Lawyers Using Facebook Research For Jury Selection

unassimilatible writes "Trial lawyers are increasingly using social networking sites like Facebook to research jurors in real-time during the voir dire process. Armando Villalobos, the district attorney of Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas, last year equipped his prosecutors with iPads to scan the Web during jury selection. But what of the jurors who have their privacy settings restricted to 'friends only?' Mr. Villalobos has thought of a potential workaround: granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily 'friending' his office. Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?"

Comments

That's Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Jurors have no business using wifi while they're serving anyway.

Re:That's Stupid

[WrongSizeGlass]

Jurors have no business using wifi while they're serving anyway.

This is only during voir dire - they're not serving yet. They're being picked over like cattle.

Re:That's Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh. Which is more "fair" in our legal system, a prosecutor or defender who can get intimate and specific details about a potential juror so as to potentially manipulate the outcome, or to accept a jury pretty much randomly?

A "jury of your peers" should not be a studied, exhaustive screening, but a random sampling.

Re:That's Stupid

[CaptSlaq]

Meh. Which is more "fair" in our legal system, a prosecutor or defender who can get intimate and specific details about a potential juror so as to potentially manipulate the outcome, or to accept a jury pretty much randomly?

A "jury of your peers" should not be a studied, exhaustive screening, but a random sampling.

How do you deal with cases like that network admin in California with a randomly selected group of people?

A randomly selected group of people aren't going to understand the nuances of some of the more specialized professions, like IT, unless you define "peers" very narrowly.

Re:That's Stupid

[BrokenHalo]

I'm a bit curious as to how they are supposed to manage this properly. About half a dozen userIDs pop up if I search my own name under Facebook, and I don't even have an account. It doesn't help that most of these don't post a realistic image of themselves.

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

Except of course that's not the goal of the jury selection process as it stands today. The counsels are not trying to get people who are the most qualified, they are trying to eliminate people who they feel are 'biased' against their position. Where 'biased' frequently means 'having any opinions at all'. And since the prosecution tries to dump anybody who might be sympathetic to the defense and the defense tries to dump anybody sympathetic to the prosecution, you're left with a pool of people who are the wishy-washiest, most indecisive, ignorant, unmotivated, etc. people available. It's a sad state of affairs.

Re:That's Stupid

[AndersOSU]

In a large portion of trials, especially high profile cases, there will be some evidence that the average person would not understand. That's what expert witnesses are for, not jury selection.

If you are charged with insider trading, you're not entitled to a jury of accountants, MBAs, and I-bankers. You get the same "average" jury as everyone else. Then both sides call experts who explain the technical details in a way a lay person can understand. There is an art to presenting the "right" amount of technical information so that the jury understands the crime, without becoming bored. So, consequently experts who can explain complicated material to lay persons who may or may not have any interest in the topic without sounding condescending, boring, over the top command very high fees.

Even in mundane cases like "possession with intent to distribute" the words don't always comport to a lay understanding. E.g. "Intent" has very little to do with future plans.

Re:That's Stupid

[kevinNCSU]

Jurors have no business using wifi while they're serving anyway.

This is while they are in selection, before they are serving on a case. Their duties at that point involved sitting there wasting time and being available to answer questions about themselves. There's no reason for them not to be able to use wifi.

Re:That's Stupid

[colinrichardday]

Does the ability of experts to convince jurors of their views have anything to do with the truth of those views? And hey, Slashdot, why am I typing white on white?

Re:That's Stupid

[Imrik]

That or people who actually want to be on the jury and know how to hide their opinions.

Re:That's Stupid

[Chibinium]

The same could be said of any profession and their peers, yet no exception is made for them. To make an exception for "technical" professions vs. the rest, you must define tech. How about Moore's Law: any industry that suffers fast depreciation of its assets is allowed to have a jury of only peers.

IT, certainly.

Doctors? Maybe. The human body hardware hasn't changed for a thousand years, but our knowledge of it does.

Lawyers, politicians, managers? Lawyers still use Black's Law Dictionary after a century, and human concepts of fearmongering and cults are still valid after thousands of years. However, a politician could argue with a straight face that the circumstances, within which he uses these tried-and-true methods, change every second.

Re:That's Stupid

[mbkennel]

"How do you deal with cases like that network admin in California with a randomly selected group of people?

A randomly selected group of people aren't going to understand the nuances of some of the more specialized professions, like IT, unless you define "peers" very narrowly."

In San Francisco? You'll be able to find plenty of people who understand it in a trial. They'll definitely be weeded out.
Prosecution wants the defendant to appear to be an unsympathetic obnoxious nerd.

Re:That's Stupid

[bws111]

I know what you mean. I HATE those wishy-washy, indecisive people who just sit there and let themselves be swayed by 'evidence' and 'testimony'. It just wastes everyone's time. They really should do it right and use a QUALIFIED jury of your PEERS. After all, who would be more qualified to judge a KKK member than other Klan members? If they just did that they could save us all that money that is wasted on trials and such. And of course no-one is more qualified to interpret evidence than the police, so juries should just be made up of all cops, right?

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

Yeah, we can all play the time machine game and pretend it's still a big likelihood to get a whole bunch of racists on a jury. The simple fact is that right now, today, potential jurors are disqualified because they are screened as not going to tow the line of a particular counsel or even the judge. And peep this dawg, actual examples! Holy shit!

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".

The constitution dictates the following regarding juries:
1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2)
2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment)
3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)

In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.

You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.

Re:That's Stupid

[bws111]

I see we are not familiar with the concept of an 'example'. OK, lets try this: Executives accused of fraud should be tried by other executives. Record labels accused of not paying artists should be tried by other record labels. Drunk drivers should be tried by people picked up at the local bar.

So you showed a few examples of abuse. So what? No system is perfect. Why don't you show any of the thousands and thousands of examples where the system works like it should. You want to change a system that works the vast majority of the time to one that never works. Sounds like a great idea.

Re:That's Stupid

[CaptSlaq]

It's worth noting that you have no constitutional right to a jury "of your peers".

The constitution dictates the following regarding juries: 1) Criminal trials must be conducted by jury; (Article 3, Section 2) 2) The right to a "speedy and public trial," by an impartial jury, in addition to some other requirements of the trial; (6th Amendment) 3) Certain federal civil trials (over amounts > $20) guarantee a jury trial; (7th Amendment)

In the ideal sense, a jury of your "peers" would be a random sampling of other citizens - we are all supposed to be equal under the law, and the practice of bringing in "expert juries" is problematic because it could set up protected classes of people for whom specific laws simply don't apply through tacit agreement not to enforce them. Think this could be a problem if a panel of doctors always sit in judgement of malpractice cases, for example? I sure do.

You can argue for a less-invasive voire-dire process, like they have in the UK, where a much stricter justification is required to dismiss a juror, but arguing for expert juries seems like a dangerous road to go down as well. Expert witnesses should be able to explain the issues to lay people. You don't need to know how to perform bypass surgery yourself to understand the facts of a case involving a botched bypass operation. You don't need to know how to construct a routing table on Linux and design a normalized database to be able to understand an issue involving an IT professional refusing to turn over passwords when he is reassigned. Lay people *can* understand these things, and it is the job of the prosecution & defense (along with the expert witnesses they call) to make the facts clear.

Best answer in the thread. Thank you.

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

Your examples are bullshit. A truly random selection would almost never produce results like that, and the infinitesimally few cases where it might would not outnumber the cases of abuse that are currently happening in every jurisdiction every year. Just doing a hand wave of 'no system is perfect' is bullshit, especially when reasonable changes are articulable and implementable with little effort.

(I also think you're confusing my position with CaptSlaq's. I do not advocate 'qualified juries' of people with certain experience. I merely advocate the removal of subjective barriers to juror selection. A potential juror should not be disqualified because they would make a decision a counsel doesn't like given a set of hypotheticals. They should be disqualified only for a limited set of objective qualities like having been convicted of a felony or having been committed to a mental institution or something of similar substance. Not because they simply happen to have an opinion.)

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

He's pointing out that your argument seems to be in favor of a "qualified/export" jury of "peers," and that this is a dangerous road to go down.

If you're ever accused of rape, would you want a jury comprised of rape victims and criminal psychologists, who are, after all, "experts" in the particular domains you're on trial for? Likewise, would it be a fair trial if the jury was comprised only of people who had been accused of rape in the past?

If you ever accuse your doctor of malpractice and negligence, would you want a jury to be comprised only of doctors and nurses? Or, if you were a doctor, would you want to see the jury comprised solely of people who had been victims of medical malpractice in the past?

Want only police officers judging your case against a local police department for police brutality, or people who've been subjected to police brutality judging your case if you're the defendant in that suit?

Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges, and other dismissals MUST be done "for cause" - e.g., a potential juror has displayed a bias or attitude which would interfere with his or her ability to be impartial - the net result is that you should end up with a group of people who are, at the very least, have professed that they can view the facts of the case with an impartial eye.

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

The Constitution is a final authority and a starting point, but it is neither the whole of the law nor even, and more importantly, the whole of Constitutional Law. The Constitution and its Amendments have to be examined in light of each other, and in the light of the whole of case law. The Sixth Amendment, after all, has been greatly affected by the Fourteenth Amendment (which you don't even mention as a Constitutional aspect relating to juries, but such important SCotUS cases as Batson v. Kentucky, Taylor v. Louisiana and Miller-El v. Dretke disagree with your omission. Hell, without Duncan v. Louisiana, the Sixth Amendment wouldn't even be incorporated to apply universally outside of the federal court system). Current Constitutional case law does, in effect, constitute a right to a jury of one's peers as developed by the equal protection clause.

I do, however, concur with the rest of your sentiment. It does remain the role of expert testimony to guide lay jurors and that is a far superior arrangement to an 'expert jury'.

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

Higher standards for voire dire dismissal would certainly be a reasonable thing, but you did seem to be advocating for the notion of "qualified" experts on the jury, as well. I read your initial post that way, it sounds like bws111 also interpreted it that way.

Peremptory challenges aren't an endless process, however - each side generally has a set number of peremptory challenges they can use, and other dismissals must be "for cause" - so, the defense and prosecution both get to remove a few people that they consider likely to be hostile to their case, and then beyond that, they must provide a justification that shows how the juror isn't able to be impartial, and the judge must agree with that assessment.

I'm not sure that your two links to two decisions from 2007 really support your assertion that there's "widespread abuse" going on as a result of the voire-dire process as it stands today --
1) The first is an appellate court decision which remands the case to the trial court for a new trial: in other words, the "abuse" of the voire-dire process was corrected on appeal, and a new trial was ordered. To me, this sounds like the system is absolutely working as designed, and where a court makes an incorrect interpretation of statute, they are overruled on appeal;
2) The second is, again, an appellate decision. In it, several issues are considered, including the dismissal of jurors, in which the defense asserts that several jurors who were dismissed "for cause" should have counted towards peremptory challenges, and that 2 other dismissals should have been disallowed under peremptory dismissal as a result of the defendants' Batson motion. The appeals court disagreed with both of these motions, citing numerous decisions which support the dismissal of the jurors.

So, one decision finds an issue with the juror selection and issues a retrial; another finds no issues, and that the system worked as intended, and in accordance with established precedent. Neither really show that there is some sort of systemic abuse as a result of the voire-dire process.

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

He's pointing out that your argument seems to be in favor of a "qualified/export" jury of "peers," and that this is a dangerous road to go down.

See above.

Suddenly, the "disinterested, wishy-washy, no-opinion" doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Ever heard of the golden mean? Instead of the false dichotomy between 'expert jurors' who represent a vested interest opposed to the common good and 'ignorant jurors' who don't care about anything and so do not represent a "threat" to either counsel or the court, how about we consider only weeding out juror candidates based on an objective standard (felonies, insanity, etc.), and take the rest warts/opinions and all? That would sure as hell give me more confidence in the process.

Given that prosecution & defense counsel both get a set (generally low) number of peremptory challenges

In federal trials the defense gets ten. That's enough to eliminate effectively an entire jury at a stroke. State and lower courts vary by jurisdiction. And the 'for cause' as I have already illustrated in examples from official court documents is not limited to simple 'impartiality' unless that now includes eliminating hypotheticals that counsels don't like. It's not like those jurors were prejudging specific persons, groups, etc. They were being fed abstract scenarios, and if the counsel(s) didn't like their responses, that was 'cause'. Bullshit.

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

Sure, that wasn't intended to be a comprehensive review. My point was that there is actually no right to a jury "of your peers" listed in the constitution, since there seems to be a lot of "it's my right to a jury of my peers, and my peers aren't the great unwashed masses, it's smart people in the IT industry," in this thread. The jury is supposed to be impartial, and under the law, your "peers" are your fellow citizens, not whatever narrowly defined interest group people are trying to set up as the only people capable of judging their guilt.

There's no practical way (and no valid rational reason) to limit a peer group to "IT professionals only" unless the argument is made for expert juries, and expert juries come with a host of other possible issues and abuses, and I think we're in agreement that expert juries would be worse than the current system.

Re:That's Stupid

[ElectricTurtle]

That I provided examples at all is already magnitudes beyond the idle opinions elsewhere in this thread. Yes, sometimes the system works and self-corrects, but sometimes it doesn't. How many would I have to come up with before you'd be convinced? This is /. FFS. It's not worth the time to dig up hundreds of examples. Neither of us is going to use it productively to accomplish any kind of change.

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

how about we consider only weeding out juror candidates based on an objective standard (felonies, insanity, etc.), and take the rest warts/opinions and all?

Sure, as I said elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't disagree with raising standards for dismissal, or even reducing the number of peremptory challenges - make each one count more.

If we were to restrict all challenges to only a small set of objective criteria, however, the question becomes whether or not the jury size is large enough that you can reasonably expect a "golden mean" that's reflective of an impartial public's decision if the jury composition is *entirely* random. The smaller the jury size, the easier it is for a couple people with strong opinions to skew its decision and discussion. So the question would then become - how large should the jury be, and does the minimum statistically valid jury size present logistical and administrative issues that would prevent it from being a reasonable alternative? And if so... how do you address those issues?

Re:That's Stupid

[Americano]

True, though some sort of review that indicates the scope of the problem might be more helpful than a couple individual examples.

As I said above, the question becomes one of logistics and administration: if we were to move to a truly, completely random jury (aside from ruling out a few objective criteria, e.g. prior felonies & mental illness), how large does it need to be to achieve the golden mean? And if the number required for achieving a statistically valid expectation of that desirable "average" opinion is too large - what then? Either we restrict the jury to a manageable size and maintain a more aggressive voir dire process, or we accept that our juries will, at least some % of the time, not reflect "average" sentiment or belief because they are not large enough to assume that they are representative of the population they come from.

Re:That's Stupid

[Dan541]

How else are they supposed to live tweet the court proceedings?

Re:That's Stupid

[Thing 1]

with an impartial eye.

Yep, nailed it: left eye doesn't work, doesn't point straight; I am asymmetrical, and therefore am chosen neither for jury duty nor mating rituals.

yeah, that'll fail.

[DynamoJoe]

Friend their office? Hahahah, no. If that excludes me from jury duty, so be it.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[mwvdlee]

If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough to be a juror.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[NewWorldDan]

If I wanted to get out of jury duty, I'd just give them my slashdot ID (which I also use on Fark, Reason and Volokh). That should provide both the prosecution and defense plenty of reasons to excuse me. That or my stubborn refusal to answer questions without legal representation present.

Although, I have no objection to jury duty as long as the trial doesn't last more than a week or so.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[cruff]

That assumes they want smart jurors that can reason independently, though that was actually the case when I served on a medical malpractice trial many years ago. For another drunk driving trial, I and several other prospective jurors were eliminated by the defense because we were in jobs that required close attention to details, and it appeared they were possibly trying to argue in some fashion about blood alchohol level limits.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[SudoGhost]

free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office

It isn't his wifi network, it belongs to the courts...how is he authorized to give people access to it?

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[ZipK]

I'm guessing you haven't been on too many juries. Let me fix that for you:

If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough not to be a juror.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I wanted to get out of jury duty, I'd just give them my slashdot ID (which I also use on Fark, Reason and Volokh). That should provide both the prosecution and defense plenty of reasons to excuse me."

There are lots of trolls in the jury.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Lumpy]

'Judges dont want smart jurors.

Smart jurors understand that they dont have to convict based on law if the law is unjust.

Annulment is the ONLY weapon that the people have against corrupt laws and a corrupt court.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[computerman413]

If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably too smart to be a juror.

Fixed that for you.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[JonySuede]

re eliminated by the defense because we were in jobs that required close attention to details,

those prosecutor should be fired, as they are working against the citizen, sadly they will probably be promoted.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[applewax]

I believe you mean nullification - jury nullification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of trials.
What laws do you expect the average juror to have any reason to nullify?

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[GooberToo]

Some jurors have been threated when contempt if the nullification effort was not changed.

Keep in mind, judges are gods in their court room. If they want to have you locked up without a trial, they are literally judge and jury.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Imrik]

Since it specifies that the access is free, I'd guess it means that the court's wi-fi is available to anyone for a fee and his office will pay their fee in exchange for friending.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Fuck the law! Get out of jury duty and let idiots do it instead!

I hope you end up jailed from a shitty jury. Asshole.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[mallydobb]

friend the office for free wifi but limit what that friend account can see and do :)
win/win I think

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Rob the Bold]

If a juror is smart enough to set his Facebook profile to "friends only", he's probably smart enough to be a juror.

If he's smart enough to be a juror, he's probably gonna get struck.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[OrangeTide]

If I were the lawyer I'd only choose people who refused the bargain. Especially if the case was about privacy rights.

But really, should I even be on facebook anymore? What if one of my friends feels the need to expose my information to the courts the next time they land in a jury pool. Would I even know about it, I don't think Facebook makes it all that clear who my "friends" are friending.

I probably won't drop my facebook account though, because as a marketing vehicle I find facebook to be useful. But it's just not very valuable to me as a way of staying in touch with friends, given that I already have the cell numbers of all my closest friends.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[KhabaLox]

I have a Blacklist List on Facebook I use for just such situations. All my privacy settings are set to Friends Only Except Blacklist. If I don't want someone to see things, I just add them to the Blacklist. It would work well for FB game friends, but I don't play those. I just wish there was a way to do the reverse - block status updates from some people, but allow them to see mine (and also keep the ability to see their profile, pics, etc.).

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[KhabaLox]

I'd be very surprised is a courthouse's wi-fi network is accessible only for a fee. Though, in these days of failing government budgets I guess I shouldn't be.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Freak]

I have a friend list titled "NoPost" that is excluded by default from all of my status updates, pictures, etc. I use it for things social games that demand high friend counts (although I don't actually play any of those games anymore, and have removed all of those friends...) I'd just go ahead and add the DA, but immediately add him to that friend list. He could see who my friends are, but not actually see anything useful.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

From your end it's find to be excluded from jury duty. But what about the rights of the litigants to have a decent jury?

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Mister Whirly]

And the first question the other side should ask in jury selection is "Has anyone from either side given you goods or services for free that would normally cost people money?"

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[blair1q]

No, he isn't. Any feeb can click a box in a form.

It takes real guile to come up with a method of getting out of jury duty that is both specious and legal.

Because all the genuine ones are legal and take no brains, and all the known specious ones will get you into trouble.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[ConceptJunkie]

Well, since the prosecution and defense both want jurors who are easily swayed by emotion rather than convinced by the facts, I can hardly see how you can complain about the GP.

The problem isn't that the best candidates for juries aren't willing to serve... it's that the best candidates for juries are often eliminated.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[ashidosan]

Thanks for calling out attention to the fact that "close attention to details" is not a Slashdot comment requirement.

eliminated by the defense

Defense, not prosecution.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Amphetam1ne]

I have a whitelist (actually called Guestlist), which people have to be on for wall access. It works much better that way. I know who I can trust to put on it, no one from work is on there unsurprisingly....

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[GameboyRMH]

If the AP's open, lawyers could use something like FireSheep to grab logins from surfing jurors, and then they'd be able to view their Facebook pages whether they like it or not. Or does Facebook force HTTPS logins these days? The next step would be to set up a honeypot AP and perform an SSL MITM...

I assume the lawyers in question would have no problem with these tactics since what they're already doing is just as rotten.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of trials. What laws do you expect the average juror to have any reason to nullify?

Perhaps laws that allow seizing people's land for commercial development. Drug laws are largely a failure and often very unjust. 3-strikes laws are considered by many to be overly harsh and unjust. These are just a few examples.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[GameboyRMH]

Oh, I just got an idea for being an extra evil sneaky bastard. Set up the honeypot AP with a more appealing name and a good antenna so the signal will be the strongest, then use a captive portal that says "by using this AP you agree to the terms of service - I agree to the TOS (checkbox) (Continue button)"

Then in your TOS you specify that the user allows and acknowledges that all HTTPS traffic will be intercepted and decrypted, and that they grant your law firm rights to view their Facebook page using the hijacked session. You can have someone back at the office do it remotely and send you a report on each of the jurors to speed things up.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[treeves]

Like smart is a qualification to be a juror. Ha.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Danse]

And the first question the other side should ask in jury selection is "Has anyone from either side given you goods or services for free that would normally cost people money?"

If you had to provide your personal information in trade, then it wasn't really free, so I could see people easily answering "no" to that question.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[treeves]

I'd say that it is "normal" nowadays to get free wi-fi access so one could truthfully answer "no".

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Darinbob]

But not as smart as the juror that doesn't have Facebook.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

But really, should I even be on facebook anymore? What if one of my friends feels the need to expose my information to the courts the next time they land in a jury pool. Would I even know about it, I don't think Facebook makes it all that clear who my "friends" are friending.

If you're exposing your info to "friends of friends", then you're doing it wrong and need to revisit your security settings. Blocking anyone except those you specifically grant access to, by adding them to a group that you create for that purpose, would be a good way to ensure that your info is safe.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[shermo]

Don't you mean too smart to be a juror? Intelligence is not a desired quality in Jurors.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[RockDoctor]

JonySuede

re eliminated by the defense because we were in jobs that required close attention to details,

those prosecutor should be fired, as they are working against the citizen, sadly they will probably be promoted.

Errr, please tell me this is a joke. I'm not sure that I can stand living in a world that contains organisms that can say things like that except as a joke.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[JonySuede]

no it is a reading failure caused by too much coffee. I apologize for the trauma I caused you

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[RockDoctor]

Phew.

OK, caffeine-induced reading failures don't cause me existential angst. I'll go back to arguing pandimensional solipsism with Marvin the Paranoid Android now.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[ZipK]

It takes real guile to come up with a method of getting out of jury duty that is both specious and legal.

Not at all. One needn't come up with a method to get out of jury duty, one must only display a certain level of intelligence to provoke either the prosecution or defense into spending a peremptory challenge to send you on your way. Sometimes the judge will do so themselves. Advanced degrees or being well read in social sciences related to police and penal systems is often an automatic ticket out of the jury box.

Re:yeah, that'll fail.

[mallydobb]

if you want to block/edit how facebook is viewed on your end check out fb purity. It is available as an extension for several browsers as well as a greasemonkey script. Works wonders on cleaning up FB for me and I am amazed at how clean it appears once you get rid of the cruft (compared to a browser that doesn't use it). It doesn't help in privacy settings but it is a nifty tool to have.

Doesn't pass the smell test

[sideslash]

If an outside law firm established some kind of quid-pro-quo relationship with jury members I have a feeling any such arrangement would be smacked down by a presiding judge. I can't imagine they will allow this to go forward with the district attorney. The jury should be impartial, and not have any appearance of favoritism of one side over the other. "Friend" the prosecution? I don't think so!

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[WrongSizeGlass]

Can an attorney for the defense offer $10 to become Facebook 'Friends'? Can a potential juror sell it to the highest bidder? Or both??

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[Vintermann]

You expect sense from the court system. That went out the window long ago - at least by the time they started letting prosecution and defense haggle over who should sit on a jury.

Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus". People who think the current circus gives them a better shot at justice, should learn basic probability theory and look up Condorcet's jury theorem.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[Dexter Herbivore]

Seriously? Majority over consensus? I'd rather take the risk that *1* juror holds out than the risk that 1 person can convince about half of the remainder that they should get their asses out of there by proclaiming me guilty.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[amicusNYCL]

Jurors should be selected by lot, and reach their verdict by majority vote, not "consensus".

That's a terrible idea if your goal is to have the jury reach the "correct" verdict. When everyone has to agree the chances are much higher that the result will be more accurate. I was on a jury where we started out around 50%/50% after closing arguments, and it took quite a bit of discussion to get everyone to understand what was said, what the evidence was, and what our instructions were. There were several people who thought the guy was guilty because he wasn't a very likable guy, but it turns out that the combination of the evidence, the timeline presented by the prosecution, and most importantly our instructions from the judge forced a verdict of not guilty. If we had voted on it at the start, that guy would be in jail now.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[AndersOSU]

Maybe in theory, where all the jurors are rational actors who carefully weigh the evidence.

In reality, where things like race play a major part in jury votes, you're asking for majoritarian tyranny.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[Vintermann]

If it's done by majority vote instead of "consensus", they won't need to worry about sitting there till they rot. They'll just call the vote and be done with it. In that less threatening situation, there's less room for aggressive "persuasion" of other jury members.

The demand for "consensus" does not help you. All it does is empower the persistent and headstrong at the expense of the careful and thoughtful. It ruins what's a jury's real strength: its diversity.

If you knew Condorcet's jury theorem, you'd know how important it is that jurors reach their conclusions independently.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[Imrik]

Majority vote for not guilty or civil cases would be reasonable, for a guilty vote in a criminal trial however a consensus should be required. The burden of proof being that no reasonable person would doubt their guilt, if anyone on the jury does doubt it, they should either be found not guilty or the case retried after a hung jury.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[DavidTC]

Indeed, that's how I feel. The current system means we, or at least the prosecution, has to carefully weed out crazy people, because one crazy person blows it up.

If instead we had 12 people but required just 10 to convinct, or, hell, added 6 more people, had 18 people, required 14 to convict, we'd probably end up a lot better.

And the _only_ people who should get weeded out are people with a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the trial, or who have actual other conflicts of interest.

We'd also end up a lot better if the jury could demand things end up in evidence or present questions to witnesses, especially as apparently we can't afford even moderately good public defenders anymore.

Right now, if the jury realizes something is wrong with the prosecutor's story, but the defense doesn't bring it up, the jury tends to act somewhat randomly. Something it clearly screws up the prosecution's case, and vote not guilty, whereas others think that if it was important the defense would mention it.

It would be very nice for the jury to be able to vote on a list of questions for the judge to ask witnesses. Of either side.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[Dexter Herbivore]

I'm sorry, but (what I assume is game theory) does not reassure me as to my chances of acquittal should I have to present before a "Jury of my peers". Present with me with tested evidence vs a theory and I might reconsider.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[DarkVader]

Gah! It's far too easy for an innocent person to be convicted NOW, we already have the world's largest prison population, by far.

I'd be all for an expanded jury, keeping the requirement for unanimity. Maybe even throw in a requirement that a hung jury is an automatic aquittal, with no chance for the prosecution to try again.

But anything that makes a conviction easier is a horrible idea.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[DavidTC]

That's why I included the whole 'jury can ask for information' thing.

And right now, half the reason a jury will 'convict so easily' is stupid jury selection process. Stop letting everyone exclude knowledgeable people from the jury, and it won't.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[DarkVader]

I have mixed feelings on the jury asking for information. I'd be afraid it would mainly be used to try to discover information that had been excluded.

But there's no way it's a good idea to allow a conviction with only a majority. We need to be thinking about what changes we need to make it much harder to get a conviction - think about things like prohibiting cops from wearing uniforms or badges to court, larger juries while keeping the requirement for a unanimous verdict for a conviction, making a hung jury equivalent to an acquittal, removing peremptory challenges from the prosecution while allowing them for the defense, forcing judges to inform criminal juries of their right to jury nullification of the law, that sort of thing.

And the concept of keeping some people off the jury isn't to remove knowledgeable people, it's to remove people who already have an opinion on the issue before the court. If someone already has heard something about the case or works in the same field, there's a good chance that while they don't already have a verdict in mind, the evidence might have to be overwhelming for them not to vote a certain way. And even more unfortunately, it seems that most people are biased in favor of the prosecution.

The current jury selection process is not ideal. But from what I've seen on suggestions for "improving" it, it's the best we can do at this point. And allowing prosecutors to hand out anything (like free wifi to bored people) during the selection process is only going to make it worse.

Re:Doesn't pass the smell test

[DavidTC]

I'd be afraid it would mainly be used to try to discover information that had been excluded.

I think a lot of the problem is that information is _being_ excluded.

And I'm not entirely sure the problem with 'juries convicting too many people' is the juries. I'm actually convinced that the problem is we've made too many thing have jail times.

I.e,, the problem isn't people 'wrongly' convicted, although obviously that happens and should be reduced. The problem is people 'rightly' convicted for stuff that we shouldn't send them to jail for.

But, whatever. We're not going to get any changes either way, so it's sorta pointless to worry about.

Questionable practice...

[Svartalf]

The Jurors aren't on trial and the Attornies shouldn't be able to do anything other than ask specific questions at Voir Dire as they've always done. This is a highly questionable practice they're taking on.

Re:Questionable practice...

[Sockatume]

Especially quesitonable is giving jurors access to court wi-fi in exchange for participation. The jurors are hardly going to be neutral to that nice man who gave them web access during the boring selection thingie.

Re:Questionable practice...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If we really want to make sure that we never get re-elected, we could do something crazy like making sure that forensics labs are independent entities, equally accessible to the prosecution and the defense, rather than the (quite common; but not universal) model of their being appendages of the police force...

Re:Questionable practice...

[kabloom]

Yeah, I think that jurors who want to ensure a fair trial should answer the first question (whether they might have potential bias because they know one of the parties or witnesses) by pointing out that the lawyer is making this offer, and let the judge sort it out.

Re:Questionable practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just having a hard time imagining a defense attorney failing to get a juror stricken from the pool for cause on the grounds that he is Facebook friends with the prosecutor's office at all, much less if the reason he became Facebook friends with the prosecuting attorney was to obtain free wireless internet access during the trial. This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels.

Re:Questionable practice...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a highly questionable practice they're taking on.

I don't think it is questionable at all at all if they are on facebook then they cannot be my peers.

Re:Questionable practice...

[Danse]

I am just having a hard time imagining a defense attorney failing to get a juror stricken from the pool for cause on the grounds that he is Facebook friends with the prosecutor's office at all, much less if the reason he became Facebook friends with the prosecuting attorney was to obtain free wireless internet access during the trial. This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels.

The summary says they get access to wifi during jury selection, not during the trial. Most of them won't even be there for that.

Re:Questionable practice...

[Mashiki]

There was a rather big case of something similar happening up here in Ontario(Cdn) with the Crown(same as a DA) fishing for jurors. Lot of shit hit the fan, lot of Crowns went poof with the government putting new ones in charge. What really got the judge's pissed off up here, was the DA's were pressuring the police on private info on the jurors(which is allowed to a point to ensure no ties to organized crime/things that would influence them so they weren't impartial). But they were using it as a shopping list.

In Canada, the full disclosure of such things also has to be supplied to the defence, as part of the Voir Dire. The same as the chain of evidence(in one direction)
Police -> Crown -> Defence.

IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

But this sounds like it should be illegal...

Re:IANAL

[Collapsing Empire]

Sodomy was made legal by the supreme court.

Re:IANAL

[wjousts]

Until Apple came out with the iANAL!

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha! Good one. Your joke is appreciated.

siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks you

[Joe The Dragon]

siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks you need something to kill time.

No need to "friending" the office...

[TheMidget]

granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office

Or, more easily, just offer the entire jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network, and then firesheep their accounts...

Re:No need to "friending" the office...

[idontgno]

TBH, that's where I thought the sentence that starts "Mr. Villalobos has thought of a potential workaround: granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network..." was going.

I suppose that's a bit too far on the "OMG h@x0rz" paranoia. Still, I have to agree with other posters... unless the facebook info is made available to the defense during the jury vetting process, this smacks of improper and unbalanced quid pro quo.

friending != full access

[kiehlster]

You can still restrict comments/information to specific people or everyone but specific people, so I fail to see how this is a good idea. Why not create jobs with your gobs of money by hiring some kind of journalist roles to jury selection that are authorized to follow jurors around? Then after a day of that say, "friend us on Facebook if you don't want this pesky underling following you around." Or better yet, just pay Facebook to have administrative rights to review an user's data.

Re:friending != full access

[WrongSizeGlass]

This is for potential jurors during voir dire. They won't have time to go to their FB page and edit settings. The prosecutors don't get to stay 'Friends' during the trial so who 'follows around jurors' will lose their jobs.

Re:friending != full access

[WrongSizeGlass]

The prosecutors don't get to stay 'Friends' during the trial so who 'follows around jurors' will lose their jobs.

s/b The prosecutors don't get to stay 'Friends' during the trial so no-one who 'follows around jurors' will lose their jobs.

Re:friending != full access

[Talderas]

Chicken and egg. In order to grant wifi accesss, the potential juror must allow the public prosecutor's office to be friends. However, the juror must have access to the account in order to approve any friend requests. Thus the juror could, when accessing the account to allow the friend, change their privacy settings.

Re:friending != full access

[WrongSizeGlass]

Chicken and egg. In order to grant wifi accesss, the potential juror must allow the public prosecutor's office to be friends. However, the juror must have access to the account in order to approve any friend requests. Thus the juror could, when accessing the account to allow the friend, change their privacy settings.

<Artie Johnson>Very interesting.

You're absolutely right. Who brings their laptop to court anyway? Would they protest that you were taking notes? Some may have a tablet at this point, but wouldn't most be using their phones anyway?

Re:friending != full access

[Manfre]

I have my account set up so that by default everything is restricted, except to pre-configured groups. If I don't add a "friend" to one of the privileged groups, they don't get to see much.

Privacy Settings

[stewbacca]

Is it really that hard to set your information to "friends only" or even "friends of friends"? Unless you hang out with lot of lawyers (I have a couple in my friends list), how much information can they actually gleen from "This person only shares certain information with friends".

I have jury duty on March 10. We'll see how well that goes for them.

Re:Privacy Settings

[hedwards]

When I did my jury duty a couple years back, they didn't ask anything about social networking sites in particular, they did ask if there were any reasons or connections that might lead me to be partial. And they asked in several different ways about things which might reasonably related.

This seems to be unnecessary though.

Re:Privacy Settings

[blair1q]

Restrict it to "friends of the victim".

You'll get sent home.

Re:Privacy Settings

[blair1q]

A couple of years back, "social networking" was something monkeys did in behavior studies.

The world moves fast.

Don't know about facebook...

[ak_hepcat]

But I do know that they're watching twitter.

I sent out a tweet, during one my last jury selection, at lunchtime, that we were in the middle of jury selection.

no specifics, just a "we're at this point in the process"

After lunch, I was called into the chambers and dismissed, because they had seen my tweet and were afraid that I might
engage in "too much" social media and release too much information.

I was surprised that showed up on court that quickly, actually. I don't know how they found it, but I assume
that they're performing near constant searches using jurors names.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I do know that they're watching twitter.

I sent out a tweet, during one my last jury selection, at lunchtime, that we were in the middle of jury selection.

no specifics, just a "we're at this point in the process"

After lunch, I was called into the chambers and dismissed, because they had seen my tweet and were afraid that I might
engage in "too much" social media and release too much information.

I was surprised that showed up on court that quickly, actually. I don't know how they found it, but I assume
that they're performing near constant searches using jurors names.

Well yeah you're actually stupid enough to use your real name on the public Internet. Of course they can easily track your moves.

My name? It's Betty Humpter, what of it?

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[ak_hepcat]

I'm a very minor local "celebrity" ..

I'm on IMDB, too.

So of course I use my real name.

But I don't pull any punches, either.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Dexter Herbivore]

Betty? BABY! You know I loves ya!

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a very minor local "celebrity" ..

I'm on IMDB, too.

So of course I use my real name.

But I don't pull any punches, either.

I'd appreciate your perspective on something that never made any sense to me. It's one of those instances of mass hysteria that is constantly protrayed as normal so few ever really question it and ask whether it makes sense or accomplishes any worthy goal.

When I buy a car, it does not come with a list of all the company executives who allocated a budget for its production. There is no list of the engineers who designed it, the marketers who promoted it, the factory workers who built it. No special mention is made of the vendor who provided the car company with the factory equipment. The media doesn't chase these people around. Talk shows don't go "blah blah blah" discussing to whom they are married, how many times they've been divorced, the fact that their cousin's sister's friend of a friend has a son with Down syndrome. The daily mundane mishaps and relationship difficulties don't make the news. No. I just exchange a certain amount of money and I receive a car, the finished product. The people involved have their reward -- they got paid.

What is it about someone who can act or sing that makes this so radically different? What makes the most mundane, trivial, unenlightening details of their non-acting, non-singing, non-professional personal lives so endlessly fascinating in the minds of so many? Do you think that's what say, a philosopher would care about? Is it worthy of the big ado that's made of it?

I think one of my personal concepts of hell would involve not even being able to go to the damned grocery store without a mob of people going nuts and salivating over my very presence and acting like I am some kind of deity just because my talent happens to be a performing art and not say, science. I would never want to live like that. It would be a constant in-your-face reminder of how childish and idolizing too many people are. It's some kind of shallow ego-trip that doesn't appeal to me. But really, what is it about acting and singing that's such a big deal?

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[RingDev]

When I buy a car, it does not come with a list of all the company executives who allocated a budget for its production. There is no list of the engineers who designed it, the marketers who promoted it, the factory workers who built it.

Didn't Saturn do that for a while?

-Rick

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[natehoy]

It's a talent that people can understand and be amused by.

As opposed to, say, science, where a scientist who makes a mind-bogglingly monumental discovery will find that there is a small number of scientists in his/her specific field who admire/are jealous of his/her accomplishments, a few people who can understand the discovery in enough detail to say "cool" or engage in a serious and interesting conversation about it, a few hundred Slashdotters who will argue incessantly about whether the science is valid based on their high school educations, and a vast majority of humans who don't have the foggiest clue what a quark is and why we should give a shit that it now spins anticlockwi.. oh, look, "Survivor: Whiny Nearly Naked Big Boobed Chicks XXIV" is on!

It's gotta meet one of the basic needs. Food, clothing, shelter, procreation, recreation. Otherwise, it's just some mumbo-jumbo from that science thing Geezus tells us is wrong.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.... have you driven a (Henry) Ford lately? How about a Daimler-Chrysler? Buick? Honda? Mazda? Toyota? Maybe an Aston Martin?

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

My brother has a twitter app on his iphone that lets him see tweets that are made within a certain mile radius. I now know everyone around me is a complete idiot.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing that they try to exclude people who seem to have nothing better to do than let the world know about what happens inside a court room even if it's just about jury selection. Besides, what's so interesting about what some person is doing at the moment? I'm scratching my butt, I'm out of cigarettes, gotta buy some at the liquor store down the street, my daughter just killed herself because her boyfriend dumped her. Seriously, I don't understand these times we're living in anymore.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

cousin's sister

== cousin

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[CreepingDeath_3e]

Bought a brand new Saturn in 1997, never saw such a list. Oh and mod GPP up!

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see a small Perl script that is gonna be in my juror future.

A twitter account in my name "John Doe at Anyville", connected with a script that tweets "Gotta to to the Anyville Courtroom" first time in the morning, several "Hang 'em high" messages and then "Breaking for lunch now - I'll hang 'em this afternoon" at noon.

This could be a jim-dandy service to offer to people called up for jury duty I think - I'll collect their names and fees as they enter the court room.

Re:Don't know about facebook...

[ak_hepcat]

Give it a try yourself. And if you get good enough, all of the sudden it just starts to happen to you, too.

But then again, it's always happened with artists.

Probably because, next to mothers, the only folks that truly CREATE are artists.

voir dire

[Anonymous Coward]

"Voir dire" - a French phrase translated as "jury tampering".

Re:voir dire

[WrongSizeGlass]

"Voir dire" - a French phrase translated as "jury tampering".

Not to be confused with "Very dire" - a common phrase translated as "on trial".

"Temporarily Friend"?

[maelfius]

Honestly, I think that a lot of people would do the temporary friending (well in the places that don't allow cell phones with cameras in the court houses...and every cell phone pretty much has a camera in it these days). What I find to be amazing is that people have little regard for personal privacy when it comes to the social networking sites (or just don't understand what it really means to them -- or worse don't care).

This wouldn't work for me, I'm content with my kindle or other e-reader (or a real book) when having to sit and wait. I find it offensive that 'Facebook' among other things can be used during jury selection. While I can understand that the attorneys and the courts want the best representation of unbiased people, I think this will turn into abuse of the system on both sides.

I also would argue that there is nothing "temporary" about friending the office. My guess would be that they will start siphoning down your details and storing them for later. If this is to be permissible, there needs to be strict retention policies set forth by the court on the user data (and this should probably be evaluated in a more formal way).

Granted I didn't read TFA. I should probably do so before posting. But in either case, it worries me that people have so little regard for the data they post online and what is done with it. While I am personally careful to post things that I know I don't mind EVERYONE knowing, I am probably in the minority.

Just my $0.003

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[wjousts]

Read a book

why?

[uncanny]

I dont understand why they are using and Egyptian newborn to help with this! What does she even know about the legal system?

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

She knows how to make people who hate Facebook posting as AC post their 2 cents and be done with it until the timer expires and *probably* not come back for the real one simply because of OCD requiring chronological reads. Well think again assholes - I'm patient and this one is a thinker! (If you're *not* a thinker, it has to do with controlling the release of information in a political fashion, and CmdrTaco being an utter tool who's fat ass is likely bending over for Zuckerberg at only $2 an hour).

Re:why?

[Anonymous Coward]

and CmdrTaco being an utter tool who's fat ass is likely bending over for Zuckerberg at only $2 an hour).

You are utterly insane if you think CmdrTaco gets $2/hour to be sodomized.

if you don’t have a facebook account?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if you don’t have a facebook account?
Ask Whatson please.

No Facebook == disqualified?

[PPH]

granting members of the jury pool free access to the court's wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily "friending" his office.

So what if I don't have a Facebook account? Will I be automatically disqualified from serving on the jury?

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[iainl]

Maybe the free internet access is for you to set one up? The whole story makes my mind boggle.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Ironhandx]

I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme". I'm neither of those, but am honestly too busy to check a stupid web site 3-4x a day.

I had a facebook account but had people getting pissy with me because I wasn't checking it often enough, so now I no longer have one.

Maybe this will get me out of jury duty as well as helping me avoid pretentious asshole bosses that I wouldn't want to work for anyways some day too? One can always hope.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Lumpy]

"I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme". "

and only a fool would work there. Honestly, are you about to be killed or thrown into debtors prison? I'd rather flip burgers than work for raging assholes at a company that would do that.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[vlm]

I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme".

Sounds either urban legend-ish or astroturfy. I looked at your posting history and you don't seem astroturfy. So that leaves urban legend. Kind of like everyone has heard of someone whom got a job on monster.com, got a job thru linked in, got married from online dating, and now can't get hired without facebook. Uh huh...

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[nospam007]

No you are qualified. FB account holders will not survive if they are prevented from updating their status for days or weeks.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[PPH]

I know at least some employers are now taking the slant that if you don't have a Facebook account you automatically either "have something to hide" or "are anti-social to the extreme".

What about: Restrict my networking activity to very exclusive circles. If someone can't find me online, they probably aren't worthy of my services.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Ironhandx]

Its sadly not urban legend. It happened to me a few years ago, I specifically found out because it was a management position at an electronics store. Being a geek I had things in common with some of the staff there and befriended one that had been working there for quite some time and he informed me of what had happened, it was just conversation at the time, I was already in a better job, though it was working more outside of my experience at that time.

The Manager there at the time was looking for a replacement for herself and apparently I was the best candidate but she vented her frustration that she couldn't find anything on me by Googling my name and searching for me on Facebook.

She ended up hiring someone else that spends 50%+ of the time he spends at work on his phone checking Facebook etc. He does a good job with stock levels and to an extent customer service, but you always feel like you're interrupting him if you have to talk to him for something.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[russotto]

I got a job through LinkedIn, so that's one out of four.

As for jury duty, there's no way they'd pick me, even though I have a Facebook account. Because I won't be their tool. If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge, they don't need one. If it's (as one prosecutor told unselected jurors in a pool I was in) to provide a random factor to scare the defendant into pleading when the prosecutor's case is weak, they shouldn't have one. If I were to end up in the jury room, I would not be their tool. If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict. If the judge refused to allow the jury to see the law (which has happened), I would not convict. And if all jurors who would do those things are excluded (as they are), the jury system is a farce.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[mbkennel]

"If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict."

It's not the jury's place to decide the law actually.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Tuan121]

I'm neither of those, but am honestly too busy to check a stupid web site 3-4x a day.

BTW how often do you visit Slashdot?

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why I refuse to get a FB account...

My interests are too varied and life is too interesting to post what I'm doing and where I'm at when I'm doing it several times a day. Also, I don't see that my life is so interesting as compared to others, that I must tell other people about it constantly. And last, I don't require an internet connection internet 24x7x365. (Yes. I'm a heretic!!!)

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[tombeard]

Would you allow the state to punish someone in your name if you felt he didn't deserve punishment, or is violating a law always grounds to punish? Consider that some day it might be you in the defendants chair.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict."

It's not the jury's place to decide the law actually.

Actually it is, and no less a figure than John Jay (First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) explicitly said so.
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Thomas Jefferson explained why.
"It is left, therefore, to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty."
and
"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

In more contemporary times, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminded us of this:
"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

So, yes, actually, it *IS* the jury's place to decide the law, in spite of what the court tells you. The jury is the last refuge against tyranny, in that it is the body responsible for administering justice... and "what is lawful" is not necessarily "what is just." Reasonable jurors not only CAN, but HAVE THE MORAL DUTY TO bring a "not guilty" verdict if the law is unjust.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[gknoy]

The express purpose of the jury (and the judges will tell you this) is to decide within the confines of the law whether the evidence supports the prosecution's claims. However, some theorists argue that it's the moral duty of a jury to judge the morality and justness of the law.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not the jury's place to decide the law actually."

You are 100 percent wrong on that point. Does some research on Jury Nullification please before making a comment like that.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[pnuema]

Previous responders have answered more eloquently than I can, but ask yourself - why is the right to trial by jury so important then? The answer is that trial by jury is one more check citizenry have against corrupt government. You really need some history lessons, and badly.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Haeleth]

The fact that juries occasionally reach a decision that contradicts the law does not mean that the purpose of the jury is to decide on the law, any more than the fact that presidents occasionally start wars means that the purpose of the president is to start wars.

The purpose of the jury is to reach a simple decision: innocent or guilty. In other words, did the guy break the law or not? Not "is the law right" -- that responsibility belongs to the elected representatives of the people (in the USA, members of congress), not random individuals who do not have a democratic mandate to speak for anyone other than themselves.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[NoSig]

True, though as a juror it's important to distinguish between "I don't agree with that law" and "no, you can't gas these people for being jews, I don't care what the law says." Don't ignore laws lightly.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Founding Father, Federalist Papers author, and First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay begs to differ: "The Jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[techno-vampire]

If the purpose of the jury is to ratify the decision of the judge...

Well, I guess it must be your lucky day, because that's not the jury's job. The judge is expected to make rulings on the law, but the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts of the case. And, AIUI, cases aren't appealed on the facts but on claims that there were mistakes made in applying the law, such as the judge overruling objections that should have been sustained, peremptory challenges used to create (instead of avoid) bias or other similar errors. One of the reasons why appeals rarely, if ever, deal with the facts is that the appellate court only has the written record to work on and can't watch the witnesses as they testify. That means that they have no way of judging how trustworthy they were. Of course, IANAL, so take the above with as big a grain of salt as you want.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'd rather flip burgers

In another 10 years, that will be your only choice. I've seen similar to the person you reply to. Everyone has a FB account. If you don't, there's clearly something "wrong" about you, and rather than figure out what it is, it's easier to just move along to the next person whose FB activity they *can* examine.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification... :-P

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[PraiseBob]

Knowing that I had jury duty the next day, I read up on the subject and learned a bit about the process and purpose as it was originally intended.

When I was selected to be on that jury, I was absolutely shocked when the judge's first action was to address the jury about our duties, which started and ended at following the letter of the law and not the spirit, and that we must base ALL decisions on the words written rather than any kind of moral duty to have justice for the people involved.

Based on conversations later with the jury pool and judge, it seems a surprising number of people consider "justice" as a concept to be entirely based on written words codified as law.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[russotto]

"If I didn't agree with the law, I would not convict. If the jury instructions conflicted with my reading of the law, I would not convict."

It's not the jury's place to decide the law actually.

That's what the judge will tell you. But the jury can do whatever the fuck it wants. It's one of the few places an individual (aside from a government official) can exercise any effective power at all, and that's why they try so hard to keep individuals who might actually do so off juries.

Consider what you would do, if you were on a jury and the law the defendant was accused of breaking was particularly odious. Let's say, in hopes of recruiting Slashdot groupthink, it's 17 USC 1201(b) -- one of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. Some computer programmer is sitting there facing 5 years in Federal Prison for the crime of distributing a program which removes copy protection from eBooks, for instance. There's no doubt in your mind that he in fact did it; that his actions met all the elements of the crime as explained to you by the judge. The judge's wording was that "you must return a guilty verdict if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the government has proved all the elements of the crime". What do you do?

Obviously, I'm assuming the prosecutor totally screwed up the voir dire.

I know what I do. The government cannot force me, as a juror, to participate in the enforcement of an unjust law. There's no good reason I can think of to do so voluntarily.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm neither of those, but am honestly too busy to check a stupid web site 3-4x a day."

http://slashdot.org/~Ironhandx

false

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[Macgrrl]

I quite deliberately don't have a facebook account. It's not that I specifically have anything to hide, it's more I don't feel the need to 'share' everything. Besides which, I've been on LJ for something like 12 years or more. While it is getting a bit like 'would the last person out please turn off the lights', I don't feel the need to migrate to a new social network yet.

Re:No Facebook == disqualified?

[DarkVader]

In 10 years, everyone will have forgotten facebook, and moved on to the next privacy-destroying scheme.

weird facebook = no jury duty?

[turkeydance]

well, that means the 90% of my relatives who don't have any social media awareness, will now pay the neighbor's 9-year-old to "set up something" which could relieve them of jury duty.

Good or bad not to be on FB?

[willith]

I don't have a Facebook account--nor do I have a Myspace page, LinkedIn profile, or any other social networking connection. I don't even show up in the Google results for my real name until somewhere around the 20th page of results. This is yet another occasion where I'm glad I don't have those potential huge liabilities hanging around my neck, but I have to wonder: would an attorney consider this kind of non-presence a desirable characteristic, or a non-desirable one?

Re:Good or bad not to be on FB?

[Dexter Herbivore]

but I have to wonder: would an attorney consider this kind of non-presence a desirable characteristic, or a non-desirable one?

Non-desirable... if they can't pre-emptively read your demographic, how can they determine if you're likely to convict/exonerate the guy they have on trial?

in some places $10 is more then jurys make per

[Joe The Dragon]

in some places $10 is more then jurys make per day.

Make jury pay more like $100+ per day so you can't buy a vote for pocket chump change.

Re:in some places $10 is more then jurys make per

[operagost]

I was called to jury duty in 1995 or 96 while I was working at OfficeMax stocking shelves. The pay for jury duty was actually more than I was being paid by OfficeMax.

Re:in some places $10 is more then jurys make per

[BBTaeKwonDo]

I think there's a pretty low correlation between the per-diem for a juror and whether that juror is willing to sell his vote. I don't know what the going rate is for a juror's vote, but I would think that it dwarfs the per-diem. I can't imagine anybody thinking, "I was going to accept this offer of $20000 cash to vote not guilty, but now that the per-diem is $100 instead of the old $50, I've changed my mind."

Of course, the OP makes it sound like the price of the vote may be as low as the cost of WiFi internet access.

Re:in some places $10 is more then jurys make per

[Caraig]

In ancient Athens, jury duty was actually pretty lucrative. A number of older citizens became semi-professional jurists, not only because the pay was decent -- for just this reason, that is, keeping them from being bribed -- but because it gave them some real personal power in a democratic* system. Currying favor with known jurists was not unknown.

* - For very narrow values of 'democratic,' to wit: Own land and be male.

Re:in some places $10 is more then jurys make per

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't they still be able to? $110>$100.

This keeps coming up...

[iainl]

What's with this assumption that _everyone_ uses Facebook, anyway?

"No, I'm not refusing to hand over my Facebook details; there are none". Won't that be enough?

Re:This keeps coming up...

[maxume]

More fun to be at least a little obtuse and explain that "no, I do not have a Facebook".

"granting members of the jury pool free access"

[John Hasler]

That would be called jury tampering were the defense to do it.

Re:"granting members of the jury pool free access"

[Rob the Bold]

That would be called jury tampering were the defense to do it.

And it would be called a "mistrial" if the jurors went and did their own research on the case, rather than confining their judgement to what they hear in court. I can't see why a judge would allow attorneys to investigate jurors outside of the courtroom process.

Re:"granting members of the jury pool free access"

[Culture20]

I can't see why a judge would allow attorneys to provide jurors with the means to do their own research on the case, rather than confining their judgment to what they hear in court. "Free WiFi, just don't google the case!"

Isn't this illegal?

[shuz]

Let's say I am a juror candidate and at any point in the process a representative from one side of the court were to approach me and says "here is 100,000 dollars, if you become a juror the money is yours if you show favor for my client". Isn't this illegal? What is the different between X amount of money, a wrist watch, a service provided, or free wifi? The answer is nothing in the sense that it is all bribery. If I were a judge make it be known that I would treat this offense to the fullest of my powers.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[rcnut]

To be fair, you would have to friend both the prosecution and the defense so they can research you as a potential juror. But would you really want to do that if the defendant is an alleged criminal?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I am a juror candidate and at any point in the process a representative from one side of the court were to approach me and says "here is 100,000 dollars, if you become a juror the money is yours if you show favor for my client". Isn't this illegal? What is the different between X amount of money, a wrist watch, a service provided, or free wifi? The answer is nothing in the sense that it is all bribery. If I were a judge make it be known that I would treat this offense to the fullest of my powers.

That's WHY you're not a judge.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the prosecutor's office doing this, right?

Guess which office brings people up on charges of such things as bribery, extortion, and racketeering?

Yeah, it's not going to get pursued.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[MagicM]

They're not asking you to favor their client in exchange for free wi-fi.
They're asking to be able to investigate whether you're likely to favor their client in exchange for free wi-fi.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the EXACT same response! A defendant can not get a fair trial if the jurors are being provided with rewards for choosing one side BEFORE THE CASE and creating impartiality.

I think that every case where this tactic was used needs to be immediately thrown out. I also feel that he needs have an immediate legal review of this action and possibly look at misconduct charges of some sort.

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[blair1q]

Can I just have the cash?

Re:Isn't this illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say I am a juror candidate and at any point in the process a representative from one side of the court were to approach me and says "here is 100,000 dollars, if you become a juror the money is yours if you show favor for my client". Isn't this illegal? What is the different between X amount of money, a wrist watch, a service provided, or free wifi? The answer is nothing in the sense that it is all bribery. If I were a judge make it be known that I would treat this offense to the fullest of my powers.

How the heck could the parent post be scored "interesting" ? The free wifi was not used at a bribe, nobody asked anything in favor of a particular party in exchange of the wifi access. Please read the article before asking silly questions that will eventually scored "interesting" by the Slahdot crowd.

Awesome!

[hellfire]

I'm going to set up a Facebook page with a status permanently set to "I can spot a guilty person a mile away!"

That will get me out of jury duty for now... until Facebook is made irrelevant or goes under.

Re:Awesome!

[JamesP]

Just like the 'Jury Nullification' page, it's pretty much a 'get out of jury free' card for ever

Re:Awesome!

[Rob the Bold]

I'm going to set up a Facebook page with a status permanently set to "I can spot a guilty person a mile away!"

That will get me out of jury duty for now... until Facebook is made irrelevant or goes under.

All you need is a college degree better than an Associate to get struck from the pool in most cases.

Re:Awesome!

[gknoy]

If your goal is to be able to exercise jury nullification, advertising the fact that you believe in it is a nearly surefire way never to do so. If your goal is simply to shirk your civic duty, then JN is (apparently) a useful excuse.

What about people without Facebook accounts?

[Qubit]

I guess having a Facebook account makes you a more important person in the eyes of this DA...

As others have pointed out, I can't possibly believe that this kind of interaction between DA and potential jurors could be anything but harmful to the DA's court case. It seems like yet another avenue for a defendant's lawyer to as for a mistrial and/or appeal.

I'll just follow Homer Simpsons' jury duty advice

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody want to join my Facebook group "I'm prejudiced against all races"?

Seems like bribery

[dirk]

I don't have any real issue with checking them out on Facebook, or even getting them to friend you if they are dumb enough to do that. I think the line is clearly being crossed by offering them something (in this case internet access) for friending the prosecutor. It sets up a clear divide in the jury pool, as people who have open profiles and those who don't want to allow the prosecutor access don't get internet access. It also puts the defender at a disadvantage, since they obviously now have to offer them something to get the same access.

To me FB is like public records. It is out in the public and if you can see it, then it is fair game. But basically bribing the people to give you access crosses the line.

Re:Seems like bribery

[Culture20]

It also puts the defender at a disadvantage, since they obviously now have to offer them something to get the same access.

And they'd better offer something really good, because they're potentially a criminal, and anything their lawyer sees, they can probably ask to see (to assist in their own defense). I'd rather side with an obvious bribe from the prosecutor than a potentially dangerous gamble from the defense.

Re:Seems like bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

Is email public record? Your messages are bounced around many servers in plaintext with no web of trust. Do you have a problem with me reading all your digital correspondence?

Just No.

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Just say no, and remind then that they can't access your email, or your home either.

Seriously?

[cstanley8899]

Is this some sort of joke? Lawyers with Ipads? Jurors Tweeting? Please get me out of this alternate hipster universe! Please! I want normalcy!

Anonymity for jurors

[ka9dgx]

We may be a bit different here in Indiana, but we don't let the defendants know our names here. The judge was pretty careful about instructing us during the selection process. How could a jury possibly return a guilty verdict in a murder trial if the defendant knew their names and could then extract revenge?

This is just nuts!

Re:Anonymity for jurors

[VolciMaster]

We may be a bit different here in Indiana, but we don't let the defendants know our names here. The judge was pretty careful about instructing us during the selection process. How could a jury possibly return a guilty verdict in a murder trial if the defendant knew their names and could then extract revenge?

This is just nuts!

Everyone in the room knows the name of potential jurors once they have been placed into the box for questioning - at least in NY and NC.

Re:Anonymity for jurors

[ka9dgx]

"Everyone in the room knows the name of potential jurors once they have been placed into the box for questioning - at least in NY and NC."

Wow... there's no way to render a fair verdict in that type of environment.

Re:Anonymity for jurors

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just names... Knew their families, complete with pictures and demographical data.

"Don't you have a pretty daughter, Mr. Smith? Wouldn't it be a shame if she got into an accident coming back from school? It's a wild world out there, who knows what may happen, or what kind of pervert is wondering around after dark..."

Re:Anonymity for jurors

[gmhowell]

"Everyone in the room knows the name of potential jurors once they have been placed into the box for questioning - at least in NY and NC."

Wow... there's no way to render a fair verdict in that type of environment.

The criminals who set up the systems like it that way.

Re:Anonymity for jurors

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary talks about prosecutors, I don't know about Indiana, but round here prosecutors don't represent the defendant.

That would actually prejudice me

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Thinking about it, if a lawyer for either side were to ask to friend me or something else, I would immediately tell the judge that I needed to be excluded because I've become prejudiced against that side.

And I would be telling the truth.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[gnapster]

I would probably do the same. And it would sadden me, because (as a citizen) I would like to participate in the legal process in this way.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[blair1q]

The judge is then likely to ask you if you are capable of evaluating the facts of the case fairly and judging it based on their merits. And even if you say no he may decide you're just trying to get out of jury duty.

We all have prejudices. We're supposed to put them aside when the trial starts. And it's up to the prosecution and defense to decide whether to tolerate them, but they only get a couple of chances to do that, then it's first-come, first-empaneled.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Its very difficult to separate fact from fiction when you are biased against the person asking the question.

I still wouldn't hand over that level of personal information, and if I were cohered to cooperate and friend one of the attorneys under threat of contempt of court, my ass would probably get thrown off because I would indeed rule against the attorney who forced the issue.

Forcing me to do such a thing would be gross invasion of privacy and akin to asking to read emails between myself and my friends.

I have no issues with jury duty, and would serve without hesitation, but I will not cooperate with an invasive asshole.

Do you really think you would be able to overcome your biases if a lawyer questioning you for jury duty wanted your /. login and access to all your personal emails?

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[blair1q]

He doesn't want your login. He's just asking to see things you make public to people you make them public to. You can always say no.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[rahvin112]

The proper statement to the Judge would be the Prosecutor has offered a bribe of Internet access with the apparent attempt to influence my judgement.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[Fujisawa Sensei]

What's public?

If I have to do something to get a jerk lawyer access, its not public.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[gmhowell]

Like my mother who waited for ~45 years to get called to jury service. When she finally did, it was for a case presided over by a judge who she did not respect. Part way through voir dire, they asked "is there anything else that may prevent you from making a fair decision" and she honestly answered, citing her lack of trust of the judge to make good, intelligent, informed decisions. She was excused from that pool, and none of the other judges had a jury case this week. Oh well.

Re:That would actually prejudice me

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this.

:-)

How to get out of jury duty...

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

...just mention jury nullification. Prosecutors hate that shit.

A solution:

[BrokenHalo]

If you are called up for jury duty, I might suggest turning up wearing a T-shirt with "GUILTY" emblazoned on front and back. You might spend a day in jail for contempt of court, but I doubt if you'll be admitted to the jury panel.

Re:A solution:

[Immostlyharmless]

You don't need to be so blatant. Just show up with an *athiest* sign on your shirt. Then you can't possibly be held in contempt, and no one will pick you anyhow. You know us Godless heathens can't be trusted!! ;-)

Re:A solution:

[grub]

Just show up for selection and indicate you've read news reports about the crime and are sure the defendant is guilty.

No need for theatrics.

Re:A solution:

[fotbr]

Alternately, indicate that you've never met an honest police officer, and that their word is never, ever, to be trusted.

Re:A solution:

[fahrbot-bot]

I might suggest turning up wearing a T-shirt with "GUILTY" emblazoned on front and back.

Alternatively: (I've actually seen these):

• Peace through superior firepower.
• Kill them all; let God sort it out.

Re:A solution:

[OakDragon]

Just carry a newspaper.

Re:A solution:

[causality]

You don't need to be so blatant. Just show up with an *athiest* sign on your shirt. Then you can't possibly be held in contempt, and no one will pick you anyhow. You know us Godless heathens can't be trusted!! ;-)

The urge to advertise your personal beliefs about God and insert them into unrelated discussions about jury selection is what is difficult to trust. I am not saying there is anything wrong with discussing such topics, in fact that's what I am about to do now that it's come up. It just seems out of place or off-topic in this particular discussion, like it's not driven by a desire to elaborate on the jury selection process at all but instead by the way the less-enlightened respond to what you believe.

It reminds me of those Christians who think every discussion about every subject is an opportunity to evangelize. The disservice they do to Christianity is tremendous. I say that as someone who does not believe that spirituality is something which can be organized and institutionalized. Herding the genuinely spiritual would be about as easy as herding cats. The self-aware understand the folly of group identities and the undue importance they are given. For that reason I ask that you please do not paint me with the brush of mainstream Churchianity. My point is, I believe that to a lesser degree, the disservice you are doing to Atheism is similar.

I realize you were making a joke but all the same it reflects a feeling of persecution. It sounds like you have been treated differently and maybe downright discriminated against because of your Atheism or you have seen this done to other Atheists. When Jesus taught people to love their neighbor he didn't say "oh, unless he doesn't believe what you believe". Therefore, the "Christians" who would learn you are Atheist and then treat you with anything other than genuine kindness and respect are phony because they don't really understand what they profess to believe.

It reminds me of what Mahatma Ghandi said. As a Hindu, he said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are nothing like your Christ." You don't have to identify yourself as a Christian to understand that; all it takes is the ability to think for yourself. Ghandi certainly had that talent. I don't know if this would apply to you so please forgive me for being forced to generalize here: most Atheists I have personally met weren't terribly pro-Atheism. They were anti-religion. They didn't talk very much about rationality, logic, philosophy, etc. They primarily talked about religious people. It's sort of like most US elections -- few vote for a candidate they like. Instead they vote against a candidate they really don't like.

Sadly it is rare for me to meet an Atheist who wants to edify himself and build himself up; they were far too preoccupied with trying to take religion down a peg or two despite generally being smart people, the kind with whom one can reason. That is not an attack on Atheism because it is not unique to them. If anything, it's a lament about the human condition for this pattern is not at all limited to the subject of religion. It tells me something, at least about those particular Atheists I have personally known: they have been as damaged by organized religion as any of its followers and do not wish to let that go and deepen their understanding of who they are and what they believe.

Re:A solution:

[turtledawn]

I find this matches with my experience. I actually went to an atheist meetup here in my town last year, thinking it would be nice to have some fellowship. The group spent the entire session bitching it up. I didn't go back...

There was a GQ article interviewing Billy Ray Cyrus recently (I read it out of the perverse curiousity you have when you come from the same hometown) and he mentioned there's a sign in LA. Adopt-a-Highway, Atheists United. While Mr. Cyrus' interpretation left something to be desired, I thought it was neat - a group of actual civic minded atheists working together long enough to clean up a highway? Where can I find those people?

Re:A solution:

[Paracelcus]

When they ask you to swear "so help you God" just answer "On the blood of Christ I so swear" (or just make up your own), you'll be out of there as fast as they can process you!

"They" don't like religious crazies any more than atheists!

Re:A solution:

[Danse]

There was a GQ article interviewing Billy Ray Cyrus recently (I read it out of the perverse curiousity you have when you come from the same hometown) and he mentioned there's a sign in LA. Adopt-a-Highway, Atheists United. While Mr. Cyrus' interpretation left something to be desired, I thought it was neat - a group of actual civic minded atheists working together long enough to clean up a highway? Where can I find those people?

Most well-adjusted atheists don't flock together under that banner. Not anymore than they'd flock together over their lack of belief in Santa Claus. They may get together to support or oppose some legislation or incident on that basis though.

Re:A solution:

[causality]

There was a GQ article interviewing Billy Ray Cyrus recently (I read it out of the perverse curiousity you have when you come from the same hometown) and he mentioned there's a sign in LA. Adopt-a-Highway, Atheists United. While Mr. Cyrus' interpretation left something to be desired, I thought it was neat - a group of actual civic minded atheists working together long enough to clean up a highway? Where can I find those people?

Most well-adjusted atheists don't flock together under that banner. Not anymore than they'd flock together over their lack of belief in Santa Claus. They may get together to support or oppose some legislation or incident on that basis though.

Note I am not an Atheist but still I think it's a good thing when a group of people band together and show that you don't need a church, a religion, or to be threatened with some kind of guilt-trip in order to pitch in and try to make your community a better place. In fact I'd rather people do such things because they believe them to be a truly worthy and constructive use of their time, glady and voluntarily, and not through some kind of coercion or pressure of feeling like they're supposed to. I most certainly don't need to identify with Atheists as a group, believe what they believe, or agree with them on a set of issues (i.e. petty considerations) in order to appreciate what this particular group is doing and honor the example they are setting.

Re:A solution:

[Danse]

Yes, I agree with you about that. I'm not against people doing things to make a statement. If they feel that it's necessary where they live, then sure, go for it. Sometimes it's great to make those who would oppose it have to explain themselves. Sometimes its nice to challenge conventional wisdom and societal biases. Those would certainly be good reasons to band together.

Re:A solution:

[Immostlyharmless]

Actually, it was entirely related to the discussiongenerated by the parent post. The point I was trying to make was that even though Atheists aren't nuts, they are treated like they are group of subhumans by most of spiritual America and therefore would be kicked out of any jury pool without having to resort to extreme measures.

And for the record, I'm not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic ;-) Thank you for so kindly demonstrating *exactly* the point I was trying to make with your tirade against my attention seeking attempt to "advertise (what are not actually my) your personal beliefs." :P

That being said, I do find some of the points you make utterly fascinating. How can one talk about being pro-atheist if atheism means you believe in no Creator? Exactly what are they supposed to talk about? Nothing? Because essentially thats what they believe in as a Creator, nothing. I myself, as an agnostic, find the whole mess much ado about nothing either way. IF we are ever meant to know, it will occur. Until then endless speculating one way or another is merely a waste of time and effort that could better be pursued doing other things. (And no, the irony is not at all lost on me that I'm sitting on my butt posting this to Slashdot as I say that.)

P.S. One of these days I'd love to meet one of these 'True Christians' that you speak of, because in my 39 years of experience, I most certainly have not done so yet.

Re:A solution:

[akboss]

Do what I did for 10+ years. When I worked as a Correctional Officer I would get jury duty. Nice gig for me paid $22/hr to sit on a jury and time off from work to boot. Problem was, defense got rid of you in a blink of an eye, even quicker when you showed up in uniform.

Re:A solution:

[RapmasterT]

The urge to advertise your personal beliefs about God and insert them into unrelated discussions about jury selection is what is difficult to trust.

what? it's entirely a related issue to the discussion...because it's true. A person self identified as an atheist is VERY likely to be excused from jury duty. I'm not sure why you have such a long winded reaction to that fact.

most Atheists I have personally met weren't terribly pro-Atheism. They were anti-religion.

I suspect you weren't paying very close attention to what they were actually saying. Most atheists aren't in the slightest anti-religion, most are very much anti having religion pushed onto others...coincidentally in much the same way a religious person is about OTHER religions. There's a very large difference. People who go about their lives, quietly enjoying their faith without attempting to interject their beliefs in other peoples lives aren't going to get much attention from atheists. They may get attention from assholes, but at that point the atheism is just trivia.

Re:A solution:

[RapmasterT]

. How can one talk about being pro-atheist if atheism means you believe in no Creator? Exactly what are they supposed to talk about? Nothing? Because essentially thats what they believe in as a Creator, nothing.

What are they supposed to talk about? Everything else of course.

Re:A solution:

[sumdumass]

The point I was trying to make was that even though Atheists aren't nuts, they are treated like they are group of subhumans by most of spiritual America and therefore would be kicked out of any jury pool without having to resort to extreme measures.

And that point would be wrong. Now if you said people who insert into conversations that they are atheist are treated just like most people who insist on inserting their religion into those conversations when the conversation has nothing pertaining to religion or the lack of one, I cold agree.

But if your going to a church and claiming you are atheist then complaining that they treated you poorly, guess what, it's your own fault not theirs. If you are injecting that you are atheist without anyone asking and they treat you poorly after, guess what, it's your own fault, not theirs. Why? Because spirituality or the lack thereof is something personal. People do not like it injected into the conversation when it doesn't belong there. And yes, people who claim to be christian or Jewish or Muslim all get treated poorly when they walk up to someone of a different faith and proclaim their religious views. It's your own damn fault because of your own actions, not your beliefs.

So if you are in a room talking with strangers about car, one of the quickest ways to become treated poorly will be to insert the fact that you are an Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Protestant, Roman catholic, New lifer' Jehovah's witness, or anything else. If you want to continue to be treated normally, then stick with talking about cars or whatever the discussion was. And yes, this phenomenon of everyone is out to get me for my beliefs is spouted by people of almost every religion out there. It's because they can't tell that it's their actions that offends people when you share an intament personal belief with with strangers unsolicited..

Re:A solution:

[Ihmhi]

First and foremost, as an Atheist, I want to say, "Thank you". Just... for everything, man. You have a wonderful perspective on these matters.

That said, there's a reason that so many of us are anti-religion. I am not anti-faith. If you believe that the world or universe has a spirit however you want to define it, that's kosher with me. (Disclaimer: I will not be held liable for any broken irony meters due to my use of "kosher".)

However, any time a cult gets big and turns into a major religion, it is abused horrendously. The major religious organizations of the world have done far more outright harm than good, despite nearly all of them preaching about "good things". To have a church is to have a church hierarchy, and anyone claiming to have the only way into Heaven will wield an undeniably great amount of power over people who have, in my opinion, very little in the way of critical thinking skills in the first place.

The best one can hope for from a religious organization is that they'll end up being ineffective and incompetent.

This is where one might interject about the countless food pantries, homeless shelters, orphanages, schools, etc. run by religious organizations. Nearly every one of them I've seen does their very best to help people, but that help is conditional. Homeless shelters and the like have prayer before meals. What of the unbelievers, or those of a different faith? It might be me, but wouldn't the more noble thing be to help people without making them have to sit down and listen to whatever respective book you want to push on them? To give and ask nothing in return? (Protip: having mandatory prayer or handing out bibles is asking something in return.)

The religious organizations skirt the laws of the American nation as well as the nations of the world. Churches own hotels and apartment blocks and mini-malls, and they get a tax break on the whole thing. Some (although obviously the minority) preachers drive a Lexus or a Rolls and wear Armani or whatever their particular flavor happens to be. It churns my stomach that "In God We Trust" is on our money and that nearly every session of Congress opens with a prayer. These are all grievous violations of the first amendment's establishment clause. I have yet to see anyone make an argument that can reconcile this conundrum; how have these organizations been able to clearly and repeatedly violate our highest law for hundreds of years?

Forgive me if I am indeed preoccupied with trying to take religion down a peg or two. They relentlessly try to infringe on our laws and our natural rights, so of course I'm mad.

Re:A solution:

[queequeg1]

That might work if the case is about anything newsworthy. But 99% of them aren't and the judge knows it.

Ordinarily, attorneys are a lock for getting kicked off panels. Yet I've been practicing for 14 years and have been put on two juries in the past two years (most recently on a federal criminal jury). What's up with that? The next time I'm called, I'm going to answer every voir dire question with, "Mine's bigger than yours."

Re:A solution:

[Anonymous Coward]

People who choose to define their religious views as consistent with any major religion are making a political decision, not a (strictly) personal one.
*cue wikipedia link*
Politics
Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.
All major religious institutions make decisions based on scripture (or whatever) these decisions effect the politics of the government and in turn any effect all individuals subject to the laws imposed by the government. Thus if you support X religious institution it effects me, and is not strictly personal decision. Examples: Abortion, gay rights.

Re:A solution:

[sumdumass]

The point was about injecting your "political" or religious beliefs into a conversation that did not warrant it. If you are talking about abortion or gay rights, then obviously it's appropriate to inject "political" or religious thoughts if the conversation moves that way.

However, there are arguments against both abortion and gay rights (as they are stated now) that have absolutely nothing to do with religious or political ends. And note that I did not quote you on the political part that one time. That's because I want it to be distinguished as completely separate from your bastardizations.

There is an old saying, never talk religion or politics in a bar. That's because both eventually offend someone. It's the same when you inject it where it's not requested. It's still your own fault if people treat you poorly after you do it. Now get over yourself.

Jury Duty

[return 42]

Faustian bargain, or another way to get out of jury duty?

Oh yes, because you know we all want to get out of jury duty. No participation in what the government does for me, thanks! Let 'em do whatever they want!

This is legal?

[Arancaytar]

The prosecution bribes potential jurors in exchange for information on their background? There has to be something illegal about that.

It is easy to get out of jury duty

[Anonymous Coward]

You simply say "I believe in jury nullification."

Yeah, that, or...

[itsownreward]

...or maybe I turn on the wifi tethering on my unlimited data plan on my phone for everybody to use and carry a couple backup batteries. Being a Texan, I know the courts are corrupt, but... really?

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[vlm]

The cheap kindle does wifi only, correct?

this is just dumb

[Thud457]

1. jury selection should be done by lot, not hand-picking jurors like drawing a poker hand.
2. so I don't have a facebook account, I guess that makes me some sort of dangerous privacy advocate conspiracy theorist?
3. have you seen what facebook users get into? Heck, having an account ought to disqualify you for being an advocate for the overthrow of the gubbamint.

Juries should just be random... period

[scamper_22]

I've never really understood the process of jury selection.

I know the theory is that you 'weed' out people who might have biases... but in the end... is not the process of selecting juries creating another bias.

Better we just stick to true randomness. A random selection of people. Maybe have them at most pass a basic literacy/logic test. Then aim for 80% agreement or something to knock off the oddballs.

Re:Juries should just be random... period

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that if a vast majority of people in the district have a given bias (say that black people are all criminals) than it would be statistically unlikely that someone to whom that bias applies (say a black man) would be able to get a fair trial (one in which the basis of the conviction is more solid than "he's black and a stereo was stolen, it was probably him").

The jury selection process is intended to require the jury to be either acceptable to both the prosecution and defense, or roughly evenly split between biased in the prosecution and defense's favor. This ensures that in order for a consensus to occur the jury will have to use the evidence and arguments presented in the trial to determine what verdict to give.

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[svendsen]

Ya but you normally have a few weeks notice for your summons. So I think a person would have enough time to load up on a few books by then.

Faustian bargain?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Lets see. Faust got in a exchange for his immortal soul: Satan himself as his servant.

A facebook befriending gets you a shared wifi hotspot.

Somehow I don't think this will make as good a story.

Probably also at the end God will slap you.

Re:Faustian bargain?

[VorpalRodent]

For this to be a Faustian bargain, I expect that after the trial is concluded people will be finding body parts from jurors all over the courtyard and throughout the courtroom. Goethe didn't describe a particularly pleasant scene at the end there.

there are two sides to every argument. But,

[way2trivial]

They aren't working for the 'citizen' (I assume you mean the one being charged)

  in that position, the responsibility of the prosecutor is to represent the values of the community AGAINST the value/decision of the individual.

in a tribe of 10 people, you work stuff out via conversation and with the possibility of expulsion (shunning)

in a tribe of millions, you have a DA who does his best to see the one person at loggerheads is punished.

Can we all just quit Facebook already

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill the damn thing before it becomes mandatory to have a FB account.

HBGary/Palatir/Berico.... State of Maryland requiring job candidates to give them their FB login info.... debt collectors using FB to harass debtors (and their friends/neighbors)... lawyers scanning it for potential jurors.... stalking.... bullying.... God only knows what NSA, PLA Third Department, Mossad, and that ilk is doing with it.

Is it really that hard to email pics of your vacation to friends and family, and call them once in a while?

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[naz404]

Obligatory XKCD Strip: http://xkcd.com/553 Pirate Bay

Selection is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all missing the point. Jury selection is wrong in the first place. You pull a jury of random people together and that's that. No weeding out the people who might not suit you. That's part and parcel of the jury system. You can always appeal if they turn out to all be racist

Re:there are two sides to every argument. But,

[JonySuede]

you can do your best without piping the dice, since if you have a good case the conviction should be evident.
The goal of the prosecutor should not be a conviction at any price, it should be justice, and justice is not serve by selecting dimwits to serve on trial.

Re:there are two sides to every argument. But,

[vux984]

The goal of the prosecutor should not be a conviction at any price, it should be justice, and justice is not serve by selecting dimwits to serve on trial.

Right, but in the case mentioned the intelligent people were eliminated by the defense.

Simply GIVING black hats access?

[sabt-pestnu]

So instead of having to forge access, I'm simply given it? Wonder how many facebook IDs I can snoop while waiting for jury selection?

Hmm... wonder if the DA does any online banking?

How is this bad?

[khb]

The point of voir dire is to discover if the potential jurors are predisposed in some fashion (e.g. is a strong advocate of drug use, and it's a drug trial).

If someone has posted repeatedly on the topic (or the person) of the defandant or some of the witnesses in a semi-public forum, shouldn't that be fair game?

Facebook isn't like inviting people into your home, it's somewhere between the newspaper and the watercooler.

Perhaps it's "in scope" or not; obviously someone has to try it, and then the judges have to sort it out (or the Legislative branch has got to get ahead of the curve for a change).

But it doesn't seem Faustian ... and wifi access is sufficiently low value as to no more constitute a bribe than if the Court provides free coffee and water.

it is interesting to know that this is being done; clearly if one does have strongly held beliefs that would influence the selection one might want to actively express it in that forum (or suppress it, depending on one's beliefs about such things)

Seems like the sort of information that the Defense should have as well, so one would think that the Prosecution would have a duty to share redacted results

Re:How is this bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

A defendants buddy (said gang member who was found guilty of capital murder) goes and friends the DA.

Gets all the jurors names. Pic of their kids. Where they work.

Lovely.

I hope you are not too goddamn stupid as to not have figured this out for yourself.

Re:How is this bad?

[khb]

Folks in the pool are merely potential juriors. They may well be disqualfied for other reasons.

Yes, the DA needs to have good data security so that actual juror names aren't leaked (and one would hope they'd extend such care to potential jurors).

I don't see how the facebook angle changes that any; unless the names are leaked and the juror later updates their page to admit what trial(s) they were part of.

So no facebook = no forced slave labor for a court

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, does that mean that us people who actively refuse to touch trash-sites like facebook will get out of being forced to slave for the man? (Call it what you want, jury duty is still forced labor)

Sauce for the Goose and Gander

[Anonymous Coward]

When I report for jury duty, I am specifically instructed NOT to conduct any research into the case - I am not supposed to use the internet (among other resources) to look up relevant law, newspaper articles about the incident in question, background about the plaintiff and defendant, background about the lawyers arguing the case, and so forth. Only questions asked in the courtroom (or in the "extended courtroom" of depostions, etc.) and answers given there may be used to influence my decision.

Given this, I am having a hard time coming to grips with why it should be permissible for lawyers to step "outside the courtroom" to research jurors - I should think that lawyers' information about the jury pool should also be limited to only those questions they ask and answers they receive in the courtroom during jury selection. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?

Of course, I am not naive enough to think that lawyers, who have made themselves into the god-priests of modern society (just as you used to have to "consult with the oracle" to make sure your course of action wouldn't get you into trouble, you now have to "consult with the lawyers"), especially considering that since lawyers are generally those who become judges and politicians and thus write and interpret the law, they have set themselves up in the same role - writing, arguing, and applying the law (while getting others to enforce their whims) that ancient priestly sects had, are actually going to let themselves be bound by the same rules they wish to impose upon others - while they still have to put up with trial by jury (and jurors not completely under their control), they'll do everything in their power to make sure that they have as much control over the jury as possible.

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[FatdogHaiku]

Ya but you normally have a few weeks notice for your summons. So I think a person would have enough time to load up on a few books by then.

given the issue I'd say you would be better served loading up your fB profile with things like"why prosecutors are evil" and finding some jury nullification advocates to friend... maybe make some pages like this one. You will still have to sit in the jury pool but no prosecutor is going to want you...

Re:there are two sides to every argument. But,

[JonySuede]

oh, sorry my bad

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[FatdogHaiku]

Sorry, link failed: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jury-nullification/108547382503300

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I have no Facebook ID.

If they substitute my /. profile, then I guess I'm cool with that. Automatic dismissal from the jury, right?

A bullshit "problem".

[geekmux]

I'm sorry, but at what point should people start asking the question "What did we do before the Internet?"

And this "problem" they speak of...a "sudden" need to be able to perform pseudo-background checks instantly and on-the-fly when picking out people for jury duty, is a perfect example of this. If the jury selection process was that broken in the past, then I would have to question the lawmakers reasoning to not revise it sooner, and NOT look towards fucking Farcebook for the "answer".

Conflict of Interest much?

[shadowfaxcrx]

So now prospective jury members are "friends" with the prosecutor, and are in a position to be grateful (read: beholden) to him for getting them special privileges that they would not ordinarily have access to, yet they're still supposed to be impartial?

I imagine the defense attorney will have a ball with this one.

Create an empty FB with links to Goatse mirrors

[El Rey]

... no friends, fake personal info, just filled with links to one of the Goatse mirrors...

Re:Create an empty FB with links to Goatse mirrors

[stevegee58]

Hahahaha! For teh lulz!

Legal??

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this even legal? Isn't it side-stepping the court process?

What if I don't have Facebook?

[stevegee58]

Because I don't have it and I never will.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no right to a jury to your peers. This is a PR invention by the criminal defense bar and Jessie Jackson. Your Con Law lecture left off on very important point: The only person who has a standing for a juror being excluded because of race - is the excluded juror himself! An excluded juror suing because he was excluded from a trial. You have a right to be on a jury where the defendant is your peer?

Jury duty is the last vestige of citizen power

[X86Daddy]

When serving on a jury, you can use jury nullification to actually change how laws are enforced, by helping establish precedent, and by helping people being harassed with unjust laws. It happened all the time during alcohol prohibition, and its re-surging right now, as more citizens get sicker of the direct and indirect negative results from drug prohibition.

Direct bribery / campaign contributions / money from corporations was recently deregulated further than before under the guise of the First Amendment protecting citizens freedom of speech. So, the "representative" parts of our government are even less so than they ever were. The executive and bureaucratic realms are, of course, completely unaccountable, and most directors of regulatory agencies have lovely jobs awaiting them after retirement in the industries they regulated.

Serving on a jury is the last and only power afforded the citizens by the government. Any citizen actually aware of this power is a citizen the government doesn't want there. Any citizen capable of rational thought, or with a real sense of right and wrong versus "legal==right, illegal==wrong" is not someone a lawyer wants on a jury... lawyers and prosecutors both work in emotional manipulation and have no use for logical jurors.

During voire dire, if you want on that jury, you keep your eyes wide and your head nodding whatever direction the lawyer / prosecutor wants. Keep your answers in the form that Joe-sixpack would provide. Do not friend them on Facebook. They will take that power away from you with a quickness if they think you are anyone other than Joe-sixpack. You might be someone's only hope of justice prevailing, and you might just impact the enforcement plans or even the validity of an unjust law while you serve on that case.

AMERICANO LIED ABOUT HAVING A CSC DEGREE?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

Failure of the Jury System

[SirAstral]

This just shows another failure of the Jury System by proxy of the ignorance of the People.

A Jury of your peers in its original meaning is to be a jury composed of people that have a good chance of knowing who or what you are in some fashion and living near or in your area. You are not guaranteed an impartial jury, that is just psuedo law that has brainwashed itself into everyone's legalese. Your are guaranteed a quick and speedy trail by a jury of your peers. The founders had every intention of YOU being JUDGED by PEOPLE that KNOW YOU! So yes, if you pretty much act a douche and break the law, you are at risk of getting your trousers pulled to your knees in retribution!

In all reality it is impossible to get a jury of peers that are impartial! Our legal system needs to start spending a lot more time on ridding itself of the contradictions that litter our entire legal social society!

Also, for those of you who pride themselves on getting out of Jury Duty. You should have your right to vote permanently stripped or deported if possible or just plain shot dead on the spot! Serving on a Jury is your LAST CHANCE to prevent your Government from becoming a Tyrannical Dictatorship! You will NEVER have a more important role or duty to your Nation than to serve as Juror. This role is more important than even service in the Armed Forces! ONLY "We the People, For the People, By the People!" can assure our freedoms! The Military will only protect the nation, there is no chance the Military will assault the Whitehouse if The Constitution is trampled upon to restore our Freedom!

Re:Failure of the Jury System

[Anonymous Coward]

The descent towards tyranny is irreversible and everyone knows it. This is why genealogical research since the availability of the Internet has become so popular in the USA. People want to know if they still qualify for 'backup' citizenship in the lands of their forebearers when America falls like places such as in Argentina in the early 2000's. That is one of the benefits of endogamy; it makes it easier to fit those qualifications to 'run back.'. Every [ethnic] parent's fear is the possibility of their children marrying outside of their kind. One can easily imagine the admonition given in a thick accent or in another language: "Don't marry him/her or your children will be [ethnic] enough to suffer, but not [ethnic] to run to [land of origin].

AMERICANO LIED ABOUT HAVING A CSC DEGREE? LMAO!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

AMERICANO You aren't our peer, with no CSC degree

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

AMERICANO LIES ABOUT HAVING A CSC DEGREE? LOL!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

AMERICANO LIED ABOUT HAVING A CSC DEGREE? LMAO!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

AMERICANO LIES ABOUT HIS HAVING A CSC DEGREE?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

So if I put "Can be bought!"...

[ibsteve2u]

on my Facebook page, I'll get high-profile Mafia cases?

Re:So if I put "Can be bought!"...

[ibsteve2u]

lollll...or, more likely, insider trading cases.

AMERICANO THE FATBOY HAS NO CSC DEGREE? LMAO!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

First of all, Kevin B. Pease = AMERICANO from Merrimack New Hampshire - kbpease@hotmail.com - YOU DID NOT GET A DOUBLE MAJOR!

AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease

PERTINENT EXCERPT:

Kevin Pease's Education
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
B.S., Biotechnology

1993 Ã" 1998

Minor: Computer Science

---

LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...

---

(Want more people? Ok!)

---

Kevin B. Pease steals the code of others from books:

http://www.justskins.com/forums/looking-for-inspiration-cascading-16594.html [justskins.com]

PERTINENT QUOTE EXCERPT:

"Hi Garry, I think I have a script that will do exactly what you want, based on and I hope, improved...) a program in Lincoln Stein's "CGI.pm" book. The most notable change from his version is that I wrote in"

---

Kevin B. Pease has others do his work for him:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iH45r7p9xV8J:www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/modperl/modperl/89045+kbpease&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

---

Kevin B. Pease/AMERICANO NEEDS TO LOSE WEIGHT (fatboy, lol!):

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg

(There's NO WAY you'll EVER get a date looking that way, pal, unless you PAY the woman!)

---

(That "takes the cake" - Not only did you LIE about "dual majors", but, lol, it TOOK YOU 6 YEARS TO GET A MINOR IN CSC as well... you're a JOKE! )

APK

P.S.=>

"I'd say I'm pretty much the winner in that comparison, friend." - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)

Americano, not only do I have an MIS minor but I also have an AAS in CSC (long done, now 94/120 credits into the FULL 4 yr. Bachelors' too) & these to my credit (& you can't even SCRATCH this list yourself):

---

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[Rick17JJ]

I have never used Facebook and do not have a Facebook ID either. So, perhaps I would also be dismissed due to the lack of information about me. I don’t think they would be able figure out my Slashdot ID, and I would not offer it to them in exchange to access to their WiFi network.

Re:jury's place to decide the law

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some who disagree with you. Google "Jury Nullification" or check out http://fija.org/category/jury-nullification/

I'm Free ... !

[Anonymous Coward]

Dudu dudu dududu.
Dudu dudu duddud.

I'm Free!

Dudu dudu dududu.
Dudu dudu dududu.

I'm Freeeeeeeeee!

And I'm waitngggggg, for youuuuuuu, to follow, Meeeeeeee!

-308

Re:siting in a room for as low as $5 a day sucks y

[oliverthered]

I'm more into making things

Re:there are two sides to every argument. But,

[AmiMoJo]

The prosecutor is under pressure to perform. Not winning cases looks bad because it leaves another crime unsolved/unpunished and wastes public money on a failed prosecution. As some state prosecutors are chosen by elected officials (AIUI, IANAA) there is a direct line from the voters to the person in that job.

Similarly the defender is motivated by having a high win/loss ratio and thus being able to get more work and charge higher fees.

In the UK judges are not directly elected and their failure to match the public mood usually does not reflect on those who appointed them, but in the US where they are elected even they have pressure to put someone away for a particularly bad crime.

Accountability is great, but only if those who you are accountable to understand the nature of your job and why you make each decision.

My wife's never been selected for a jury

[wwphx]

She has a PhD in astronomy/astrophysics. She couldn't get out of a summons to Federal court, so she was working all night at the observatory, sometimes two or three nights in a row, then driving over two hours to Las Cruces, just to sit around and never be selected. They have no conception of hardship exclusions where having to make this drive after working like that actually jeopardized her life. Then again, New Mexico has such a small areal population that they might only be able to dismiss people under the most severe of circumstances.

They also don't want people who are too smart or analytical. Myself, I worked for a police department for nine years doing database, that's also pretty much an automatic disqualification.

Terry Childs

[wwphx]

I do not have a cite, but there was a network engineer on the jury for Terry Childs' case. I think that would almost have had to be a requirement, otherwise the jurors would have been totally lost on the technical aspects of the charges.

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a trick to me. Last court I was in threatened to take your phone or other device until the end of the day if they even saw it. What's the sequence: "friend" the DA, then get told to put your phone away?