about being better than the person you're criticizing NOT narcissistic?

How about when the other person shows they're Darwin Award material for sliding down a chimney, getting jammed in the tight space, and suffocating to death?

That's stalking material.

Re:5 page paper?

[Temkin]

Often true. Though at times judges have been known to harass or attempt to entrap a juror candidate that professes such.

If you truly believe in jury nullification, you'll keep quiet about it so you can actually use it when needed. I don't avoid jury duty. But I long ago decided that the "war on drugs" is a huge waste of time, money, and people's lives. I doubt I could convict someone of simple pot possession, without some extra circumstance like violence, or other crime.

Re:5 page paper?

[Knoman]

Nah, The four of >US have IQ's of 124, you just have to get yours up to 4 points and we'll make the average! ;-)

Re:5 page paper?

[Smauler]

I wish jury service was a voluntary duty, not unlike voting.

The point of jury service is so that the defendant will be tried by their peers, not by those who have the spare time or inclination to voluntarily show up. If you make jury service voluntary, you'll be introducing bias into the system.

That being said, I was on jury service a while back. The main case I saw was one where it seemed likely this guy did what he was charged with, but there was not the evidence there to substantiate it enough in my opinion (there was reasonable doubt). I kept myself to myself, and fully expected to have to fight my corner against the other jurors during deliberation, but they all just thought basically exactly the same as me. I was pleasantly suprised.

Another interesting note was that I was locked up and ended up being cautioned in the same police station the accused was a week before the trial (possession of class A ;P)... when I got my jury notice letter, I almost shat my pants thinking I was going to have to go to trial for some reason. I told them about this, but they said only mention it to the court if I recognised any witnesses.

This is in the UK, btw.

Re:5 page paper?

[mqduck]

self-serving, and do not act in a deliberate fashion

Aren't those two kind of contradictory?

Re:5 page paper?

[tomhudson]

That's not true, jurors are only required to remain silent during the trial, afterward, they're allowed to talk to council and anybody else they like. In practice former jurors tend to remain silent for the simple reason that it's very easy to say something after the fact which causes huge headaches or can even cause the case to be set aside. At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.

Which is why I wrote "up here". Which country is usually "up here" in relation to many slashdot readers?

Kanuckistan? PoutineVille? The Great White North? (no, it has NOTHING to do with skin colour, you insensitive clod!)

Re:5 page paper?

[Registered Coward v2]

A friend of mine came up with a name for the group of people who drive in these kinds of passively inconsiderate ways, impeding everyone's forward progress.

He calls them "The Anti-destination League"

That slogan has at least been in use since the 70's when Car and Driver used it.

Re:5 page paper?

[stillnotelf]

Emotionally, I totally agree with this. Intellectually, I've never seen a system which can discriminate who should and should not be able to do these things that would work in practice...

Re:5 page paper?

[X0563511]

My (least) favorite are the ones who drive in formation several notches below the posted speed limit, and manage to look innocent while doing so.

Re:5 page paper?

[Registered Coward v2]

Unfortunately the law does not allow judges to keep stupid people off of juries. Some kind of anti discrimination thing...

Plus remember the Average IQ is 100, that means 2 out of 5 people are below 100 IQ and are therefore Morons. we cant discriminate against 2/3rds of the population.

Unfortunately /. Keep math impaired people from posting. The average does not tell you 2 out of 5 are below it; in fact it tells you nothing about the distribution of the population.

Re:5 page paper?

[Abcd1234]

Well put. It's a classic example of "it's a nice idea in theory...". Kinda like pure capitalism or communism, or pure direct democracy.

Re:5 page paper?

[Xtifr]

The Jury is the last line in the law. Unjust Law? Say not guilty in face of the law.

Like those "unjust laws" that say a white man can be convicted of murder, even if his victim was black or hispanic?

The problem with jury nullification is that it can cut both ways. It's hardly the universal panacea that many paint it to be.

Re:5 page paper?

[Idiomatick]

Funny. Americans breaking into Canada to steal health-care seems to be just as common.

Re:5 page paper?

[dmorris68]

He's probably confusing "jury" with "grand jury." I suppose it may vary somewhat by state or jurisdiction, but where grand juries still exist, their proceedings are usually secret and their records are sealed. Standard petit (trial) juries can typically talk about the details of their cases once the trial is concluded. Hence the jury interviews you often see following high-profile trials. I suppose a court could, on a case-by-case basis (no pun intended), order a jury to remain tight-lipped, but I'm not sure that it could.

Re:5 page paper?

[ScentCone]

If you are in the states you can just say something like "glenn beck is such a leader" and whoever agrees with you... tada

Also, "Al Gore inspired me to carry a gun and some poorly made bombs into the Discovery Channel headquarters where I took hostages in the name of stopping the births of more parasitic human babies. He's my leader." That's always a good test, too. Just listen for the people who say, "Well, you know, he really does have a solid, valid view of things. His protest theatre was just a bit over the top. Everyone knows that giant puppets and drum banging is much more effective. Well, that and smashing a Starbucks window, obviously."

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context

Probably so but it’s still misleading because most non-statisticians will think that given 5 people, 2 will be below 100.

Like the old joke (many varieties of it exist)... statisticians tell me that 1 in 3 people is Chinese, and my parents have 3 children, and I’m pretty sure I’m not Chinese, so that leaves Fred and Hu. Personally, I’m inclined to think it’s Fred.

Re:5 page paper?

[Archangel Michael]

I guess you never heard of Alvin Greene (US Senate Candidate). Who won the Democratic Party because either he was 1) Black, 2) First on the ballot or 3) He was breathing.

And while the liberal elites love to make fun of people like Glenn Beck and people who like Mr Beck, they are left completely dumbfounded (pun intended) by the Primary win by Mr Greene, even going so far as to say it was a "right wing conspiracy".

In case you are wondering, Mr Greene *didn't run any sort of campaign, lives in his Basement (garnering the liberal /. vote), and is completely mentally deficient (well below average).

To me, it clearly shows who the (D) cater to (stupid, ignorant, apathetic) who can't be bothered researching who they are voting for. After all, anyone with a (D) after their name is better than anyone with a (R).

*Wikipedia makes Greene seem like a genius. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntlp4fTell4

Re:5 page paper?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

That's generally the mark of stupid people everywhere. They are capricious, self-serving, and do not act in a deliberate fashion with a full awareness of how their actions affect others.

Good God, you've just described Objectivists!

Re:5 page paper?

[ikarous]

And that's yet another reason you don't want to have anything to do with facebook, twitter, ping or other social networking sites

They can and will ruin your life if they feel like it.

FTFY

While I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings toward social media, Facebook is not culpable here. If this young woman had gone and plastered her silly comment on a billboard, would the billboard be at fault? Jury rules exist for the citizens' protection and should be enforced judiciously. This girl acted stupidly. The medium transmitting that stupidity had nothing to do with the infraction itself.

Re:5 page paper?

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:5 page paper?

[Cro Magnon]

My GF's mother got "snared" that way. She didn't register to vote, because she thought she'd escape from jury duty, but they got her name off the driver's license records.

Re:5 page paper?

[Idiomatick]

Thats stupid... 35% of americans support the teaparty, the vast majority of whom support glenn beck. What chunk of people do you think support the discover channel crazy fuck?

This isn't even partisan. Glenn Beck is just stupid and the people that think he makes a good leader are equally stupid.

(if you do find people that support the DISC guy then they are worse than stupid but I doubt you will find them in very big numbers)

Re:5 page paper?

[Cro Magnon]

I think they use voter registration AND drivers licenses. My mom votes but doesn't drive, and my GF's mom drove but didn't vote. They've both been called.

Re:5 page paper?

[Idiomatick]

I didn't say it was the ONLY way to find stupid people. Goodness no. There are tons of stupid people out there, dems and rep.

As for the people that voted for MR.Greene I can only assume they got trapped in a 'dont blame me, I voted for kodos' type situation, but no I'm not familiar with it. That or as you said, they are stupid.

Re:5 page paper?

[Cwix]

Yes it was a stupid thing to do in the first place.. I'm just saying that doing something stupid, and then posting about it, is even stupider.

If she had said this to a friend at her house its still stupid.. just not quite as stupid.

Re:5 page paper?

[BobMcD]

If so, then who's the boss?

I see it as a strictly voluntary process, and further recognize the Second Amendment as insurance against exactly the kind of 'government-owns-you' scenario you're advocating.

Re:5 page paper?

[Kittenman]

FWIW - here in NZ I didn't agree to go onto the electoral role. I was required (by law) to do so, by virtue of being in a house, of a certain age in the electorate. And once I was on the role, jury services came up every so often. I can always spoil my ballot paper or not show up - but it's harder to avoid jury service.

Why? That's a different question.

Re:5 page paper?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

A driver's license only indicates 2 things: who you are, and that you are qualified to operate a motor vehicle. It does not indicate your citizenship or residency status.

In some places, it doesn't (actually) even indicate either of those facts either.

Re:5 page paper?

[Altus]

HA! I knew he wasn't clever enough to have come up with that on his own.

Re:5 page paper?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Your proposal is terrifying.

How many innocent people will go to prison or even be executed because they aren't liked by the insiders you'd have running the jury system?

It's bad enough for those who oppose or anger the system, but this would make it far worse.

P.S.

What is wrong with this website today? 'It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment' - last time I checked 4 is more than 2 (neither post was anonymous). Is this the new math the credit card companies and banks use?

Re:5 page paper?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Keep thinking you're safe. They know your IP address and where you live and who you are.

Re:5 page paper?

[starrsoft]

"glenn beck is such a leader" can be taken a number of ways... ;-)

Re:5 page paper?

[starrsoft]

Um, I hate to break this to you, but the average IQ doesn't tell you... median... oh... um, well, nevermind.

Re:5 page paper?

[godel_56]

But the fact that actual IQ score samples form a symmetric bell curve centered on 100 does.

Actually the IQ distribution does not perfectly match the bell curve; there is a bulge at the lower end. They're not sure why, but it may have something to do with problems at time of birth.

Re:5 page paper?

[z0idberg]

They can and will ruin your life if they feel like it.

Not if THEY feel like it. If YOU allow it.


And off-topic and not directed at you specifically but that whole FTFY bullshit is not clever or funny. It's annoying.

Re:5 page paper?

[eldepeche]

This is a good idea because right now people on juries just randomly get letters and then show up and sit in on a trial and then vote, and they don't go through any kind of selection process and they don't get any kind of instructions on what they're supposed to be basing their decision on and it's just like "raise your hand if you think he's guilty?" and BAM he goes to jail.

Oh wait, people are asked all manners of questions to figure out if they are likely to be biased for or against a defendant, and receive extensive instructions on what evidence to consider, and the specific questions they're trying to answer using that evidence, and the standard by which they should judge the questions answered.

If you're looking for some reform to make in the judicial system that doesn't involve putting in place a bureaucracy to determine who is capable of deciding legal matters and by definition making that bureaucracy subject to political manipulation, how about making it more difficult for a criminal conviction to be upheld in the event that the court-appointed defense attorney slept through the trial? Or curtailing the dependence on so-called expert witnesses, and mandating the inclusion of dissenting interpretations of the evidence? Or reining in independent forensic laboratories with procedures designed to generate false positives, because their interest is in getting more work from prosecutors' offices?

I think putting one's faith in a body of people is utopian; one would do much better by creating procedures one can rely on.

Re:5 page paper?

[eldepeche]

Since when is pure direct democracy a nice idea in theory?

Re:5 page paper?

[mattack2]

No, I like voting not being mandatory. It means that my vote counts more, proportionally, because a lot of people didn't even bother to vote.

(BTW, in many of the specific things to vote on, I DON'T make a choice. For example, most local government, school board, etc. I don't know anything about them, so I just skip that section, hoping that those who do care were actually educated in their choice. Yeah right, but it's an ideal. So sometimes I go in [yeah I usually vote in person] and vote just on the couple of propositions I care about. For propositions I don't care about or don't know enough about, I skip them too.)

Re:5 page paper?

[Married to Christ]

if I have my maths right, isn't 1 in 20 people clinically mentally retarded by definition (IQ =80). So on average you'd almost expect one mental retard in a jury.

Re:5 page paper?

[mattack2]

You didn't when you were born, but you do now..

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/841/how-do-i-go-about-renouncing-my-u-s-citizenship

Re:5 page paper?

[Abcd1234]

Ask the Californians who voted for their referendum system. Clearly they thought it was a neat idea... in theory...

Re:5 page paper?

[wonkavader]

Good idea. Let's have a test to prove you can read and write. And also a poll-tax, so we can know that you're not some destitute moron. Also let's put some questions on that literacy test to make sure you're a protestant and not one of those loony religions, and a quick inspection to make sure you're genetically OK -- ie. white.

The slope is slipperier than a six foot long 2x6 smeared with okra propped up with a couple of bricks on one end.

Re:5 page paper?

[causality]

I find the easiest way to identify a dumb person is by seeing who makes narcissistic, holier-than-thou posts on Slashdot.

The mods got it right this time, you are indeed a troll. But what the hell... Isn't that what you're doing by failing to dispute a single point I made and instead going for the ad-hominem? If I'm so dumb, why can't you successfully contradict my position?

Tell me, how would you define "stupid" if you would exclude useless behaviors that accomplish nothing for the person performing them (otherwise they'd just be selfish) and are also a detriment to everyone around them?

It's no mystery you were unable to dispute what I said, for my reasoning was sound. So you dislike what you were unable to find fault with. That's inherently irrational. But wait, it gets better. Like the narcissist you accuse me of being, you operate out of an assumption that anything you dislike must be faulty, since in your (narcissistic) view your discomfort upon reading my words couldn't possibly indicate a fault within you. So all you can do to retaliate against me who would dare say something you don't like is to call me names. How classy.

You don't see the hypocrisy of that, do you? I'm no fan of modern psychology, but what you're doing there is called Freudian projection.

The difference between you and I is that I can and did back up what I am saying with sound reason. The "holier-than-thou" person is the one who doesn't recognize the burden of proof that comes with making an accusation, as though the fact that they have declared something to be true should be good enough for anybody. If you don't wish to understand that, you won't, and that will be your loss. It's really no concern of mine if you want to live the rest of your life this way. No matter what you do, I'm not wasting my time because his might be valuable for anyone else who reads this and has to deal with people like you.

Re:5 page paper?

[RoFLKOPTr]

These are the ones that are also commonly used as "pull out and wait to merge" lanes by the aforementioned stupid drivers.

That's actually a mandated use by California law. It's illegal to do so in some states, but it's a required part of the training curriculum and sometimes the test (depending on who's administering it) that you turn into the middle lane and then merge into traffic when turning left.

Re:5 page paper?

[VJ42]

Here in the UK it's the opposite - people I listened to who've sat on a jury have said things along the lines of "if you're guilty take a jury, if you're innocent take a judge" because their experiences have led them to believe that juries are easier to influence and (in general) reluctant to convict.

Re:5 page paper?

[VJ42]

At least that's how it is here in WA, USA, not sure about other parts of the world.

He's right for here in the UK, at least about the principles - I don't know about length of sentence, but it sounds about right.

Re:5 page paper?

[vegiVamp]

Interestingly, here in Belgium jury leave is legally arranged: you get leave that doesn't come out of your regular leave, for the time you're needed plus travel, up to a max of n days.

Makes for a much more even distribution of jurors :-)

Re:5 page paper?

[VJ42]

You're never going to get a jury of your peers, anyway. Every jury is composed of people too stupid or unwilling to find an excuse to be excused.

Here in the UK we've basically abolished the whole jury selection process - if you answer "yes" to the question "can you give both sides a fair hearing"*, you're in. Besides, IMO Jury service is a civic duty like voting; you *should* be "unwilling to find an excuse to be excused".


*Noth the exact question, which IIRC obviously talks about the crown & the defendant instead of "both sides".

Re:5 page paper?

[Lumpy]

Nor can it keep those who cant even understand they are reading a joke from posting either.

Hello?? It's funny!

Re:5 page paper?

[Golddess]

you at least get a hung jury and another trial

Unless you're Terry Childs. I cannot find the link, but I seem to recall in one of the many articles about him, either in the article itself or the comments, it was mentioned that for a while there was a lone juror holding out on Not Guilty, so the court ended up replacing just that one juror.

Re:5 page paper?

[Golddess]

"It is better to let a thousand guilty men go free, than to imprison a single innocent."

Re:5 page paper?

[Surt]

That wouldn't be any where close to legal if that was the reason. He'd win instantly on appeal for that.

There are stories about the holdout being replaced, but not the reason. The legal reasons a juror can be replaced are pretty limited, so either he is getting his appeals win, or there was something very serious wrong with that juror (e.g. bribed to be the holdout)

Re:5 page paper?

[Luckyo]

And the point I'm making and you're so wonderfully ignoring is that system indeed is safe in regard to accidentally convicting an innocent.

It's not in regards of letting even clearly guilty loose because of stupidity of one juror. That is the problem. Not that we get a statistical rarity of 12 dumb jurors.

Re:5 page paper?

[aquila.solo]

Troll harder, AC.

The term peers, as you are using it, is shorthand for "peers of the crown:" those who were elevated to a standing much closer to equality with the sovereign than the commoners. Peer means equal.

Trial by Jury goes back to ancient Greece and Rome and was codified in the Magna Carta.

Re:5 page paper?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Again, I don't see why stupid is her fault. 'Stupid' and 'poor judgement' are just part of the hand that life deals you. Maybe it's the sort of latent stupid which wasn't apparent at the start (i.e. it's no-one's fault that she ended up on the jury).

Nonetheless, if you have a juror who has demonstrated that they're not up to the job, they should be removed, but punishment should be reserved for people genuinely acting maliciously (e.g. you say you don't know the defendant, but actually it's the guy who was trying to hit on your girlfriend last week, so you intend to push for guilty whatever the evidence to get him locked up well away from her), i.e. situations you may expect to see about once a decade across the entire country.

Re:5 page paper?

[VoiceInTheDesert]

For one, I don't know why you're so hostile. For two, you made a big assumption about my statement and then used it as the basis for your entire attack on "my" position.

I made no mentions of exclusivity in my statement. I simply said that citizenship here signifies a choice to live here and agreement to live by our laws. I did not (as you suggest) make the statement that this is the ONLY way in which you make such an agreement. Certainly, presence within the state alone gives the local authorities the right to prosecute you under their rules, but this is perhaps without such formal "consent" as with citizenship or a visa. I also did not make any statement about citizenship in the US being a license to kill anywhere else in the world. I'm not sure where you even began to get that assumption from what I said.

With those two straw-mans out the window, I'm curious what you think of my actual statement, rather than the ones you suppose I made.

Re:5 page paper?

[Registered Coward v2]

Nor can it keep those who cant even understand they are reading a joke from posting either.

Hello?? It's funny!

Funny? Math illiteracy isn't funny; it's cost billions in failed projects and countless lives. When 1 out of 10 (50% for you math challenged /.'rs) can't understand a simple concept you've got a serious problem.

Re:5 page paper?

[geminidomino]

I wouldn't be so blatant about it. From various people I've talked to on all levels of the field (Lawyers, Jurists, and my uncle the Judge), there's a good chance that leads to the judge using the magic words "Contempt of Court."

Make it sound more "reasonable", like "I don't know if my conscience will let me convict someone of breaking a law I don't agree with." Still risky, but not as much.

Re:5 page paper?

[ukyoCE]

The pre-internet corollary to this would be blabbing to everyone at a bar down the street from the courtroom.

Facebook has its issues, but they're mainly with respecting privacy settings.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

He was not referring to the turn lanes. He was referring to the entrance ramp to the highway – a.k.a. the “pull out and wait to merge” lane by stupid drivers who think that is how you get onto a highway: pull onto the acceleration lane, STOP, and wait for an opening large enough to accelerate into from a complete stop. I.e. one large enough to drive a semi through.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

That wasn’t the opposite, it was the same. Perhaps GP’s mother had the unspoken assumption that her offspring would be innocent.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

Don’t forget the people who see speed limit signs and think that since theyre advertising the upper limit at which one should travel, it is perfectly okay for them to travel 5 MPH under in the left lane of traffic and feel smugly superior to the guy weaving and flashing his lights behind them because they’re meticulously following the law and bent on forcing the asshole behind them to follow the law too (well, at least until he gets an opportunity to break the law again by passing you on the right, and wish for a portable rocket launcher with with to break the law further by blowing your smug self onto the median). Ironically enough, this is illegal in many (most?) states: slower-moving traffic should move right, regardless of the speed limit... and also ironically enough, it is illegal precisely because they are inconsiderately endangering others on the road. So, if you are one of those drivers, you can take your smugness and shove it up your ass. At least the guy behind you isn’t making any hypocritical pretenses about strictly following the law while he’s driving like an asshole.

Re:5 page paper?

[clone53421]

Unlike most fantasies, your fantasy world sucks. I actually think I like reality better.

Re:5 page paper?

[tomhudson]

Nope. The only common reason for deliberations to be relevant to overturning a conviction is that the jurors considered evidence not admitted at trial. The jurors can't comment during the trial, of course, but afterwards they have a First Amendment right to blab all they want.

No wonder you posted as an AC ...

Here is what I wrote:

Up here, when a juror does that, they're looking at up to 2 years in jail, which is one reason why you don't see jurors talking about jury deliberations even decades after a trial - what is said in deliberations is forever secret.

I never said this applied to the USofA - which is only 5% of the world. I'll give you a hint as to where "Up here" is - we're bigger than you, and we're on top.

The only common reason for deliberations to be relevant to overturning a conviction is that the jurors considered evidence not admitted at trial

Where did I write anything about overturning convictions? Oh right, I didn't. We require jury deliberations to be secret forever because we see the jury as the ultimate deciders of facts - and also, when juries refuse to convict even when both the law and the judge says they must - the ultimate deciders of the law. Jury nullification is a right that our courts recognize. Funny how US courts shy away from it. You don't second-guess a jury, and as a juror you don't discuss what went on during deliberations - ever. That's why you don't see jurors being interviewed in the media, or them even being identified. They have the right to make their decision based only on the facts, untainted by the worry of future pressure or backlash from the community, or some crazy on a crusade, or the hope of a media deal.

Defendants have the right to be tried by a jury free of such considerations. Anything less is not a fair trial. In other words, the US definition of a "fair trial" falls far short of the ideal.

Ever wonder why even the Judge stands when the jury comes in, and stands again when the jury leaves? Respect for the jury is part of the system.

Once again, people...

[Pojut]

...if you want to winny, don't be a Prinny.

Seriously though...what's with people being stupid about social networking services? Juror's getting booted, athletes getting fined for tweeting during a game, etc. Use some common sense, people.

Re:Once again, people...

[gorzek]

It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.

Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.

Re:Once again, people...

[PhrostyMcByte]

I think the more unfortunate side of this is that there are probably a lot of people who don't take the jury process seriously, and this was just one dumb person who showed it on Facebook.

If only there was a way to get more of these people to inadvertently get themselves removed.

Re:Once again, people...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

-things that I would think any self-respecting person ....

Well that's the false assumption that is causing your surprise right there. I find that self-respect is quite lacking in many parts of modern society. Facebook social circles are no exception to this and, quite possibly, are much worse.

Re:Once again, people...

[Improv]

Apostrophes. Learn to use them.

Re:Once again, people...

[Cwix]

Computers connected to the internet left in the jury deliberation room. We should pick more alternates to start with though.

Re:Once again, people...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue is more due to a generational gap in expectations. The generation that is using Facebook to post those things does not feel embarrased by thier dirty laundry. The issue is that old foggies like you and I are still laboring under our outdated expectations, so there is a generational culture clash.

Re:Once again, people...

[gorzek]

Christ, I'm only 29 and I still have a filter that says "don't post this stupid thing that will potentially embarrass you and others!"

Re:Once again, people...

[causality]

It's not even about common sense, it's more a problem with discretion. I cannot believe some of the things people tweet or post about on Facebook--things that I would think any self-respecting person would know better than to share with the world. It's like it's a contest to see who has the most embarrassing dirty laundry. Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't. Odds are, no one cares.

Most people would be better off if they just kept their mouths shut and their keyboards silent.

Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.

Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that it is and rejected on those terms. Until then, any satisfaction derived from personal exhibitionism is hollow and fleeting which is why the person must engage in more and more of it to maintain the sense that they are "somebody". If it accomplished anything or had any lasting value, then there would not be the need you have recognized to sink lower and lower and engage in it more and more intensely. It is, as they say, a chasing after the wind.

Now, I really enjoy and appreciate freedom. I recognize that this includes the right to do something self-defeating and stupid as long as you don't force others to participate. So I believe it would be wrong to lift a finger towards trying to stop anyone from doing this. The point is, there are very good reasons why I haven't jumped on this bandwagon. It is not just a matter of personal taste or preference no matter how badly some want to legitimize it by portraying it that way.

Re:Once again, people...

[DeskLazer]

FYI, I just re-tweeted your post url. and then talked about it on FB via a note.

Re:Once again, people...

[hedwards]

In my experience, it's not necessarily that jurors don't take it seriously, it's that we allow attorneys to have access to focus groups and deliberately misrepresent facts and previous testimony on the basis that the jury is presumed to be able to see through it. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that most jurors are not able to see through it and as a result you end up with verdicts which are really unpredictable.

Re:Once again, people...

[gorzek]

That's actually a good point. Many people seem to have lost the distinction between being famous and being infamous. These days, being infamous can be just as good for your image as being famous!

Lindsay Lohan may be a colossal fuckup in life, but it sure keeps her name in the headlines.

Re:Once again, people...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Yeah, but sadly common sense isn't all that common anymore. I resisted joining Facebook or using Twitter for a long time for various reasons; I recently joined Facebook, but the first thing I did was to go through the account settings and change just about everything to "Friends only" (which also, of course, includes Facebook staff.) And I _still_ don't post anything via Facebook that I wouldn't be comfortable someone bringing up in a year or five, ten, etc.

Re:Once again, people...

[eth1]

It's just the same people being stupid that always existed. It's just that technology has given them a much wider audience for "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

So now instead of just seeing our local village idiots, we get to see everyone's.

Re:Once again, people...

[nuckfuts]

Then there are the people who think their every stray thought is worth a Facebook status update. Well, it isn't.

Agreed. That's what Twitter is for.

Re:Once again, people...

[Hatta]

Is there a website that collects some of the worst (or best) awkward, embarassing, incriminating, etc Facebook posts? That could be be good for a laugh.

Re:Once again, people...

[tangelogee]

Well, bad press is still press...

Re:Once again, people...

[gorzek]

http://failbook.failblog.org/
http://www.lamebook.com/

Those are two somewhat humorous ones that collect fully/embarrassing FB posts.

Re:Once again, people...

[tangelogee]

Apostrophes. Learn to use them.

Possibly when you learn to use a sentence structure?

Re:Once again, people...

[Reapy]

People share a surprising amount of things with their friends. In peer groups people tell about cheating, drugs, drunken incidents, or any other number of illegal/immoral or whatever acts. The problem is that people putting it up on facebook forget the fact that someone who is not in their closed circle can easily stumble upon it and take action.

I think that is the disconnect, you might want to tell all your friends how high you are, but you forgot aunt mildred added you the other day, and whoops, now shes going to tell mom.

While information leaking via facebook is easy to detect, just because a person said they did something, doesn't really mean that they actually did, and that is important to consider too.

Re:Once again, people...

[BobMcD]

Discretion is not compatible with the narcissism and vanity that drives a person to think that the world needs to know every last detail about their personal lives, as though they were a celebrity who can hardly shop at a grocery store without having it published in the tabloids. That's why the people with discretion are relatively silent compared to the ones you're talking about.

This is positively incorrect, and your asserting it to others is toxic to the point of being dangerous. The people that post less simply feel less of a need to do so. Perhaps they're not getting positive feedback from it, or perhaps their needs are largely met in other ways. Those other people are asking for their friends to help them, if only by paying them some attention.

Common sense does not begin to enter the picture until well after vanity is recognized as the empty and useless pursuit that it is and rejected on those terms. Until then, any satisfaction derived from personal exhibitionism is hollow and fleeting which is why the person must engage in more and more of it to maintain the sense that they are "somebody". If it accomplished anything or had any lasting value, then there would not be the need you have recognized to sink lower and lower and engage in it more and more intensely. It is, as they say, a chasing after the wind

In other words, if you're not already famous, just shut up and die quietly.

Perhaps, just maybe, these people are reaching out to others around them seeking human interaction. That would be, you know, normal. And since Facebook and the like are supposed to be populated with your 'Friends', then it would follow that some of the readership there would actually care about the people doing the posting.

Further, if you don't actually care, then I challenge the hypocrisy of you ever electing to be counted amongst 'Friends' on that site or any other. You're probably not capable of being a friend, because you view all these posts in the most negative light imaginable.

The point is, there are very good reasons why I haven't jumped on this bandwagon.

You don't actually need that in the plural sense. The only reason you need is your lack of empathy and incompatibility with casual friendship.

Now I admit I don't know you, but your lack of humanity is relatively shocking from where I sit.

Re:Once again, people...

[TimMD909]

Exactly. Telling people embarrassing facts and opinions is only for /.

She's luscky the judge was lenient

[kent_eh]

contempt of court can get you jail time. And rightfully so.

If I had been accused of something and was standing trial, I would want the process being done properly. Especially if I hadn't done what I was accused of (not saying that's a fact in this case)

Re:She's luscky the judge was lenient

[shentino]

Contempt of court is one of the few times where the writ of habeas corpus doesn't apply. It has been ruled that the defendant "holds the keys to his own cell".

Unfortunately that implies that you have no standing to challenge a live judicial order. If the judge tells you to do something, you either comply or get locked up until you do. The lack of habeas corpus means that you can't whine to a higher judge and sit tight.

about time..

[Jarik C-Bol]

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Re:about time..

[clone53421]

+1 hell yes.

Whether or not the punishment was too lenient / harsh, this needs to get way more publicity...

One juror learning this the hard way: $250 and a 5-page essay
Millions of people getting even half a clue about how the system is designed to work by hearing about this: (quite literally) priceless.

Re:about time..

[FuckingNickName]

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works

"There are some things you're not supposed to do, but nothing happens if you don't get caught."

This isn't ignorance, merely poorly judged risk-taking.

Re:about time..

[NevarMore]

It is Detroit, there are good odds that $250 is a LOT of money to that person and a five-page essay is a challenge.

Re:about time..

[rbphilip]

$250 is far too high a fine for this. Kicking her off the Jury - that's OK. All that's happening here is that she's being punished for expressing what she thinks. The judge and defense should be happy she did so in time to get her out of the system.

Re:about time..

[Timothy Brownawell]

I thought there had been a couple similar stories here before.

Re:about time..

[RealGrouchy]

Once the public realizes the 5-page essay needs to have more than just 140 characters per page, it'll strike terror into their hearts.

- RG>

Re:about time..

[anagama]

She's not being punished for expressing what she thinks. She is being punished for violating a sworn oath and thus making it impossible for the defendant to have a fair trial. I realize we live in a world where American citizens can be executed without any due process, but that policy is under attack because it violates due process. This story just adds to my worry about the constant attack on our rights at seemingly every level, from smart nefarious pricks in office, to retards on juries.

As for the punishment, $250 is an utterly insufficient fine. Even at minimum wage, it's only a week's labor at most. She should be taxed with the costs associated with the trial. To put this into a bad car analogy, it's like she intentionally smashed into another car with her own, totaling the other car, but is only being required to cover the cost of the left taillight on the victims auto.

Re:about time..

[rbphilip]

Why should she be punished at all? She had already made up her mind. If she'd not opened her mouth she'd have necessarily influenced the jury with an opinion established before the defense had a chance to present their case. She did everyone a favor with her posting.

Re:about time..

[oldmac31310]

I think you can be sure that it has happened numerous times before and just hasn't been discovered. It just happened in this case that 'Jaxon Goodman, the 17-year-old son of Etchison's defense lawyer' found the post on Facebook. I hope his dad rewarded him appropriately. But surely the survival of a just legal system (I know, I know it is anything but just) should not have to rely on the efforts of the 17 year old son of the lawyer.

Regarding Hadley Jons saying sorry - hmmm, I suspect that she was sorry she had to pay a fine and go back to school. I doubt she felt any remorse for making the Facebook post. I expect she will present her essay triple-spaced in 20 point Comic Sans.

Re:about time..

[anagama]

Because what she did was wrong. Granted, only the stupid will be caught, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a wrong thing to do. If she had murdered someone and buried the body, and was only found out because she was bragging in a bar, would you say, "hey, at least the body was found and the family gets some kind of closure, something that wouldn't have happened if she didn't open her mouth."

Re:about time..

[rbphilip]

Everyone breaks laws every day. It's unavoidable. The fact that what she did is "wrong" is unimportant. Toss her from the trial, perhaps. But anything else is a waste of time. And in reference to your analogy, I don't get your point. Are you saying that if I kill someone and bury the body and *don't* say anything that it's better? No, you'll say, it's better that you don't kill someone, and you're right. But the woman on the jury already committed the "crime" of making her decision before the defense presentation. It's *way* better for everyone that she made this known than if she'd kept it hidden. In this case she is not being punished for making her decision early, she's being punished for letting it be known that she did so.. And that's stupid, since everyone benefits from that knowledge.

Re:about time..

[DerekLyons]

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works

Unless Michigan is very different from Washington, the state of education about the legal process is irrelevant - because jurors and prospective jurors are briefed (multiple times) about what is and isn't appropriate behavior during the selection process and prior to trial.

another reason

[mldi]

Another reason to justly lose faith in the justice system. Even a trial by a jury of your peers isn't fair.

Re:another reason

[snookerhog]

The "peers" part continues to stick in my craw a bit. If I am arrested, how likely is it the the jury will have anyone that could be considered my peer?

it is a jury of fellow citizens and nothing more.

Re:another reason

[delinear]

Indeed it's preferred if a juror doesn't know the law - and if a lawyer is called to jury service I think they have the right or possibly even the duty to refuse simply because their advanced knowledge of law may prejudice the views of the other jurors.

Re:another reason

[shentino]

Why are jurors idiots though?

I'm not sure, but I think that attorneys striking geniuses off during voir dire has a lot to do with it.

Re:another reason

[Stargoat]

When I was on a federal jury a few years ago. The trial was held 15 miles from the "crime scene" and as much as 45 or more from the juror's homes. It took some jurors over 2.5 hours to drive home. (I live in a city exceedingly bad for commuting.)

However, none of us resented the defendant for this. It was remarkable that everyone felt it was their civic duty.

My only complaint about the entire process is that the jury (pretty much the entire jury) felt that the charges were overly aggressive. A very young man had been selling crack, and admitted to selling crack. But because he discussed crack prices and pickups over the telephone with other people, it was conspiracy. Even though he did not benefit from the conspiracy. The way the instructions to the jury were written, there was no choice in the outcome. In addition to selling charges, the young man went to jail on conspiracy for 20-30 years.

The judge should have been required to explain to the jury about jury nullification. We would have nullified those charges so quickly it would have made the DA's head spin. All potential jurors should understand what jury nullification before they begin.

Re:another reason

[tophermeyer]

One of my favorite George Carlin quotes was something to the effect of:

"Think of how stupid the average American is. Now remember that half of them are dumber than that."

Re:another reason

[tehcyder]

Another reason to justly lose faith in the justice system. Even a trial by a jury of your peers isn't fair.

While it may not be perfectly fair, it's a fuck sight better than the alternatives.

Re:another reason

[shaitand]

False. That is the lie judges decided they are allowed to tell juries after the Jim Crowe south. It is the duty of a juror not only to decide the evidence but if the law itself is just. Our government is full of checks and balances, each branch against one another and the people in the form of the jury are the ultimate check against government.

The people, via juries, have the power to veto government on a case by case basis. This is the only direct power the people have, even voting is done indirectly through the electoral college.

Re:another reason

[adavies42]

all americans are peers since none of us are nobles. (an irony, given how "peer" is used in england....) read some history sometime, it makes a lot of things make more sense.

Re:another reason

[imthesponge]

It's not a right if you can't exercise it.

Re:another reason

[shaitand]

you can if you don't tell the judge

Re:another reason

[IndustrialComplex]

The "peers" part continues to stick in my craw a bit. If I am arrested, how likely is it the the jury will have anyone that could be considered my peer?
it is a jury of fellow citizens and nothing more.

Those are your peers. You aren't a noble being judged by commoners, and you aren't a commoner being judged by nobles. Since we don't have the concept of nobility in the United States, there IS only one group of your peers, fellow citizens.

Re:another reason

[DrgnDancer]

It's really just an older definition of the term. "Peer" is mostly used the same way in Britain as it's used here, and the it can be used here to describe "peers" of other countries, perfectly accurately. Since blooded nobility means very little these days, even in countries that continue to have it, the old use of the term has fallen away except in historical records and fantasy novels.

To GP: The original use of the term "peer" had little to do with ability, and everything to do with birth. When the original English legal system was designed, the jury of one's peers assumed that a noble would not be judged by a jury of commoners. Of course in the US, since we recognize no blooded nobility, that means that a jury of your peers is synonymous with a jury of fellow citizens.

Re:another reason

[adavies42]

When the original English legal system was designed, the jury of one's peers assumed that a noble would not be judged by a jury of commoners.

in fact, i believe it was even a little stronger than that--you had the right to be judged by people of equal or higher "dignity" (rank), e.g. you couldn't have barons trying a duke.

Re:another reason

[hedwards]

That's not true. Generally you're expected to disclose that, assuming the attorneys and judge are not aware, but it's not justification for being automatically excluded. For instance in criminal proceedings, the fact that one of the potential jurors is a copyright attorney isn't the kiss of death. However if it's relevant to the subject of the trial, then they may very well be. But in practice attorneys generally hate have attorneys on the jury and will have them removed as a part of the process.

The way things are set up, prior to deliberations jurors are instructed to not discuss the case with anybody, fellow jurors included, and during deliberations, the judge gives the jurors all the law that they're allowed to use. Knowing more law than that isn't going to help, and you're generally required to keep your mouth shut about it.

Re:another reason

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The way the instructions to the jury were written, there was no choice in the outcome. ... The judge should have been required to explain to the jury about jury nullification.

How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?

Re:another reason

[Nimey]

You have /no/ idea how ignorant most of us 'Merkins are about civics. Even college-educated 'Merkins can be utterly in the dark about these things.

Be interesting to have someone bring up jury notification at a trial sometime, and see whether or not the judge declares a mistrial.

Re:another reason

[Ihmhi]

How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?

I imagine this has to do with a combination of factors, namely a campaign on the part of the legal system to suppress knowledge about jury nullification and instruct jurors that they may not use it. The lack of ethics and/or civics classes in modern American secondary education probably has a whole lot to do with it as well, I'm sure.

Re:another reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification is an extremely closely guarded "secret." DAs don't talk about it. Judges don't talk about it. Mentioning it during a juror interview is a good way to have yourself immediately ejected from the building. They don't teach it in civics class (and if they did, the teacher would be "disappeared" from teaching the class). The entire justice system does not want you to know about nullification and they will go to great lengths to make sure you don't know about it. If you mention it in a room full of other potential jurors, everybody will be sent home.

So don't try to tell somebody he's an idiot because he doesn't know about it.

Re:another reason

[locallyunscene]

How is this a 'Troll' post. I haven't had to serve for Jury Duty yet, but this is something I want to know about before I started.

Re:another reason

[Ephemeriis]

it is a jury of fellow citizens and nothing more.

That's the whole point.

Legalese is a bit archaic these days. You can't have the language evolving because then your old contract doesn't mean what it used to. So legal language is set in stone. Which is fine for lawyers, since they know what it means. But it winds up sounding odd to the rest of us.

A "peer", in this context, means a fellow citizen. As opposed to having some prince or king or noble pass judgement on you.

Re:another reason

[scot4875]

A couple of years ago, I was working in a PC repair shop (a real one, not a Geek Squad) with 6 other techs of varying ages (20ish to 45ish), most with 4-year college degrees or working towards them. We were having a discussion about the RIAA's actions, and I mentioned that I'm surprised that no jury in a RIAA-related case has voted for nullfication.

None of the other techs knew what jury nullification was. Furthermore, none of them believed that it was a real thing once I explained it. And *furthermore,* once I brought up the Wikipedia entry on jury nullification, they all just assumed that Wikipedia was wrong.

So it does not surprise me at all that people are unfamiliar with the concept. Most high schools don't even teach civics any more.

--Jeremy

Re:another reason

[sjames]

The last time I was in Voir Dire, the judge specifically asked if we would judge only the facts and not the law or the punishment, obviously requesting that we swaer not to nullify. I was excused when I stated that I considered myself morally compelled to consider the law and the punishment as well as the facts. I was both happy not to be required to spend time I didn't have on a jury and disturbed that the court so blatantly pushed against nullification.

Re:another reason

[BitZtream]

You do realize you can just google it right?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jury+nullification

Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Darkness404]

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.'"

Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I hate Facebook and love to take any opportunity to bash it, I very much agree with you.

I have served on juries, in and most cases my fellow jurors had already made up their minds well before both sides presented their case.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Cro Magnon]

In fact, Facebook was a good thing, because it documented her malfeasance for all the world to see.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[BobMcD]

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.'"

Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.

That's a bit high and mighty, isn't it? I'm fairly certain there's a solid chance that any person / every person could decide to convict based on hearing only half of the story. You might elect to not tell anyone you had done so, but depending on the case, this may well be the correct choice. Labeling it as in injustice assumes that the decision was incorrect. We just don't know that yet, do we?

Imagine the prosecution lays out a case with video, DNA, eyewitness evidence, and a confession. Imagine further that the DA wanted to plea them out, but the defendant would rather be on TV, and insisted on a trial. You would, in this hypothetical case, come away from the first day with the conclusion that the defense would need a miracle to win the case. And, assuming the accused was some sort of scumbag, you'd probably be rooting for them to fail to find one.

Anyway, it seems bizarre that you'd bash her for jumping to conclusions by jumping to conclusions.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Sprouticus]

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.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Fjandr]

Well, the one thing that Facebook did contribute to is providing a platform where the stupid can show just how biased they are. Only those smart enough to keep their mouth shut can subvert the jury process.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[DrgnDancer]

You would in fact be committing an injustice. The inherent "justice" of the system is that both sides get to tell their bit and present their evidence. The fact that you jumped to the right conclusion doesn't change the fact that you jumped to a (potentially invalid) conclusion. Let's take your example. Prosecution lays out all of this apparently overwhelming evidence. You make your conclusion, the guy is guilty, you tune out... and miss the defense proving conclusively that defendant was framed by a third party who faked the video, paid the witness, and tampered with the DNA (The police coerced the confession when they got a little over-enthusiastic about all the awesome evidence they had, nothing illegal to get it thrown out, but they leaned very hard and got the defendant to sign).

Unlikely? Of course. Not less possible or contrived than your example though. The whole point of the trial is for the jury to see the whole thing, both sides, and make a decision based on all the evidence that either party chooses to present.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[darkmeridian]

So you're basically attacking her for jumping to conclusions about a juror jumping to conclusions? That's pretty rich, friendo.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[BobMcD]

Right, but the crime would be in the 'tuning out' rather than in the critical thinking.

Since she was emotionally invested in seeing a guilty verdict, there's a solid chance she'd be paying attention...

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[residieu]

Sounds like Facebook is actually a good thing here. If she hadn't made her post, her impartiality wouldn't have been made visible.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[DrgnDancer]

I think we're coming at this from different angles. Of course you're going to be forming and reforming opinions throughout the trial. It's how you analyze the data being presented to you. No human is going to be able to sit as a passive sponge, absorbing information until they have all of it and are finally ready to analyze it as a cohesive whole. It's not in our natures.

There's a difference, though, between sitting and thinking "Hmm, that piece of evidence doesn't look good for the defendant" or even "Based on what I've seen so far he seems guilty", and "This dude is guilty, and I can't wait to fry him for it." Even if the only place that exists is in your head, it creates a natural bias in how you look at everything else that comes in front of you. If you publish the thought on Facebook it's going to be even more prejudicial, because now you don't want to look like an idiot by changing your mind after being so certain before. There's a reason jurors are told to keep an open mind during trials. Generally, once you've come to firm decision, even one based on incomplete or unclear data, it's harder to change your mind.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[BobMcD]

Does it not demonstrate the absurdity of it all?

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[rm999]

I'm confused, you say "sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions", but you also say "the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case". So, aren't you somehow applying your notions instead of the evidence? How are you so sure the guy was guilty?

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[BobMcD]

If you publish the thought on Facebook it's going to be even more prejudicial, because now you don't want to look like an idiot by changing your mind after being so certain before.

Now THAT is indeed a solid point.

Otherwise, yes, we're talking about a matter of degree.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[chihowa]

Probably, he felt like the guy was guilty (his opinion, a hunch, clear and convincing evidence, whatever), but the prosecution wasn't able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. They found him not guilty, so he didn't apply his notions (guilty) instead of the evidence (not guilty).

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[rbphilip]

Or perhaps Sprouticus discovered *after the trial* that the guy was guilty.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[sjames]

There is a difference between believing the defense would need a miracle to win and deciding the defendant is guilty without even giving that miracle a chance to happen.

It would be a shame if the defense showed that the video was fake and the witnesses were paid off and nobody on the jury was listening.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[BobMcD]

There is a difference between believing the defense would need a miracle to win and deciding the defendant is guilty without even giving that miracle a chance to happen.

It would be a shame if the defense showed that the video was fake and the witnesses were paid off and nobody on the jury was listening.

Indeed. Likewise would it be a shame for the jury to acquit on the basis of the Chewbacca Defense.

From the content of her Facebook post, I am not at all sure we can conclude what she would have decided after the defense presented its case.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[SudoGhost]

He was the accomplice. (What a twist!)

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[chihowa]

Or perhaps Sprouticus discovered *after the trial* that the guy was guilty.

That could be the case. As screwed up as it is, though, if the prosecution can't prove that a guilty person is guilty during his trial, the jury shouldn't find him guilty. The goal behind the trial is (ideally) objective truth, but the only way to demonstrate objective truth is with hard indisputable facts.

Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it...

[Sprouticus]

To a person, eveyrone on the jury felt that he was guilty. The problem was the state did a shitty job of presenting their case and their primary witness was a crack head with throat cancer.

The throat cancer was a big part of it because she said something during an altercation with the defense lawyer that did not get into the transcripts and no one except me heard.

I actually was going to sit on a guilty verdict because of it (I heard her, I believed her). But after many hours of deliberation, other jurors convinced me that even though she said what she said, her other testimony and that of the other witnesses was below the bar of reaosnable doubt, so I decided to go with not guilty.

I hated vote to release that guy, he was a bad bad person and I honestly believe he did it. But I took an oath which I took seriously. I did not get a good nights sleep for 3 weeks after that trial. I think about it alot, even today. I also believe that 10 of the 11 other jurors did a great job (one moron in the group).

So dont tell me that the jury system cant work. You insult me and everyone I was on that jury with...

Re:

[dukeofurl01]

Awesome. Good for the judge for even being able to figure it out, and not calling it "The Face Book"

Unasked Question

[Luthair]

I find it hard to believe no one is asking exactly why the defendants son is creeping around looking up jurors from his father's trial on Facebook.

Re:Unasked Question

[b0bby]

I find it hard to believe no one is asking exactly why the defendants son is creeping around looking up jurors from his father's trial on Facebook.

Um, it was the lawyer's son who looked it up, and the defendant was female.

Re:Unasked Question

[colinrichardday]

Are there laws against looking up jurors on Facebook?

Re:Unasked Question

[kent_eh]

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.

Re:Unasked Question

[BJ_Covert_Action]

The most likely reasons are

A) He is a kid.
B) His parent is involved in some sort of trial.
C) He wants to understand a bit more about what is going on with his parent.
D) He is intelligent enough to understand how to apply tools at his disposal (Facebook) in order to garner an ends that he desires (more information).

Seriously, Facebook stalking is not some sort of creepy, underground practice performed solely by child molesters and perverts anymore. If you learn or hear of someone new, it is pretty common to do a quick Google and Facebook search to see what the deal is. I can't count how many random people have tried to add me on Facebook because we bumped into each other at Starbucks or something trivial like that...

Re:Unasked Question

[clone53421]

Jurors’ knowledge being limited, sure, to prevent them from “researching” the defendant and biasing themselves based on irrelevant facts (oh, defendant is pro/anti- abortion? GUILTY!)...

Knowing the jurors’ names could be helpful to find out if they were lying, though, when they claimed they didn’t know the defendant from Adam...

Re:Unasked Question

[Five Bucks!]

It's the defense lawyer's case...

Because some punk spoke their mind on FB, the defense lawyer's hard work is gone to waste. That's not fair, really. I'd be annoyed!

Re:Unasked Question

[tsstahl]

We were also strongly warned not to speak about the details of the trial with anyone other than the other jurors. Ever.
 

Trials in the U.S. are a matter of public record.

Re:Unasked Question

[aztecmonkey]

The defendant was a woman. It was her attorney's son who looked it up. I would imagine the reason was that the defense was looking for something to try to get a mistrial.

Re:Unasked Question

[LingNoi]

Seems that in this instance the Canadian system is flawed.

Re:Unasked Question

[geekmux]

The most likely reasons are A) He is a kid. B) His parent is involved in some sort of trial. C) He wants to understand a bit more about what is going on with his parent. D) He is intelligent enough to understand how to apply tools at his disposal (Facebook) in order to garner an ends that he desires (more information). Seriously, Facebook stalking is not some sort of creepy, underground practice performed solely by child molesters and perverts anymore. If you learn or hear of someone new, it is pretty common to do a quick Google and Facebook search to see what the deal is. I can't count how many random people have tried to add me on Facebook because we bumped into each other at Starbucks or something trivial like that...

Seriously? Since when is the average kid that interested in their parents work at a trial?

I call bullshit on all this. He was looking to get laid. End of story. For all we know, his Dad tipped him off to a "hot chick" sitting next to him during the trial...

Re:Unasked Question

[clone53421]

His motive (personal bias) is irrelevant, because he isn’t the person who got to decide what her punishment would be, or even whether or not what she did was wrong. The judge did. All he did was fact-finding.

Re:Unasked Question

[bsDaemon]

Well, it shows tangible steps towards the possibility of jury tampering, which is a Big Boy Crime.

Re:Unasked Question

[snowraver1]

Yes, and there is an official transcript that can be ordered for that purpose. Jurors are not the PR face of the courts.

Re:Unasked Question

[hedwards]

I don't recall the plaintiff, defendant or either counsel ever knowing the name of myself or my fellow jurors. Which is what puzzles me a bit, perhaps my memory isn't complete, but I don't recall them knowing enough information to be able to see whether or not I had a facebook or any online presence at all at the time.

Re:Unasked Question

[davev2.0]

Actually, the defense had not presented its case, so there was no lost work.

Re:Unasked Question

[cdrguru]

Today you have all kinds of jury selection processing that goes on. Basically, both sides get a little card that the prospective juror fills out with their name, address and other information. From that, if the trial justifies a real jury investigation, more than likely both sides pull a full background report on each and every prospective juror.

So for a murder trial when the defense asks a prospective juror if they know the defendant, they already know the answer. And they know what magazines the prospective juror subscribes to, what organizations they belong to and what their income is. Lying to get on or off a jury is perjury and as they already know the answers to the questions being asked, you will be found out. Whether they actually do anything about it or not is another question, but there is no question of it being known.

So there is no question of knowing the juror's names. The expectation is that all court officials have integrity and if they don't they don't stay court officials long.

Are jury investigations done for minor offenses? Probably not, because the defendant is paying for his side of it and the cost isn't warranted when the penalty isn't a long prison sentance.

I have to believe this goes on in Canada, UK and Australia as well as the US. Probably not so much in North Korea.

Re:Unasked Question

[davev2.0]

Well, the defense lawyer's son is 17 and the juror is 20. Maybe he thought she was hot and was hoping to try and hook up with her after the trial.
Or, he may well have been looking for just such a comment.

Re:Unasked Question

[colinrichardday]

As a former juror, I believed I was asked my name during the voir dire.

Re:Unasked Question

[mea37]

It is a step someone might take if planning to tamper with a jury.

It is also a step someone might take if they're curious.

Incidentally, I've also noticed that jury panels can represent a surprisingly small world. I sat on a panel (but was not kept on to serve with the jury). Also dismissed from that panel were the prosecutor's brother, and the wife of another prosecutor in the county. There were two teachers from the same school on the panel. Given the bredth of many people's so-called social networks, it is conceivable that he just stumbled on the post without having done any active snooping. (When you try to argue how phenomenally unlikely that is, don't forget that we're really talking about the odds of him having a connection with any member of any jury in any trial in which his father was involved, reduced only by the odds that a juror picked at random is as stupid as this one.)

But whether any given explanation is likely doesn't actually matter. The point is, the lawyer's son doesn't owe you an explanation for his actions; that's what "liberty" means. If he poked around on Facebook, he did so for reasons of his own. In and of itself, that is not a crime, even if someone planning to commit a crime might do it.

Now, if jury tampering had been (or is) shown to have occured, then in retrospect his actions would become interesting. They might provide direction to an investigation, and if a case were built against the son then it might even serve as part of a chain of evidence. If he had contacted the jurors or made himself or his relationship to the attourney known to them, that would probably be a slam dunk conviction all on its own. But unless he crossed those lines, you've got nothing.

Re:Unasked Question

[mea37]

I find it hard to believe that people are so drawn to believe, without evidence of wrongdoing, that they are entitled to an explanation of others' actions.

That said, I can think of two plausible explanations (accounting for the fact that, to make this happen, the son would have to know that the woman was serving on the jury):

1) The father thought Facebook would be a good, inexpensive medium to get a 'read' on the jurors. (Creepy, but AFAIK not illegal; isn't it true that there are experts who try to profile juries?) He didn't want to do his own leg work, either for lack of familiarity with FB or to avoid raising potential red flags on ethical grounds (since his motives, if he did, could be misconstrued as something worse). So he sked his son to look into it, and got back more than he expected.

2) It was a coincidence. Of all the jurors in all of his dad's trials, he happeend to be Facebook friends with one of them who was dumb enough to post such a comment.

Re:Unasked Question

[bsDaemon]

I'm not saying that there was jury tampering. I'd be more likely to believe it if the kid was the son of the defendant than of the prosecutor. But if I were the defense attorney, I'd be mighty interested to find out if, for instance, the juror was facebook friends with any of the other jurors, when those relationships were established (did she go and search everyone else on the jury and try and add them to her facebook friends?), etc. Even if there weren't grounds for a mistrial, there might be something worth bringing up on appeal.

Re:Unasked Question

[Arthur Grumbine]

With the advances in facial recognition software, and the plethora of identifying/labeled photos on the web, it's only a matter of time before 90+% of people (in developed countries) will be able to be identified by anyone with a smartphone (think Google-Goggles-for-faces app). Because of Facebook members posting and labeling pics of non-Facebook-members, you don't even have to participate in order to be easily identifiable.

Re:Unasked Question

[saforrest]

I find it hard to believe no one is asking exactly why the defendants son is creeping around looking up jurors from his father's trial on Facebook.

For all we know the juror in question mentioned the defendant's name in her FB post and it came up when the kid was Googling the defendant's name.

Re:Unasked Question

[pclminion]

I find it disturbing that anyone in the courtroom (or associated with the process) even knows the names of the jurors.

Conspiracy theorist, much? Given this person's demonstrated propensity for publishing highly identifiable bullshit on the Internet, it's quite possible that somebody found the posting by searching for the defendant's name, not the juror's name. For all we know she also posted "HAHA, I got selected for jury duty on that asshole John Doe!" Google for your own client's name and you'd find it.

Re:Unasked Question

[Violet Null]

When I served jury duty in the US courts, lawyers on both sides were given your name, address, and the answers you gave to a brief questionnaire.

When prospective jury members were being questioned in the voie dire, the lawyers addressed the prospective jury members by their last names ("Mrs. Jones, are you now or have you ever been a member...", etc).

Re:Unasked Question

[kent_eh]

I find it disturbing that anyone in the courtroom (or associated with the process) even knows the names of the jurors.

Conspiracy theorist, much?

Fine, you sit on a jury against a high ranking Hells angels member and see how comfortable you are having your name known to their associates after you hand down a guilty verdict...
The transcript of the entire trial is available after the end of the trial. (Even in the rare instance of a coverage blackout during the trial)
The only thing not part of the record is the names of the jurors, who quietly go back to their lives after the trial, hoping that the scumbag that they put in jail (or a freaked out relative of the plaintiff if the verdict was not-guilty) shouldn't have an easy time tracking them down.
Sure, it's not the most likely outcome, but why take the chance?

Re:Unasked Question

[kent_eh]

In the Canadian system, all prospective jurors were given a number, and only addressed by that.
The lawyers could ask a few questions if they chose, and each had the opportunity of rejecting 3 (IIRC) prospective jurors.
Keeping the identities of the jurors secret is intended to prevent jury tampering and intimidation by the parties in the trial. A good motivation, I believe.

Re:Unasked Question

[pclminion]

I didn't say the names of the jurors should be handed out, I mean there is probably a less paranoid explanation for how the prosecutor managed to find the FaceBook page.

Re:Unasked Question

[BitZtream]

Uhm, first off, it was the lawyers son, not the defendants.

Second, I promise you any time I have to fight a legal battle, I make sure I'm armed with the most information I can possibly find.

IF you AREN'T digging up information on the people you're fighting against, you are an idiot and deserve what you get.

The fact that the lawyers son was doing it, to me, means the lawyer was doing his/her freaking job.

You know how you don't give away information on the Internet ... you don't fucking put it there. When you plaster yourself all over the Internet by putting yourself on Facebook you deserve to be euthanized if you don't realize what that means ... that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD, GOOD OR BAD MAY SEE IT.

Let me say it one more time. If you don't want information to fall into the worst possible hands ... DON'T PUT IT ON PUBLIC COMPUTERS AND WAVE YOUR RIGHTS TO EVER HAVE IT TAKEN DOWN.

Facebook users are retarded anyway.

The problem with jurors

[srussia]

Those that get picked, in many cases, were not smart enough to get themselves dismissed during jury selection.

Re:The problem with jurors

[clone53421]

Or had a bone to pick.

Re:The problem with jurors

[hsmith]

Here is the real problem, Lawyers pick out those they don't think are good "fits" - aka those with more than half a god damned brain. They want dumb jurors and it is what we get. I wouldn't want to be judged by random people, our society is too stupid.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Stiletto]

I have no problem with a truly random distribution of jurors, but the lawyers always skew the distribution towards dumb and impressionable.

Re:The problem with jurors

[kent_eh]

Those that get picked, in many cases, were not smart enough to get themselves dismissed during jury selection.

Or understand the concept of duty better than you seem to.

As in the phrase "jury duty"

Re:The problem with jurors

[slapout]

No, the problem is people don't want to do their duty and serve on juries. But if they were on trial, they'd want good people on the jury.

Re:The problem with jurors

[panda]

Having gone for jury duty in two states, I can tell you that what you say is not always the case.

I served on a jury in Kentucky in 1999 or so, and the other jurors struck me as intelligent, level-headed people. We were there to do our civic duty and we did it well, I think. We returned our verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. That is what was asked of us and that *is* what we did.

Fast forward about 8 to 10 years and I was called to jury duty in Massachusetts. I was saddened by the number of people deliberately lying in an effort to get out of jury duty. What I saw were a bunch of selfish, self-centered consumers, rather than citizens who were willing to do their civic duty to at least attempt to preserve the notion of a fair trial in this country.

My number was called and I sat in the box. The attorneys have the right to strike jurors for any reason. I was called to the bench to answer questions about my previous jury service and about a past experience as a witness in a trial. I answered those questions as truthfully as I could given the amount of time that had elapsed since either had occurred. One of the attorneys decided to strike me based on my answers to those questions, or perhaps for some other reason. (Ironically, I "got out of" jury duty faster than the people who were lying about knowing something about the case, or being biased, etc.)

It sickens me when I hear people say things like "too dumb to get out of jury duty." That attitude has contributed to the decline of the criminal justice system in the USA. It's not the only factor, of course, but it is part of the problem when people do not want to participate in something that is vital to freedom in our country.

Re:The problem with jurors

[westlake]

Those that get picked, in many cases, were not smart enough to get themselves dismissed during jury selection.

The American jury is typically middle-aged, middle-class, small-C conservative.

They are civic-minded and responsible people. They believe in the law - and they do not weasel out of commitments and obligations they think are important.

If you go into court thinking you are smarter than the jury you are going to get your sorry ass pounded into the marble flooring.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Anonymous Cowpat]

perhaps if juries were not treated with the contempt which they are (this case is not a prime example, but it is a partial one), people may be less eager to try and get out of it.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Anonymous Cowpat]

duty - the reason you give when you haven't got an actual reason.

Re:The problem with jurors

[DragonWriter]

The one criminal jury I was on had a pretty good cross-section in terms of education and experience. As I recall, only one potential jurors was removed: one who had previously served on a jury that failed to reach a verdict.

They want dumb jurors and it is what we get.

Each side in a jury trial wants jurors that are as well disposed as possible to their side, and has an incentive to remove jurors that they feel will be unreceptive to the arguments that they plan to use. Additionally, either side (and often both sides) have an interest in the jury actually reaching a verdict. Aside from the strong evidence of bias needed for a removal for cause, they have a limited number of peremptory challenges that they may use to accomplish this, which limits their ability to shape juries.

Aside from the potential shared interest in reaching a verdict, these interests are generally directly opposed, so where one party has an interest in removing intelligent potential jurors, the other party would generally have an interest in removing less-intelligent members of the jury pool, though I don't think its really that common where that would be a factor, anyway.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently, I was not selected in a jury trial but I wished I would have been. Too many of the potentials had been "educated" by Law & Order, or other courtroom dramas.

Here is the premise: A man stabs his wife 14 times using 2 knives and a fork. I dont say allegedly because he did do it, he admitted it, he called the police when it was over to tell them she was dead. She was not dead, but went to the hospital where she later died.

The case was between the prosecution (claiming 1st degree, premeditated murder), and the defense (claiming 2nd degree murder). Even after being described what the difference was, most of the potential jurors were under the thought that, if he was found "not guilty" of 1st degree murder, he would do no jail time. In reality, if the defense "wins" this case, he serves for 2nd degree murder instead of 1st. Even before being selected, many had already sided with the prosecution, because "murder is murder, and he already said he did it."

The defense ran out of picks, and the prosecution did not use all of theirs, so I was 2 picks short of being selected. I wish I would have, as I feel many that did get selected weren't going to give him a fair trial as it was. Until proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the defendant was guilty of 2nd degree murder, for which he confessed to. It burns me up to this day that many many many people felt it was the burden of the defense to prove that it wasn't 1st degree murder, and that is NOT how the justice system is supposed to work.

I really wish that they taught this crap in school, Americans are getting dumber by the day.

Re:The problem with jurors

[DeskLazer]

as the poster below had mentioned, jurors aren't exactly helped out. let me give you an example:

here in pittsburgh, I believe they pay you $8-9 dollars per day to serve on jury. great, you're serving justice, and they're only paying you $1 an hour, but hey, it could be worse. but then, you're not getting paid for your regular job. not a problem if you're making decent money/salary, but it would be if you're getting paid hourly. you're not getting compensated for time not spent at your job, fair.

you take the bus/train into jury duty. out of that $8-9 you're getting, about $3-4 is spent on public transport [and with the new rate hikes, it'll be closer to $5]. "fuck it," you say. "I'll park near the courthouse." guess what. parking is ridiculous out here. you will be unable to get parking for under $8 for a full day, although you're looking more like $10-12.

"shit! I forgot my lunch!" you exclaim. nearby, most lunch places [unless you REALLY love mcdonald's] will cost you at LEAST $5 for a lunch.

I wouldn't mind serving on a jury if I was called about it. but then again, I'm doing pretty okay financially. tell that to joe schmoe working for $8/hr and see how he feels about it [no pay from his job for the day, and spending more money than he earns on the days he's serving on jury]. that is why most people try to get out of it. solutions? how about a transit pass for the days you have to serve? or free parking at the courthouse? just food for thought for our legal system.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Rich0]

Ok, look at it from the standpoint of a juror.

The lawyers are paid to be there. The judge is paid to be there. The jurors are paid like $5 per day or some crazy amount to be there. Why would I spend a week working for 50 cents a day?

Sure, maybe my employer will keep paying me. But, guess what, I have projects to complete, and they have to be done on time. Nobody cares if I take a week vacation or a week of jury duty or whatever. However, projects still need to be done on time. If I spend a week in a jury box, that means I spend a week of my OWN TIME catching up. So, either way I'm not compensated for that time.

Jurors should be paid based on their annual income on a weekday per-diem basis. There are 52*5 weekdays in a year, so divide annual salary by that number of days, and that is what you get paid to be there. Employers should be required to continue to pay salaried employees for their time on jury duty as well - they aren't hourly. Exceptions can be made for long-duration trials (where reduced pay could be permitted), if the employer carefully documents that all employee responsibilities were adjusted to account for the lost time.

Suddenly maybe people wouldn't have so much disdain for jurors...

Re:The problem with jurors

[robot256]

That may be the case, but then we are in a vicious downward cycle. How do you expect the contempt for juries to subside if qualified people continue to avoid jury duty? You are left with no one but nincompoops and they simply draw further criticism. The only solution is to stand up for the Constitution and do your duty regardless of public opinion (just like the rest of the judicial system).

Re:The problem with jurors

[srussia]

Or understand the concept of duty better than you seem to. As in the phrase "jury duty"

Oh I understand what the state's concept of "duty" is: conscription. You know, like the draft, and the "Voluntary" National Service. If you feel you gotta, go for it!

Re:The problem with jurors

[Nimey]

This. I'm financially secure enough that I can afford to serve on a jury (I'm on standby for jury duty until 31 Oct, in fact), but it's not fair to force someone making minimum wage who's on the edge of poverty to essentially pay to be a juror. Gods help them if it's a notorious enough trial that they're sequestered for a long while.

I'd halfway expect to be preemptively challenged anyway, because I'm educated/smart enough to not be easily bullshitted by the lawyers.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Lakitu]

Care to explain how you knew the other potential jurors were lying?

Re:The problem with jurors

[Zenaku]

Aside from the potential shared interest in reaching a verdict, these interests are generally directly opposed, so where one party has an interest in removing intelligent potential jurors, the other party would generally have an interest in removing less-intelligent members of the jury pool, though I don't think its really that common where that would be a factor, anyway.

You said it yourself, lawyers want jurors who will be amenable to their arguments -- often that means both sides have in interest in removing intelligent, critically thinking jurors in favor of those who can be more easily persuaded by misdirection and logical fallacies.

Re:The problem with jurors

[infinite9]

I was saddened by the number of people deliberately lying in an effort to get out of jury duty.

Could it be, possibly, that those people couldn't afford to be away from work for jury duty? Our society creates a bunch of people barely making it paycheck to paycheck, then wonders why they're not willing to take time off from work to do their civic duty.

Re:The problem with jurors

[sanosuke001]

You shouldn't try to get out of jury duty. If you're an intelligent person, you should be there fighting for objectivity. Honestly, aside from removing people for knowing someone involved with the case or emergency issues (hospitalization, out of the country, etc) then you should be required to participate. The prosecution/defense should have zero say in what jurors are chosen; how is that fair? Also, if you knew you couldn't get out of it, people might take it more seriously.

Re:The problem with jurors

[gknoy]

I have projects to complete, and they have to be done on time. Nobody cares if I take a week vacation or a week of jury duty or whatever. However, projects still need to be done on time. If I spend a week in a jury box, that means I spend a week of my OWN TIME catching up. So, either way I'm not compensated for that time.

If your employer does not adjust project planning and your personal deadlines to reflect you doing your legally required duty, you're working for the wrong people. If they fire you for not completing stuff while you're on jury duty, would that be able to be considered wrongful termination?

Re:The problem with jurors

[DaFallus]

Just because you don't understand why people attempt to avoid jury duty doesn't make them any more selfish than you. Right out of college I was working a crappy job with hourly pay. If I didn't work, I wouldn't get paid. In Texas your employer is not required to pay you for days missed because of jury duty, they just can't fire you. I was part of a jury pool once which meant I had to drive to downtown Houston and find my way to the Harris County court house. If you have ever been to Houston you will understand that if you don't live inside the 610 loop, your only options for getting downtown is to drive yourself or triple your travel time by attempting to take the bus. There are parking garages for the court house which are fairly reasonable at around $6 for the day. So I had to miss a day of work, without pay, to drive downtown and pay $6 for parking in order to fulfill my civic duty and received a check for $6.50 for the effort. Luckily it was only one day of work and I didn't get selected, probably because I said I have no idea how to quantify someone's pain and suffering and convert that to a dollar amount. If I had been selected and had to serve on that jury for a week or more I would have been broke and homeless. Then there is the entire jury pooling process with the rude courthouse clerks and how they basically make you waste an entire day just sitting around waiting.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Cro Magnon]

If they fire you for not completing stuff while you're on jury duty, would that be able to be considered wrongful termination?

No, we didn't fire you because you were on jury duty. We were about to fire you anyway. Honest!

Re:The problem with jurors

[DragonWriter]

You said it yourself, lawyers want jurors who will be amenable to their arguments -- often that means both sides have in interest in removing intelligent, critically thinking jurors in favor of those who can be more easily persuaded by misdirection and logical fallacies.

No, what I said doesn't mean that at all, unless you assume that each attorney thinks that their argument will be less convincing to intelligent, critically-thinking jurors than their opponent's argument.

While this combination of perceptions is possible, its only possible if at least one attorney underestimates the soundness of their own arguments or overestimates the soundness of the arguments likely to be used against them, which is exactly the opposite of what both are likely to do.

 

Re:The problem with jurors

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Jury duty in my state pays $10 a day. I am self-employed and when billing, normally make that much in about 8 and a half minutes.

U make that legally?

Re:The problem with jurors

[Rich0]

What employer would tell you WHY they are firing you? They just fire you. At most they would just say they don't require your services. Giving a reason is just giving a potential plaintiff ammo.

If I were in jury duty for a few days it wouldn't be the end of the world. Ditto for taking a week or two vacation. However, it does add up. At the end of the year, do you want to be the guy who got the most done, or the guy with the best reasons for not getting much done?

Re:The problem with jurors

[don.g]

Ah, how wonderful it is to live in a country with actual employment laws, where you can't fire people without a reason. Ok so our government is trying to weaken this but they're not doing as well as they'd like.

But then I take all my annual leave every year -- and I work four days a week, happily taking the 20% pay cut this entails. The choice you present is a false dichotomy; I want to be the guy who is happy.

Re:The problem with jurors

[selven]

Basic statistics, I assume? The chance that the majority of 12 people have had prior contact with one of less than a hundred is vanishingly small.

Re:The problem with jurors

[Anonymous Cowpat]

no, I mean the contempt with which the courts treat 'sacred' juries.

This case is a partial example:

You are asked to do some work. You will not be paid, you may have to show up at different hours and substantially further from home than you may otherwise be going to your normal job (if you're unemployed you may be working without pay instead of having free time without pay, if you work nights, you may find yourself having to both show part time to your job AND jury service). Even when you do show up, you may have to sit around for hours on end, occasionally being asked impertinent questions by people deciding if they want you there at all, this may result in you spending several days sitting around and actually accomplishing nothing. If you speak out of turn, don't wear appropriate clothing, do your job badly (which may merely be because you're not cut out for the work being asked of you), or talk to anyone else about the work you're doing, (or a whole raft of other things) you can be berated as a matter of public record, fined, or even imprisoned without trial on the whim of a man (or woman) who is essentially taking it personally.

Why WOULDN'T you try to get out of that?

With the exception of the wider principle - in the unlikely event that you find yourself on trial some day, you'd like a jury - there really is no up side to jury service.
Ergo, people try to avoid it. (That's why, elsewhere commenting on this story, I've described it as 'doing society a favour'.)

Unasked because it's a stupid question

[clone53421]

Maybe because he wants to make sure his dad gets a fair trial?

Re:Unasked because it's a stupid question

[BobMcD]

Maybe because he wants to make sure his dad gets a fair trial?

Or maybe because he wants to make sure he is threatening and intimidating the right family members?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Anyway, luckily for us the premise is false, as it was the lawyer's son who was likely simply picked for being 'better at the internet'...

Re:Unasked because it's a stupid question

[clone53421]

Threatening and intimidating the jury is a great way to get jailtime, if that’s what you’re after...

Doing a bit of research to ensure that the jury isn’t biased, on the other hand, is not “threatening” or “intimidating” them... any more than taking pictures of cops is “threatening” or “intimidating”. It’s their job. They’re working for you. You’re making sure they’re doing the job. Problem, officer?

Re:Unasked because it's a stupid question

[BobMcD]

What about taking pictures of their homes and/or family?

You left it open ended, and implied that until your motives are known, your behavior can't reasonably be suspicious...

Re:Unasked because it's a stupid question

[clone53421]

Still not threatening, though at that point you’re bordering on behaviour that could get you a talking-to from someone who’s interested in researching you.

One Aspect Was Bound to Happen But Not the Other

[eldavojohn]

You know, with how pervasive social networking is these days, and how poorly educated a lot of the public seems to be about how the legal system works, I have to say that I am surprised that this has not happened sooner. It was bound to happen eventually. Personally, i think that the punishment should be a little steeper than 250$ and an essay. This is the sort of behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud, set a proper example, and really show that this sort of thing will not be tolerated.

Bad: A juror talking about a trial outside of the trial.

Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.

The bad part was "bound to happen" but not even giving the accused a chance to explain their side of the story? That should never be "bound to happen." And that fundamental issue with how a 'fair trial' should happen in the United States, I think that's why the essay was ordered.

Common problem of jury based justice

[AtomicJake]

That a juror has already formed his opinion before the end of the trial is a common problem in all jury based law systems. A system with (multiple) full-time judges avoid some of those errors, but opens another can of worms.

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[delinear]

The issue is having the jurors and the accused even in the same physical location. Seriously, if we're expecting people to make judgments based on voice modulation and body language, we should get experts in body language and voice analysis to sit on juries. If we're expecting a judgment on the vanilla facts without any prejudice on the appearance of the accused, remove the accused and leave the facts. People will still make up their minds before all the evidence is heard of course, but at least it will be on the basis of some kind of evidence, not just that "I don't like the look of him".

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[goodmanj]

A system with (multiple) full-time judges avoid some of those errors, but opens another can of worms.

*shudder*. Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[gfreeman]

"I didn't kill the victim"

vs.

"I didn't kill the victim" (wink, wink!)

People lie all the time, and jurors don't need to be "experts in body language and voice analysis" to spot when someone's body language and tone of voice makes them a likely liar. I bet YOU make assumptions based on something other than what is actually said.

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[hedwards]

To be honest that's probably the thing about my one time on jury duty that I'm the most proud of. Finishing deliberations, the results were nothing like what I would've expected going into it. Perhaps the fact that it was a civil trial rather than criminal and that we just had to go with the preponderance of evidence and didn't need unanimous consent to reach an agreement.

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[Hatta]

jurors don't need to be "experts in body language and voice analysis" to spot when someone's body language and tone of voice makes them a likely liar.

Lying makes people nervous. Being on trial also makes people nervous. Just because you're nervous doesn't mean you're a liar.

I bet YOU make assumptions based on something other than what is actually said.

I'm not on a jury.

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[gfreeman]

Lying makes SOME people nervous. I am sure you know people who can lie better than others.

Are you saying that if you were on a jury, you would not take into account anything other than the WORDS that were spoken? If you read the transcript of a court case, it can be misleading if you don't take into account the context. If a judge can be affected by a witness's tone, why not a jury?

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[Hatta]

I wouldn't put much credit in the words that are spoken at all. Even an honest eyewitness is horribly unreliable. It is always reasonable to doubt an eyewitness. If the physical evidence is insufficient to prove guilt, I'd have to vote not guilty.

Re:Common problem of jury based justice

[Culture20]

One might say FB and texting helped in this case because the juror in question was exposed. Maybe if each juror was allowed to blog to the outside without input from the outside, there would be a way to track juror bias.

What's wrong with this?

[imthesponge]

She thought he was guilty. Big deal. Isn't that what jurors are supposed to do?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[clone53421]

Jurors aren’t supposed to think, they’re supposed to know. And how exactly can you know until you’ve heard both sides of the case?

Re:What's wrong with this?

[whisper_jeff]

Jurors aren't supposed to have made up their minds until they've heard all the details of the case. They are supposed to enter the process with an open mind. Thinking the a person is guilty before even hearing the defense is the height of not having an open mind.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[imthesponge]

She could have changed her mind after hearing the defense.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[imthesponge]

Isn't that the idea? The juror first thinks the person is guilty, and then they hear the other side and can change their mind.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[clone53421]

And what – posted a comment on the status update? or maybe another status update would have been more appropriate...

Why the fuck was she talking about the trial?! If nothing else, it’s a good way to bias yourself and a terrible way to make an unbiased decision.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Reilaos]

"gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY."

Hmm. Nope.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[imthesponge]

I don't know - but the judge was punishing her for having an opinion, not just for talking about the trial.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[imthesponge]

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.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[clone53421]

The judge was punishing her for talking about her opinion – ideally we’d like to punish her for having it, but that’d be difficult if she didn’t talk about having it.

And, as other people pointed out slightly more explicitly than I had tried to imply, having an opinion and changing it is a little more likely if you didn’t broadcast the opinion for the world to see.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[kevinNCSU]

They are supposed to wait until all evidence has been presented before passing judgment and certainly not supposed to talk about the case. She posted that she was going to announce a guilty verdict before the defense even stated any of their case.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[DragonWriter]

She thought he was guilty. Big deal. Isn't that what jurors are supposed to do?

Juries aren't supposed to make that determination until the presentation of evidence is complete, aren't supposed to express an opinion on it to other jurors until deliberations begin, and aren't supposed to express an opinion on it to anyone else until the verdict is announced. All of these are important -- the importance of the not expressing opinions parts is largely to avoid jurors feeling committed to an idea that they have expressed so as to avoid having to reverse themselves in light of (if before the end of trial) the evidence presented or (if before the end of jury deliberations) the deliberations in the jury room.

So, no, what she did -- which goes beyond thinking he was guilty -- is very much not what jurors are supposed to do.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[natehoy]

As a juror, you can "THINK" anything you want. That's fine. But a posting "I'm looking forward to telling the defendant he is guilty" when only the prosecution has had time to present their case is not THINKING. It's reaching a conclusion, and stating it in public, before the evidence has been examined. That's precisely, exactly, 100% the epitome of what jurors are NOT supposed to do.

The prosecution lays out their evidence, then the defense lays out their evidence and has the opportunity to examine and refute the prosecution's evidence. During that process, some or all of the prosecution's case may be destroyed (or may not). At the end, both the prosecution and defense make closing statements, which allow then one last chance to summarize what is left of their respective cases.

Until the defense has had an opportunity to fully respond to the accusation, the juror should not be in the position of concluding that the defendant is guilty. They may have their own internal opinion about it, but their job while a juror is to really listen to the defense and see if the defense can adequately explain away or refute the prosecution's evidence. If the defense fails to do this, then they vote "GUILTY" in the trial. Once the verdict is read and the jurors are released from duty, they are then free to talk about the trial to anyone they want. Until that time, they are constantly reminded to keep their mouth shut outside the jury deliberation room and their eyes, ears, and mind open while in the courtroom.

Boring as hell? You betcha. Damn it's mind-numbingly dull. But it's one of the duties we have as citizens - protecting the rights of our fellow citizens. It's very similar to military service in that regard.

If we are accused of a crime, we have the right to a trial. Guilt or innocence in that trial is decided by people who are supposed to be impartial strangers who look at the evidence with as little bias as is humanly possible. That right is supported by the jury system, and the jurors who are drafted into service to perform this duty. The inconvenience and hassle we pay to occasionally be called for jury duty is part of the price of freedom - it ensures that your accuser cannot also decide your guilt or innocence. They have to convince a room full of people.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[bnenning]

ideally we’d like to punish her for having it

Please remove me from your list of advocates of thoughtcrime.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Cwix]

For having an opinion before the defense had a change to plead his case.

She formed her opinion too early, which is wrong.
She discussed the case, which is wrong.
She posted the message on facebook, which isnt wrong but kinda stupid.

She flippantly decided to view only one side of the case, she was willing to send a person to jail without hearing their side. Hell I think she should spend a weekend in the county lockup, and perhaps she will learn what a serious thing it is to take away someones freedom, and how you have to be ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE your doing the right thing before you do that.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[clone53421]

It’s true. Jurors are legally obligated to think in a certain way: reasonably and without unjust bias.

That said, I am absolutely opposed to any semblance of thoughtcrime and people should be punished for the effects of their actions, not for their thoughts or motives. This doesn’t make their thoughts or motives necessarily right or okay... it just means that thoughts and motives don’t cause actual harm if they aren’t carried out and people shouldn’t be punished for them.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

No. Because in civilized countries, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[davev2.0]

The problem is that she is required to keep an open mind during the entire case. The juror had decided the defendant was guilty before the prosecution had rested and the defense had presented its case.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[clone53421]

You could change your mind, but then you’d look stupid, which biases you toward maintaining the conclusion you jumped to before you knew all of the facts. Jurors aren’t supposed to be biased.

Re:What's wrong with this?

[sjames]

Not until they've heard both sides of the case. The defense hadn't even spoken yet when she posted that.

There's a lesson in here

[Drakkenmensch]

People need to learn that typing random stuff on your facebook page amounts to public confession, and will lead the authorities to your door for a lot of crap you thought you'd get away with.

Re:There's a lesson in here

[tsstahl]

People need to learn that typing random stuff on your facebook page amounts to public confession, and will lead the authorities to your door for a lot of crap you thought you'd get away with.

Don't soft pedal it; posting on Facebook IS a public confession. I can't think of a more public confession outside of renting the Goodyear blimp on Super Bowl Sunday.

Heh

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Nope, irony isn't steely with less carbon..

The letter of the law

[vmxeo]

The Judge demanded she write a 5 page paper, but didn't make any mention of what size font was required.

I'd write that 5 pages...

in 72pt...

comic sans

Just sayin'...

Re:The letter of the law

[clone53421]

I'd write that 5 pages...

in 72pt...

comic sans

Just sayin'...

In the immortal words of Dirty Harry (okay, paraphrased slightly)...

“Do you feel lucky, punk?
Well...?
DO YOU?”

In the slightly-less-immortal words of me...

Try it – I think pretty much everyone would benefit from the result.

Re:The letter of the law

[cdrguru]

Yup and trying that will get you 1 point for cleverness and a night in the local lockup.

Computers may require everything to be completely described in infinite detail. To some extent, it is the goal of computer languages to minimize this burden. Ascribing the requirement for computers to human interaction is the mark of ... well, they don't call this place news for nerds for nothing.

Re:The letter of the law

[Abcd1234]

And then get charged for contempt of court and thrown in jail, as she should've been originally.

Yeah. Good plan!

Re:The letter of the law

[vmxeo]

Sorry, I should have wrapped that comment in facetious tags. Of course doing that would land oneself in jail faster than you can say the words "contempt of court".

Then again, we are talking about an average FaceBook user here, so maybe the judge should just be happy it isn't typed in all caps.

Happens all the time.

[maillemaker]

Many times enough information is presented that you can make an accurate inference before all the information is presented.

And it turns out this juror was correct - the person she thought was guilty was, in fact, found guilty.

Re:Happens all the time.

[clone53421]

Can but shouldn’t. Jumping to the correct conclusion is right every time... except it’s wrong by definition.

Re:Happens all the time.

[mounthood]

Being right is not the same as knowing. To know something involves the reasoning/intuition/process by which you gained the knowledge. If you guess the roulette spin you might be right, but you don't know.

It might seem pedantic to point that out, but it really gets to the heart of the issue: the jury isn't there to simply render the right verdict, but to reach the right verdict. If we could build software that agreed with the jury 99% of the time, would it be OK to eliminate the jury and be tried by software?

Re:Happens all the time.

[natehoy]

When only the accuser has had the time to speak, there is no way anyone can legitimately claim that they have enough information.

Yes, it turns out that the juror was correct. That doesn't mean that jurors are allowed to make conclusions before the defense has had their fair chance to speak, or that publicly stating that conclusion is somehow acceptable if that conclusion happens to turn out to be correct.

The juror's duty is to listen to and understand all of the evidence, both from the prosecution and the defense, and weigh that evidence, then decide guilt or innocence.

This juror listened to the prosecution (who is, by law, biased against the defendant) and made her conclusion based on that evidence alone, and stated her conclusion in public. She closed her mind and opened her mouth. Jurors are supposed to close their mouth and open their minds.

Re:Happens all the time.

[clone53421]

Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. A jurors job is not to jump to the right conclusion, it is to know the right conclusion because of the process of the trial that was supposed to lead to that right conclusion.

At least she posted on facebook

[Sir_Sri]

For all of it's faults, at least she posted on facebook, and she was caught. I'm sure lots of jurors over the centuries have made up their minds well before they should, anything that removes them from the process can't be all bad.

Re:At least she posted on facebook

[BobMcD]

For all of it's faults, at least she posted on facebook, and she was caught. I'm sure lots of jurors over the centuries have made up their minds well before they should, anything that removes them from the process can't be all bad.

I don't know about your mind, but mine is always working and I have yet to find a way to shut it off. I'm always drawing conclusions subconsciously, and am always revising them over and over again based on new information. For her to have come out of the first half of the case with conclusions drawn means only that she was paying attention. Were she to have a truly open mind, we'd be looking at a case so weak that it probably shouldn't have gone to court without more evidence.

In essence, the oath being broken is somewhat moot, because that's simply not how human brains seem to operate.

Now she should have kept this a secret, should have remained open to new information, should have been ready to participate in deliberation, etc.

But to assert that she should refrain from thinking and drawing conclusions is patently absurd.

You can't handle the truth

[Fuseboy]

Given recent articles about snap decisions (apparently deciding if you think a gal's hot, or your emotional reaction to a web site both take a fraction of a second), perhaps all this woman was doing was revealing an uncomfortable truth about the justice system. Could it be that jurors reach their decision in the first few minutes (or less) and everything that follows just loads them up with ammunition to form their rationalizations?

Don't people know all defendants are guilty...

[filesiteguy]

...period?

I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them. :P

Re:Don't people know all defendants are guilty...

[BobMcD]

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?

Re:Don't people know all defendants are guilty...

[filesiteguy]

Valid point.

In addition - and I know we're going off topic here - unless you have a lot of money, you're going to be stuck with an overworked public defender who really won't care what happens to you.

I have worked with the courts in several California counties - Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange.

In all cases, the attorney general is well-funded and staffed with very sharp lawyers. Conversely, the public defender is under-funded. (I don't want to say the attorneys are of less quality, just that they are down-trodden because of the caseload and funding.)

Re:Don't people know all defendants are guilty...

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I've got a really good solution to that. Mandate that the budget for the public defender's office is identical to that of the AGs office.

Re:You like this.

[jdpars]

Comment: OMG I knew she was guilty. You go for putting that ***** behind bars!

72pt comic sans

[Primitive Pete]

...would earn you contempt of court. Just sayin'...

Re:Wow, just wow.

[imthesponge]

He could have put her in jail. A fine is a slap on the wrist.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[billius]

$250 fine. First class, well done. You hit back at someone doing you a favour when they do a bad job. *clap clap clap*.

What a self-important moron this judge is.

A favor? They call it "jury duty" for a reason. Under the 6th Amendment, every US Citizen has the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury and it is the duty of all citizens to help provide for this right. Obviously the devil is in the details when it comes to finding a truly impartial jury, but it's a pretty obvious (and serious!) breach of decorum and a complete abandonment of duty to post "gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY" on Facebook for crying out loud. If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was make up an extreme point of view on something and she would have been dismissed. She was letting down all parties involved in the case and all of her fellow citizens by doing this. I bet if she ever got in trouble with the law, she'd want a juror absent of anyone make snide comments about her on Facebook.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Jerry Rivers]

Pfft. Jail, yeah that'll teach her...how to become a criminal. She gets a creative sentence and all you can think about it is jail.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[dotfile]

Ummm, no. He slapped someone with a fine for violating very specific instructions (not to mention the law), and for causing problems and needless expense and delay for the defendant, attorneys, and other jurors.

It's not like Jons just offered to serve on a jury out of the goodness of her heart, had no instructions about how she had to do her job and got fined for an innocent mistake. She was called upon to do her civic duty - as any citizen can be. She received specific instructions about the hows and whys of serving on a jury. Then she apparently decided to ignore the instructions, and that her ability to post whatever crap wandered through her head on Facebook was more important than the right of the defendant to a fair trial.

Bra-vo. Good show. Kudos to the judge for not only giving her a proportionate fine, but for also giving her some more meaningful work to do so she understands WHY what she did was bone-headed and wrong.

What?

[jamrock]

$250 fine. First class, well done. You hit back at someone doing you a favour when they do a bad job. *clap clap clap*. What a self-important moron this judge is.

Why is this judge a "self-important moron"? For doing her job? And how was the juror doing her a favor by perverting the course of justice?

I don't know whether this was a failed attempt at humor, or just a knee-jerk reaction from another anti-authoritarian idiot. Probably both.

It's not a criminal conviction

[davidwr]

Contempt of court is typically not a criminal conviction. It can land you in jail for the duration of the contempt plus several months or years depending on the state.

But it carries no criminal record.

Criminal contempt of court on the other hand does result in a criminal record. However, this requires a full-blown trial and the defendant has just as much of a right to a jury as any similarly serious crime.

Re:It's not a criminal conviction

[tomhudson]

Contempt of court is typically not a criminal conviction. It can land you in jail for the duration of the contempt plus several months or years depending on the state.

But it carries no criminal record.

The longest jail sentence for contempt in a CIVIL proceeding in the United States was 14 years in a divorce case . This isn't some old case - he was finally let out of jail last year.

Then again, Chadwick was a lawyer - and I can get behind the idea that more lawyers should be behind bars rather than practicing at the bar.

Re:One Aspect Was Bound to Happen But Not the Othe

[anyGould]

Really, insanely, horribly, justice pervertingly bad: Being selected as a member for a jury and deciding a person's fate before they or their representation has a chance to present their side of the case.

What she was actually busted for: admitting that she'd already decided the person's fate.

Let's be realistic here - with today's "breaking news" culture, when the news says "Bob was arrested today on charge X" everyone hears "Bob is guilty of charge X". It's sad, but true.

I'm not seeing this as funny

[erroneus]

Jury duty is an extremely important part of our judicial system. Even though various rights about jury duty are effectively denied by judges, it still remains an important aspect of our system. It should not be taken likely. I think the PUNISHMENT for this should actually be to be tried by a jury herself. The result would undoubtedly be "GUILTY" and should strike extremely close to home as to the problems with her approach to this civic responsibility. I have been pretty close to some serious legal situations in the past and while I never actually was in trouble, I felt as if it were a close enough call for me to appreciate and fear our justice system in as much detail as I could consume. (Do you have ANY idea how often divorcing wives like to use accusations molestation as a means to keep custody of the children??? It's a very high percentage... it didn't work in my case and *I* ended up with the children! {So THERE you stupid fucking bitch!})

We have the framework of a very good justice system. The problem is in how the people involved fail to support and work within that framework. We have lazy and often deceitful cops and prosecutors, we have Judges who routinely deny a jury's right to knowledge of Jury nullification and other rights, and of course we have stupid people on every jury. The system will NEVER get cleaned up even if we eliminated the problem of cops/prosecutors and judges.

Re:I'm not seeing this as funny

[selven]

Then stop conscripting jurors. That way the ones that do volunteer will probably know how the system is supposed to work anyway.

You get what you pay for

[sxedog]

My Grandpa used to say: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys".

Sadly that is what the juror system has become.

Re:You get what you pay for

[pclminion]

Not paying has nothing to do with it. I think most people are happy to have a reasonable excuse to take a day off from the daily grind.

If sitting in a courtroom is preferable to sitting at work, then your job REALLY sucks. I can't think of too many places I'd like even less than being in court, and work certainly isn't one of them.

hope you get judged by those scum

[peter303]

When your time comes.
Sounds like true trial by peers then.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[hedwards]

An easy way to get dismissed if one is that opposed to it is to bring up "jury nullification" during voire dire and refuse to promise not to do it.

Re:I wish I could mod you up.

[clone53421]

Yes. They want monkeys.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[taustin]

If I were to ever find out that you, personally, were arrested for a crime you did not commit, and this woman was on your jury, I'd laugh until I peed myself.

change the laws or change your country...

[fantomas]

If you don't like the way it is, you have two other choices: campaign to change the laws regarding jury service, or changing your nationality. I don't think it's hard to leave your US nationality behind - though getting somebody else to accept you, YMMV.

Re:change the laws or change your country...

[Iron Condor]

I don't think it's hard to leave your US nationality behind - though getting somebody else to accept you, YMMV.

I'd be curious to hear how you imagine that would happen.

Losing your citizenship (even intentionally) is anything but a trivial matter. It is certainly NOT as easy as filing a form 27b/6 at the ministry.

Re:change the laws or change your country...

[MoonBuggy]

I've often thought it's a shame that it's so difficult for a group to set up their own country, actually. I can see that it's considered safer for the established nations to just say no, but it does strike me as odd how little the issue is even considered.

Buy a big hunk of land that near enough nobody's living on, maybe in Texas or Australia, sign a few treaties promising not to harbour North Korean missiles or anything like that, maybe add a good-faith clause to further compensate the original land owning nation with a cut of taxes for a decade or two, and you've got somewhere to found your state. All the (exceedingly complicated) issues of governance, taxation and so on are down to whatever consortium is running the whole setup.

Like I said, though, the current land-owning countries would never allow it, however good a case could be put forward.

Re:change the laws or change your country...

[MoonBuggy]

Absolutely - there would definitely be drawbacks, and it'd be necessary to export something that isn't drawn from the site (skills/services/electrical power) in order to fund the importation of general supplies.

Or complain on Slashdot

[clone53421]

You forgot one. ;)

Wait, what?

[zmollusc]

I didn't read the fine article, but if the juror had only heard the prosecution's case and not yet heard the defence, then she SHOULD have thought the accused was guilty. That is what the prosecution is for, surely? The prosecution do their best to convince you of guilt, the defence attempts to convince you of innocence (or at least discredit the prosecution).

Okay, the juror is a dumbass for tweeting about the case.

Re:Wait, what?

[seebs]

If she formed a definite plan as to her verdict without having heard the other side, that's pretty sleazy, and definitely inappropriate. Also, talking about it, definitely prohibited.

Big Brother

[b4upoo]

Just how was this brought to the judge's attention? Were the lawyers spying on the jurors?

Re: Big Brother

[dotfile]

RTFA. Ragu, it's in there.

Re:Oaths or oafs?

[singingjim1]

Wow. I've served on a jury 3 times in my life. It's amazing that I'm capable of typing this right now. I'm guessing you posted what you did just to invite everyone who has ever served on a jury to respond. I'm sure you don't believe that what you posted has any real basis in fact. If you do then you would be the perfect candidate for one of YOUR juries.

Charged with resisting arrest and found guilty

[Diesel Dave]

When do we get to see the Judge's essay?

Doesn't he know that you can't be charged with resisting arrest as a sole charge? It must be based on an otherwise lawful arrest? And that if this was not a lawful arrest, you have a right to resist it?

Precedent?

[outlander78]

Is this a precedent? Does it mean that now anyone who does not want to be on a jury can pay $250, write an essay, and go home early? Many people lose more than $250 in pay while serving, so this may be a cheaper alternative. When I had to serve, I wasn't even picked, but I lost five days of work and had to pay for parking - $250 would have been a cheaper alternative.

A typo?

[franticek]

Should be "You violated your OAuth".

Why?

[Comboman]

Why? Do you want elections to be decided by people forced to participate with no interest in the political process? Do you want to deny fellow citizens the right to abstain from voting if they feel the choice of candidates amounts to no choice at all? All rights are voluntary, or they aren't really rights. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can't be an atheist. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be quiet if you want to. The right to participate in the political process inherently includes the right to choose not to participate. Anything else is fascism.

Re:Why?

[Abcd1234]

Why? Do you want elections to be decided by people forced to participate with no interest in the political process?

Absolutely. If people were forced to vote, at minimum, they would be forced to pay *some* attention to the political process.

Do you want to deny fellow citizens the right to abstain from voting if they feel the choice of candidates amounts to no choice at all?

Then write in a candidate. Or select a third party and give 'em a fighting chance. Or, worst case, run for office yourself.

All rights are voluntary, or they aren't really rights.

Voting isn't simply a right, it's a duty. That's my point.

Anything else is fascism.

So I suppose you feel jury duty is fascism, too, then? Interesting...

Re:Why?

[Shotgun]

Indeed. I wish our voting process was to hand each voter a list of offices followed by a blank line. The poll test would be to write in the candidates name. If you can't correctly spell the name of the candidate you wish to vote for, you obviously haven't done enough research to really know what they stand for, and are to uninformed in matters to be choosing who gets to make the laws.

But, that's just me.

Virtual Reality

[oldmac31310]

I can't help thinking that there a lot of people who don't yet comprehend that stuff they do on the internet is actually part of real life and can have real life consequences.

I do not mean to make excuses for Hadley Jons, but maybe she thought she was just having an online chat with her 'friends'. Maybe she was just clueless rather than malicious. I would like to think this is correct, but I expect not.

Re:Atheists get cut from juries

[mqduck]

Maybe it's because you go around announcing your disbelief in god in courtrooms for no reason.

Re:Wow, just wow.

[B Nesson]

I would lean more toward, "If she really didn't want to be there, all she had to do was live in another country."

Re:Wow, just wow.

[billius]

Indeed, I'm sure she wouldn't mind living in a country where pesky things like trial by jury are done away with ;-)

her photo

[iamhassi]

All these posts and not one mention of her picture?

Here's a link to her photo, and yes she's beautiful

If that article gets /.ed here's a second photo of her

I think she needs more than a $250 fine and a essay. I've paid more than $250 for a traffic violation but what she did was pretty serious, I think a week in jail and the fine would be more appropriate. Our courts have gone very soft.

The reason juries dont work

[bored]

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.

Votes for all

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

One of the reasons is that those that will be punished, taxed, organized, benefitted have to have a say in the process. The Enlightenment slogan "All for the people but without the people" often ends not being for the people and even if it is, it may not get the support of the people. If you have a say (or even think that you have a say), it is more probable that you accept the outcome even if it does not follow your wishes.

Just curious

[wonkavader]

Anybody got any details on the Leann Etchison arrest? Charging someone with resisting arrest, rather than a real crime for which he or she was arrested sounds a lot like charging a person with assaulting a police officer -- ie hitting his billyclub with your head.

The real problem here

[cavebison]

is asking 20-somethings to be jurors. I'm all for giving young people good experiences (no that's not a euphemism) but not at the expense of the law and someone else's future. I was asked up to jury duty when I was 19. A guy had killed someone else in a car accident, we had to decide if he was guilty of culpable driving. The poor guy (not the dead one) looked confused and in shock all the way though. All I remember is thinking, "look at him, he looks scared to death, I can't do this." It was beyond me to take responsibility for that. I didn't know what the sentence would be. I didn't want to send someone to jail.

What happened to the "council of elders" idea? Why not restrict jury duty to people over 30? If you're only 2 years out from having a driver's licence and being allowed to drink, it seems to me that the responsibility of jury duty is a little beyond their understanding. I'd even say we should not inflict such a heavy responsibility on someone so young.

I know what I'm talking about - I've had about 10 years' experience as a 20-something. :)

1st amendment

[Dan541]

So much for freedom of speech.

That sucks

[Fuzzums]

The rest of your life is in the hands of a sucker that only wants to have 2 seconds of fame and power and say "you're guilty!".

Jury duty

[sartin]

Ha... I don't *try* to avoid jury duty, but I've found that after it becomes apparent that you're not a clueless loser, whichever side is planning on trying to pull a fast one will try to get rid of you...

Last time I was called for jury duty, it was a Deceptive Trade Practices Act lawsuit against Ford for a supposedly defective truck. Several years prior, I was preparing Lemon Law and Deceptive Trade Practices Act action against a different company for an accessible van conversion that didn't work as advertised. Neither the plaintiff nor the defense saw any problem with that. After I disclosed it, the only question I got was "Was the matter resolved to your satisfaction?" to which I answered "yes" and was not asked to clarify (the other party, realizing I was about to sue them, paid me back all my costs, including expenses incurred trying to get it fixed and interest paid on the car loan, and took the vehicle back). I wound up being the odd juror out on a 5 to 1 decision (allowed here in Texas on civil matters) for the defendant. My fellow jurors bizarrely found the truck to not be defective, which let them avoid having to answer the other (5?) questions posed to us in the jury instructions. The only evidence offered about that question was the Texas Lemon Law Complaint which had found the truck to be defective and Ford was required to take it back. The decision came at 3:30 PM on Friday afternoon. The other jurors expressed a desire to get home without getting stuck in rush hour or having to come back on Monday. The other juror who was siding with me changed her vote because "they'll probably appeal it anyway."

I am currently exempt from Texas jury duty because I am the primary caregiver for a child under 10.

P.S. The judge was very clear we couldn't talk about deliberations during the trial, but were free to discuss afterwards. As far as I know, there was no appeal.

References:

Texas Jury Size and Use

Texas Exemptions from Jury Service

Re:Wow, just wow.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

why? she'd be dismissed from the jury, they're put in a substitute (or start again) and I'd get a fair trial. I'd be far more worried about being tried by jurors who couldn't mentally compartmentalize not showing themselves before it was over. All this has done is tell jurors, "If you find yourself coming to conclusions before you've heard even half the case; for Pete's sake, don't tell anyone".

Re:Let's be honest...

[Ash-Fox]

You'd throw a woman in jail for being too poor

No, of course not. She'd go into the kitchen, duh.

Re:"too dumb to get out of jury duty."

[Ash-Fox]

I'm an engineer

MSCE doesn't count.