Have you ever served jury duty?

Yes I have. No it wasn't. Domestic abuse case. Step-father accused of hitting his step-daughter. It was obvious that he, she and the mother all reconciled and didn't want to be there.

The charges were brought by the police, not the victim.

Four people testified and gave four different versions of what happened.

The highlight was receiving $13.00 which I spent for lunch and the big-city judge visiting our Podunk town. He couldn't get over how quaint it was.

Damm...I was hoping for some Dateline/48 Hours Mystery type shit.

No - and I never will as I've worked in law enforcement in the past.

I think it's a civil duty and I would be happy to do it, but I will never be selected.

The jury system is broken in the US - for a true representative jury of your peers, we need to have everyone serve.

And I think juries should be of actual peers - complicated financial crimes should not be judged by those without high school diplomas.

I sat on a jury in a civil court case. Kid ran in front of a car, got hit, broke his leg. He was fine by the time of the case, but the mother wanted $500K pain and suffering money. It was clearly an accident, the hospital bills had been paid, and the kid had healed. We gave her nothing. The trial lasted for over a week, though. I like the law, so it was pretty cool.

R4 - you like the law when justice prevails. When it doesn't it bites hard.

Was there any doubt?

I'd say that case should have been thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit.

Yes. It was almost completely ambiguous whether the driver, a woman, was in the wrong (it was years ago, and I don't remember anything more about the case) but I do recall we voted against the lawyer with the crappy suit (this ugly light blue thing--polyester, not oxford cloth). That wasn't the reason we gave, and it wasn't spoken of, but the lawyer with the ugly suit definitely lost the case.

Twice.

The first was a civil case tried in Superior Court. A couple thought their Porsche was defective after they drove it for 50,000 miles. We let them give it back to the dealership for basically Blue Book value. No one was happy which was fine with us because it was a stupid case.

The second was a Federal drug trafficking case. The defendant was accused of trying to smuggle drugs into the Atlanta airport. We found him guilty.

It was actually kind of a boring case although the process was interesting. The lawyer for the prosecution really played his case to me. I guess he thought I would be vocal, which I was. I was elected the jury foreman by draw. Whew were treated very well by the Federal court system. Catered too really.

During the trial, which lasted about 3 days, I called my mom and it turns out she knew the Federal prosecutor slightly. Oopsy.

[italic] you like the law when justice prevails. When it doesn't it bites hard.

Was there any doubt?

I'd say that case should have been thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit.[/italic]

R5, Whaa? I liked the process of law: the presentations of cases, arguments, evidence. The doubt was cleared up by the decision of the jury I served on. I have no complaints, it was a cool experience.

Not sure why you're more qualified than the acting judge to determine the frivolousness of a case I haven't presennted in any detail, nevermind why you seem angry about it.

Get help much?

Yes. The judge picked me as foreman, which I can only guess was due to my having a master's degree. Or not. Who knows.

The defendant was charged with crack possession and attempted sale. She was clearly guilty. I would have found it so, but found "not guilty" for attempt to deal w/i 500 yards of a school, which was only true because she lived that close to a school, and that didn't seem fair, since the alleged sale was inside her home.

The other jurors had all sorts of conspiracy theories as to how the policeman set this poor woman up, so as to advance his career. There was no evidence of that, but it just goes to show how people make stuff up to suit their own preconceptions. The only think that bothered me was that their informant who setup the "buy" wasn't there to testify.

I figured the world won't end if we gave this perp a walk, so I switched my vote when there was a risk that we'd have to come back the next day, if we didn't make a finding soon. The case was otherwise so clear-cut, the judge asked us all privately if we'd been intimidated on our lunch break, as we all ate at the same joint as the defendant and her family. I also am ambivalent about drug crimes.

Yes. It was a civil trial. A man was suing the NYTA. He claimed he was injured when the bus he was riding on hit a car. He would come to court with a cane, stooped over and limping. The lawyers for the transit authority hired someone with a hided camera to follow the guy around his neighbor. They caught him on camera, not limping and riding his bike all over the place. We didn't award him a dime.

I have never served on a jury. When I was a teenager back in the early 00s, my mother served on the jury for a rape trial and she never discussed it that much.

[quote]And I think juries should be of actual peers - complicated financial crimes should not be judged by those without high school diplomas.

I once got jury duty for a murder trial. They seated the jury before my number was called, so I had to sit and listen to five days of juror questioning. This is what I got from it: People who had a college education were 9 times out of 10 dismissed, and people who had difficulty speaking English or with hearing and vision problems were usually picked to remain on the jury.

Yes,

An African-American guy was charged with resisting arrest without violence, but because he had previous convictions (drugs), was facing jail time and consequent loss of his son that he was raising alone. He was pulled over for not wearing a seat belt. When the cops ran his license, they had him for an expired tag on a car he no longer owned. (He brought in the paperwork as evidence that he had relinquished the plate to the state.) For that they decided to arrest him. When he didn't immediately turn and give his hands to be handcuffed, they added a "resisting arrest without violence."

At the outset, two of the seven us--me and another lady--were for throwing it out. Interestingly enough, I was the only person on the jury who had never been arrested or convicted of a crime (or had a near relative who had been).

We all know--and I said this repeatedly--if he had been white, he wouldn't have been arrested for an expired tag on an old car. But the other jury people kept parroting, "When an officer gives you an order, you're not allowed to ask questions."

Anyway, the other lady and I prevailed.

Never. I am a lawyer.

Yes I served on jury for a 2-week second degree murder trial in LA County Superior Court. The trial involved a Korean immigrant who who killed his son on his first birthday by violently shaking the baby because he was crying. The child had been taken to the the Children's Hospital on Sunset before for prior shaking incidents, including a time when his father threw the baby while in his rocker across the room.

The primary fact witness was the devastated mother, a very recent Korean immigrant who had recently arrived in the US with her husband (the defendant) after their marriage in South Korea. The defendant had lived in the US much of his life, spoke English (though used in interpreter in trial I'm guessing as ploy for sympathy) and had a large family support system who attended the trial daily. According to the testimony, the family bullied and isolated the mother who spoke no English and had no family in the US. Her testimony, again through an interpreter, was extremely compelling and underscores the importance of a compelling fact witness. I learned that she was granted immunity from prosecution if she agreed to deportation based on some delay in taking her son to the hospital on the prior occasion. She was persuaded not to by her husband and his family who didn't agree to call an ambulance until the seriousness of the baby's injuries could not be ignored. She was a very sympathetic person -- timid, lonely, bullied and isolated in a foreign culture. She made mistakes, and will have to live with them for the rest of her life, but she was not a murderer. The prosecutor was good, but he had a very good witness to work with.

He also retained very good expert witnesses who were able to communicate many hours of very complex scientific and medical testimony to the lay jury without putting everyone to sleep--no easy task.

The trial overall was very sad and the events tragic. The baby died on a Saturday on first birthday. The small family went to a photo studio for a portrait of the baby and then to Griffith Park for a birthday picnic. As the afternoon devolved, the father grew increasingly angry. The baby was teething and fussy. His wife was timid and ineffectual. He lost his temper when putting his son in the car and shook the baby in frustration, exacerbating a prior brain injury caused by the father's temper. They all fell asleep when the arrived back to their tiny apartment in Koreatown. When the child woke up crying, the father took the baby outside to try to quiet him. The mother remained in the apartment. A witness on the street saw the father screaming at the baby in frustration. He returned to the apartment with an unconscious child. The baby died just before midnight. It was devastating seeing the baby's birthday portrait at trial. We convicted on all charges. The father is serving many years in state prison.

Other the the sad circumstances, the experience was rewarding from a professional and civics perspective. As a lawyer and litigator, it's a relatively rare experience to serve in a jury so the inside perspective was enlightening. I was very proud of my jury. Without exception, we took our duty very seriously and went through each element of each charge one by one and everyone's voice and opinion were respected. I think we all appreciated the seriousness of our charge and the implications of our decision. I was also very proud of my city for its diversity. Including the alternates, our jury was comprised for four Asians (of varying ethnicities), four AAs, four white people, and four Latinos (including myself). The judge, attorneys and court staff were all top-notch -- professional, respectful etc.

Sorry for long post haven't thought about this in awhile. And excuse typos pls.

This was probably 18 years ago.

Seated on a case of an older man charged with 2 separate counts of indecent assault on a minor under the age of 14 (2 girls). I was chosen as foreman, I think because I was the only one in a tie. It actually took a second day to pick a jury.

There were the opening statements, then the ADA started to question one of the victims. Two or three questions in, she started to cry and said that she didn't want to answer his questions. The ADA asked the judge for a recess. The judge told the victim that she needed to answer her attorneys questions. The ADA started to ask questions again, but the victim cried and wouldn't answer. The ADA again asked for a recess again judge obliged and the jury was led to the deliberation room. About 20 minutes later, we were led back into the courtroom.

The ADA started ask to ask questions, and the victim again said she wasn't going to answer. At this point, the judge leaned in and and told her if she didn't answer, she would be held in contempt. He was red faced.

The ADA tried one more time, she wouldn't answer, and the judge blew up. He whirled around in his chair, and yelled "Bailiff. Get that jury out of here!" The eight of us jumped up and nearly ran out of the room. A couple of jurors actually started to laugh. We sat in the deliberation room for over an hour.

We were led back into the courtroom. Victims #1 and #2 and their families were gone. The ADA was looking down at the floor, beet red. The judge thanked us for our service, and sent us back to the jury pool room.

The judge came back soon after and apologized to us. He said that our time had been wasted and he wasn't sure why the case had ever been brought this far through the system. Although he didn't say it, we guessed that the "victims" made up the charges.

I've been called a couple of other times, but not seated.

[quote]People who had a college education were 9 times out of 10 dismissed, and people who had difficulty speaking English or with hearing and vision problems were usually picked to remain on the jury.

That was my experience as well. A prosecuting attorney actually told me that my magazine subscriptions made me sound 'too literate'.

2xs. one a crack drug deal. i was the only hold out for a not guilty verdict. eventually gave in and convicted her... was mentally tormented by that decision for a long time after. the other was a drunk driving charge... not guilty. the cop in that trial was a complete dick, smug chest thumpper. didn't help his case. 3rd time i got out of serving.

I was called for a murder case.

I knew the wife of the defense attorney and he had just finished a very high profile murder case in which the woman was found guilty of murdering a child in her care.

The wife had told me the defense attorney knew the woman was guilty ,but had to defend her.

I could have never given the new defendant an unbiased verdict.

So I didn't have sit on the new case.

Good story, r15.

R3, you'd probably be a fine juror in a civil case. R14, as an attorney, I can assure you that we are eligible in at least two states, in both of which I have served on juries, having moved from one to the other. With a very diverse practice, I'd be a bad choice for a civil jury, but have no more familiarity with criminal cases than most laymen.

R4, help me to understand: You say: "He was fine by the time of the case, but the mother wanted $500K pain and suffering money. It was clearly an accident, the hospital bills had been paid, and the kid had healed." The action was under the theory of pain and suffering. If it was an accident, I understand why criminal charges may not have been filed. And if his medical bills were paid, I understand that you wouldn't compensate him for medical expenses. But the pain and suffering is unaffected (or mitigated) by the fact that his hospital bills were paid or that it was an accident. So I don't understand why you found no award for pain and suffering in a civil case. Something doesn't make sense here in your post.

R1, I love that the highlight of a domestic abuse case for you was that you got a whole $13 to eat lunch that day.

A few years back, I was called to serve on a murder case - two teen boys who were accused of setting a homeless man on fire.

Fortunately, they opened the door of the room we were in and paraded one of the defendants past in shackles; they figured that seeing him that way would influence our decision, and we were all excused. I was so relieved.

R9: "I figured the world won't end if we gave this perp a walk, so I switched my vote when there was a risk that we'd have to come back the next day, if we didn't make a finding soon."

It's good to have priorities. We've got to really rethink this whole jury system thing. Maybe our founding fathers were wrong about this too.

R16: The DA's Office almost never brings a case unless it's it's airtight. They can't be bothered otherwise. That's why so many prosecutors actually have such great conviction records. They won't try a case unless they think they have an excellent chance of a conviction. Unlike being a Public Defender, it's all discretionary for the D.A.'s Office.

R22 is looking for tits on ants.

I was on two unpleasant cases. Since then I have taken a medical excuse to avoid serving again. I've done my time. Until the last case I figured it was my civic duty to do it, and apply the standards with fidelity.

I live in St. Louis City. My father's family was Melungeon, so I have black ancestry and, as typical, grew up "white." I mention this because the overwhelming majority of defendants in St. Louis are African American, and it is very hard to witness and judge, given the social and cultural circumstances that often are revealed.

The first case was an armed robbery. (Someone was shot and seriously wounded, but the trial was for the robbery alone.) A young black defendant with an incompetent lawyer - but he was guilty. Two elderly black ladies attempted to nullify the verdict, with 10 voting guilty. They hated that this young man would go to prison for a long time, and hated what would happen to him. We convinced them to do their job fairly, as they had sworn to do.

When the verdict was read, a contingent of the defendant's family and friends rushed forward as the guy overturned the table in front of him and started screaming at us how he was going to kill "you motherfuckers." Court officers and police poured in - they must have sensed what was coming - and the jury was pulled out during the melee and led to a basement room. We had to wait until things were "safe." The two ladies were horrified. They felt they had betrayed their community. We finally were each escorted out, one by one. I had taken a bus but was driven home, and told to call if anyone showed up at my house.

The second case, last year, was a rape case. The victim was an ignorant, dull, obese young woman of 20. The defendant was in his late 20s. Both were African American. She supposedly had been walking to work early and was attacked on the street, dragged into a motel, and raped as he held a gun to her head. The details were vile. She told how he had inserted the gun barrel in her. There were a lot of questions about semen, and where he ejaculated. Her sister said she happened to be driving by as the victim was staggering outside the motel, and she took her home, where they called the police.

He had a public defender, who held up the woman's thong underwear and a tiny whore skirt she had been wearing "going to work." He said there were questions about her working that day, that she had been let go. He said, "This is not what it seems." Many conferences took place, and we had to leave the courtroom numerous times. Obviously she had dissembled, if not lied, about what she was doing, but his attorney wouldn't put it together, or wasn't allowed to. And it seemed clear that regardless of how she ended up in the motel room, she had experienced a rape. He had pulled out and ejaculated where that evidence wasn't found.

Based on the judge's very careful directions, we found him guilty. He showed no emotion. I had seen several women in the courtroom both days of the trial. I met one in the elevator. She was an anti-violence advocate who had worked with and coached the victim. She talked about how brave the young woman was, because she had been very traumatized. (She had broken down several times during her testimony, but had such a flat affect and stumbling language it all seemed strange.) I said, "So did we do a good job?" The advocate said, "Yes. This guy had done the same thing to at least four women, with the gun and rape." And this was the only one who would go to trial. I assume this was because of the actual circumstances of the thing, which I didn't raise.

And then, as I walked down the steps outside, an older woman - from the courtroom - stopped me. She was the defendant's mother. She asked why we did it. I said, gently, "Because he was guilty." She said it wasn't right, that the story wasn't all there, whatever we did." She asked what she could do for her son. I gave her advice on who to call, to find a different lawyer, appeal. I shook her hand and held it. It was sad and painful. I watched her walk to her bus stop.

I have served - enough.

R26 - I don't necessarily agree with your statement regarding airtight cases.

We couldn't understand why the judge said what he did (about why the case went as far as it did). I didn't write this in my story, but the first girl mentioned that the guy (her boss at a summer job) was dropping them off. He reached over to open the door, and it sounded like his hand brushed against her chest/their chests.

Yes, and I enjoyed it. It was an assault case, and when we did our first poll of the jury, 9 out of 12 thought the defendant was guilty. The 3 of us not-guilty believers swayed the 9 guilty believers.

I got part way through a 2nd degree burglary trial when the defendant changed his mind and took a plea deal.

I was a civilian employee for a police department in a large city. We were called for jury duty but never chosen.

I did know a woman who was called for jury duty on a horrible murder trial. The victim was raped and was waiting to testify in the rape trial, she was an art student. The perp was in jail so he got someone else to break into her house and take her away into the night to murder her in a field.

The woman I knew was asked a few questions during jury selection, she finally interrupted and said "I've heard about this crime, I can't get it out of my mind and I want both men to die for what they've done. They don't get to poison my life any further, get someone else". They thanked her and asked her to leave. Oh also the victim's boyfriend was staying with her when she was abducted and murdered, he could not stop her assailant. Horrible nightmarish stuff. The boyfriend was badly injured but he could hear her begging for her life as she was dragged into the car outside the window.

It was like 12 Angry Men, with me the lone holdout against corporate malfeasance!

[quote][R4], help me to understand: You say: "He was fine by the time of the case, but the mother wanted $500K pain and suffering money. It was clearly an accident, the hospital bills had been paid, and the kid had healed." The action was under the theory of pain and suffering. If it was an accident, I understand why criminal charges may not have been filed. And if his medical bills were paid, I understand that you wouldn't compensate him for medical expenses. But the pain and suffering is unaffected (or mitigated) by the fact that his hospital bills were paid or that it was an accident. So I don't understand why you found no award for pain and suffering in a civil case. Something doesn't make sense here in your post.

Again, Whaa? I posted seven deliberately vague sentences about a jury I served on 15 years ago and you seem to believe there was some miscarriage of justice. Sorry, I'm not going to detail all six days of testimony and the dozens of pieces of evidence for you. Short version: a kid ran into the street without looking and got hiy by a car. Mom saw dollar signs, and sued the driver. There was no credible evidence that the driver was in any way negligent, so we did not find against him. I assure you that all 12 jurors, myself included, carefully considered all the testimony and supporting materials that were presented, and our decision was unanimous.

You can't just run in front of a car, get hit, and cash out for $500K when you're the one at fault for the accident. If the driver had done something wrong, or not maintained his car properly or something, the decision might have been different. But he didn't do anything wrong. So, no award.

Although I have been called many times I was only chosen once to sit on a jury. It was a personal injury case against the City of New York. I would never be picked in civil suits against medical facilities and doctors because I'm a nurse. We never got to hear the case against the City. It was Summer and the judge that was scheduled to hear the case was going on vacation, so they had to scramble to find another judge. They didn't want us hanging around with nothing to do so they turned us loose. My asshole Director of Nurses thought I was lying about being picked for the jury to get out of work. Really, Clarence Darrow? Man, I hated that bitch. I have to report for jury duty on Monday and this time it is the criminal division. Yikes. They LOVE nurses in criminal cases. I know it's my civic duty but I really hope they don't choose me.

From the "I'm just like a black person because I think I'm Melungeon" to the story of all the black people wanting to shirk the law, r28's post is pretty chilling.

I grew up near St Louis. Most people who think they're Melungeon aren't, and even if they are, they don't "grow up" white, they ARE white.

R36, your nastiness doesn't justify a pose of omniscience, nor does it indicate you have any knowledge of me or my family.

Of course I'm not like a black person. I represent the confusion and shame involved with race issues in America on a historical basis. My family was legally kicked out of North Carolina for miscegenation, and the pattern was one of denial rather than acceptance.

You are a sad piece of work, and your notion of black people wanting to shirk the law as a take-away shows you to be a rather typical form of St. Louisan.

Shame on you.

R34: So you didn't award anything because the defendant wasn't negligent and did absolutely nothing wrong. Ok, you left the most important part out of your first post.

Yes and I could not wait until a break. everyone dashed to the restrooms BUT this bitch said tough and ran into the men's room. I thought I would wet my pants waiting for her to exit, and did voice a complaint with the tipstaff.

My case was depressing but turned out ok. The police had busted a Latino gas station owner (from Queens) in a "buy and bust" case involving a kilo of coke(the cops were posing as customers). Only their actual contacts were two Columbians who said the deal would go down at this gas station in Queens and said the gas station owner ran the operation. According to testimony they gave, the cops never dealt with the owner and there was just a lot of back and forth with the Columbians in and around the gas station including the Columbians going in and out of a liquor store a lot. And drinking. The day was just the Columbian guys running around.

Basically the Columbians came across, via testimony, as a couple of hustlers trying to put one over on the undercovers (who they didn't know were undercovers). You know, get the money without delivering the product.

I spent all of the testimony waiting for something to connect the gas station owner with the drug sale besides the hearsay from the two Columbians. (The Columbians had fled the country after their arrest and bail, so all that was left of the case was the gas station guy and the cops telling us what the Columbians had told them.)

There was nothing direct until at the very end one of the cops said the gas station owner said it (the kilo) would be there soon. It was kind of shoe-horned in there and was the only connection to the gas station guy and it just felt a little "off". Also, they tried to use the fact that the gas station phone number was in one of the Columbian guy's address book as evidence, but the same gas station phone number was also printed on key chains the gas station sold, and on a ton of other items.

This was a long time ago but there was something about it that smelled because they never reported the two Columbians even talking to the gas station owner and even per the cops' testimony, he pretty much seemed to be running the gas station the whole time, which was located on one of those nightmarish queens quadra-sections.

I was so mad because when I was first seated, I figured - coke bust, easy. In jail he goes. I was inexperienced and didn't realize that if they seriously had the goods on the gas station guy, he'd have done a deal; there wouldn't be a trial. But when we started hearing testimony I waited and waited and never got real evidence. All of their evidence was second hand - what the Columbians had told them, and the Columbians had escaped to Columbia.

So that was the testimony. The jurors included a woman who was still reading the October issue of Newsweek in January. There was one minority on the panel. The first vote was me, a journalist from Newsday, and the minority guy voting acquittal (insufficient evidence) and everyone else voting to convict. It was a real eye opener and - I HATE to use the term but it works here - the "white privilege" on display was amazing. I can't remember what point we were discussing but someone asked why people from Brooklyn would go to Queens and the minority guy said he was Manhattan but got his haircut in Brooklyn. There was SO MUCH PREJUDICE (this was the 90s) and so much sanctimony. The jury would actually be described as liberal but they couldn't reason or think and nobody had common sense.

After three freaking days (sequestered in a Holiday Inn when we weren't at court) we managed to turn around most of the jury but one guy who kept saying "You can't prove he didn't do it!" Then one of the converts explained to him we don't have to prove that, the case has to prove he DID. So it was exhausting. That guy was the foreman. Finally we acquitted. The gas station guy burst into tears, and I think his family, and his gazillion character witnesses (including a retired judge)were pretty close to tears, and so was the defense attorney (a former prosecutor).

My cousin was on a rape case that she says was open and shut as far as she was concerned (guilty). Everyone goes guilty but for one woman who votes to acquit. It's a stale mate, so it's announced they'll sequester for the night (a hotel).

Continued above - cousin on rape case jury:

So the one lady who votes for acquittal hears that since it's deadlocked, it's the hotel overnight for all of them. She goes "No, I can't do that!" and immediately switches her vote to guilty.

Continued again re buy and bust case: what started persuading some of the others was pointing out there wasn't enough evidence for a news article, so how is it enough evidence to convict?

vehicular homicide

Semi driver was walking around his truck pulled over on the side of the road on an interstate highway. Prosecution said the truck driver was behind the trailer, the defense said the truck driver stepped out from between the truck and the trailer. Either way the truck driver stepped out in to traffic. The driver of a car struck him and the truck driver ended up going through the windshield and into the front seat of the car head first with his legs hanging out the windshield. The pictures were very grizzly. Accident experts testified for both sides, cancelling each other out.

Prosecution wanted to send the driver of the car to prison for 10 years. Speed and alcohol were not an issue. Final instructions from judge settled it for me. The judge said if we believe that the dead truck driver was even 1% at fault we had to find the car driver innocent.

Jury went for deliberations, and after electing a foreman we took an initial non binding vote, to see how far apart we were. 4 voted innocent, 4 voted guilty and 4 voted undecided. I was completely baffled how anyone could find the car driver guilty, I reminded them of the judges instructions, some of the jury members wanted to see the pictures again. We took another vote and it was 12-0 innocent, of course it was also 5:30 on a Friday evening. That might have had something to do with it.

I couldn't believe that the prosecutor wasted his time and the counties money prosecuting the car drive. What a waste of money.

It was weird going back into the court room for reading of the verdict. For some reason I just could not look at the defendant, not sure why. I felt like I should look at him and smile or nod or something, but I just couldn't. He stood there sweating out the verdict. I hope I never have to do that again.

Funny thing during jury selection. An elderly woman told the judge that she just couldn't ever bring herself to sit in judgment of a fellow human being, her religion just wouldn't allow it. So he excused her. Next juror came up to be questioned (18 year old kid) and he told the judge that he felt just like that lady. The judge says, how so. The kid says what ever she said, that stuff about not judging someone else. The judge made him sit in the back of the court room until jury selection was over. Then dismissed him. He was not amused.

One doesn't actually "serve jury duty." One serves on a jury. One performs jury duty -- or any other duty (my five year old would be in hysterics, by the way, given how often I've said the word "duty"); one doesn't "serve one's duty."

That said, I was on a Federal jury in a drug case. The guy was guilty, guilty, guilty. The feds had him on tape arranging the deal, caught him showing up with the cash.... His attorney was another tip off; he'd represented some major celebrities in drug and unrelated cases; the poor car mechanic that the defendent purported to be could not have retained such a big deal.

To my surprise, our very diverse jury was unanimous on the first round. The various professionals had fairly articulate analyses of what they'd heard, and the unemployed slum dwellers simply cut to the chase with "oh, PLEASE." We were all gratified to discover how well we got along -- the trial went on for several days (the deliberations were half an hour). And we were all relieved not to have to deal with fellow jurors who just loved to hear themselves talk about their own life experiences.

R28, that's such an SVU-esque tale, particularly the encounter on the courthouse steps!

I did my jury service (their words on the discharge letter) and it was a guns and pot case. I was honest and said that I think that pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed, and I didn't think I could render a fair verdict based on my beliefs. Of course, I got discharged. Whoo hoo! Honestly, it was like being in detention.

I tend to get chosen for jury duty every time I'm eligible. In fact, got a questionnaire for duty last week, so will probably be doing it again in a month or so.

First time I served, got chosen for a case about a man who fell out of a window in his apartment. Was suing the landlord. Once the jury got seated, the lawyers settled the case.

Second time involved a drug dealer and a car chase and resulting accident. Said dealer was in a wheelchair, but we were told to ignore that fact. I wasn't chosen from the jury pool. (Yes, I'm Caucasian, with a Master's degree, for those reading prior posts as well and wondering how peers are selected.)

Third time involved someone slipping in a CVS store and breaking a leg or something. I'd had a horrible encounter once with a CVS pharmacy and let the lawyers know, and was immediately dismissed.

The actual process of jury duty has become far less painful and onerous than it was the first time I did it. And I hope that continues, cause I know I'm about to get called again.

Recently sat on a rape case. Defendant was from Ghana, married with a kid, and accused of raping a first-year college student at a party. She was 17, a virgin, and this was the first college party she'd gone to.

The defendant never took the stand to defend himself or explain any of his actions. The defense attorney was really awful, but what was so embarrassing about his bad performance is that his father is an attorney too, but better known as a best-selling author (in the hundreds of millions). Jeez, don't type his name if you get who it is... he's litigious.

We found the guy guilty on rape and abduction. Given the evidence, it was a pretty easy decision.

LOL @ R39

When we were discharged the county clerk said that the letter of proof of jury service was good for eight years. Does that mean I won't be called again for eight years? That doesn't sound likely. I was picked for a jury on a personal injury lawsuit against the City of New York but we were discharged the next day without hearing one word of testimony. Something about the judge going on vacation and them needing to find another judge to hear the case and how it would be unfair to keep us around with nothing to do. No one believes me when I tell that story. Why would they lie about the reason for dismissing us? The case was not settled out of court. The City fights these cases tooth and nail.

The defending attorney on the case we were voir dired for today was going to make mince meat out of the female ADA. I kind of wanted to stick around to watch a pro work but I didn't want to lie about my ideas on legalizing pot. And I did make a couple of snarky comments about the PoPo. No way they were going to keep me.

Who are the PoPo?

I served once. It was interesting experience but not excited to do it again.

The guy was accused of robbing two kids of their wallets. It was so so obvious he did it, but the one black juror would not vote to convict (the defendant was black). I sort of understand the juror's position but it was frustrating.

Three days later, the judge realized it was going nowhere and called a mistrial. Three days in a closed off room with a group of jurors would make anyone crazy.

Oh, quit it with the sanctimony, r23.

Grand Jury last year. We indicted everyone.

I was at the jury selection. It was for a man accused of sexually molesting a neighbor boy. I told them I would want to see the defendant burn in hell and I was excused.

[quote] Grand Jury last year. We indicted everyone.

Including Mr. Ham Sandwich?

I will start by stating that anyone who connives or schemes to get out of jury duty is a total scumbag. Called for duty four times, dismissed early once, two times empaneled but challenged then dismissed, and served once. It was a kidnapping and rape trial. Distressing but the stories came out and no one looked good in this situation. A woman claimed that a tax driver picked her up while she was walking to get take-out. He brought her to the suburban home of his girlfriend who was working at the time. He raped her and used a gun to silence her. He then inserted the gun in her. Days later, the victim was visiting a friend in the hospital when she saw the cab driver dropping off his wife at work. (Yes, a wife and a girlfriend.) Her group of friends tackled the cab driver and the police came. That's the story that everyone agreed on, but many of the jury thought that he propositioned her, she thought she could make some money, so it was casual prostitution gone wrong. No one believed the gun part of it. It ended up being a hung jury. As a graduate student later, I had to have a project using legal databases. I looked up his case and wrote a paper on the outcome. He was tried again, convicted on all counts, served time, but the sued the state because they left out some exculpatory evidence.

R58 that's nice but when you have PTSD and the case is too close to home, you might be emotionally compromised. Best to get out and let a rational person like the educated, experienced judge decide it.

[quote] One doesn't actually "serve jury duty." One serves on a jury. One performs jury duty -- or any other duty

MARY!!!

I've been on numerous mock jury trials. Does that count? Most interesting were the couple pre-trial cases for OJ Simpson.

Then I was a "shadow juror" for a real trial where a serviceman was very badly burned and suing an explosives company. I was the only one of the mock jurors who said that the very best outcome for the prosecution, who were paying us daily, was a hung jury and that should be his goal. Actually the US Military should have been sued instead.

The other mock jurors said the prosecution wasn't obligated to pay anything. Luckily the lawyers listened to me and the result was a hung jury with the media saying the US Military was at fault.

There were numerous mock jury trials with the same theme. Vegas shoddy construction company and lack of government oversight means lots of condos are being built with serious defects. Buyer beware. Friends in the industry have told me that they'd never buy property without top notch experts watching the condo being built from the bottom up.

So the builders disband after the homes are built, the condo board has control of everything. They soon sell out to the naive. Then all the condo owners are stuck with an unlivable home with massive leaks and flooding. Property falls into default and/or is condemned. There also have been major lawsuits in casino construction due to delays and shoddy work. (Hello Sheldon Adelson.)

R61 the Stratosphere.

Yes, and it was a doozy.

A gay man was put in the same room as a straight man in a mental institution. One night, at 3 AM, the straight guy woke up to the gay hanging off his bed like a monkey and repeated, "Fuck me! Fuck me!" over and over, so the mentally ill straight guy shanked the gay like 50 times. We saw the pictures and it was fucking gruesome. The straight guy pleaded insanity but he was charged with aggravated assault and manslaughter.

I was selected once for jury duty, during jury selection , the judge got into a tiff with the defense lawyer, pitched a hissy fit & threw everyone out of the court room. On the way out, I overheard two policeman discussing what had just happened, one officer said : "She got exactly what she wanted (the defense attorney), she wants a more lenient judge for her client."

R62, NUMEROUS casinos have had lawsuits with shoddy construction companies and an incredible number of tenants' associations as well. It's the norm rather than the exception in Vegas. I could tell you endless stories . . .

Was told by numerous lawyers that I shouldn't show up if ever called for jury duty as I'd just be wasting the court's time. Reason being that I think very creatively and outside-of-the-box. Exactly what lawyers don't want in the jury pool.

The only time I've been called was when I was a student at UCLA. I was still registered to vote in San Diego and had no real way to get to the courthouse. They 86'd me from serving as they didn't want to pay for my transportation. Thankfully I've never again been bothered.

I've been called twice. The first time I had been transferred out of the state for my job so I didn't have to go in.

The second time I was called was for a case of a black 20 something who had robbed a store. The jury selection started late in the day and didn't get far. The next morning we sat and sat and sat waiting to begin. We were ushered into the courtroom and told the defendant had taken a plea. He said this is common for first offenders who think they can get off until they get to the jury selection and it becomes real. We were sent back to the pool and soon released from jury service.

Yes. The judge looked at the questionnaires, and selected me for foreman (I am an engineer).

A drug case, with the charge of selling drugs near a school, which is automatically added if the crime happens within a certain number of feet of a school, regardless of the customer. I thought it was obvious they had drugs, but I was going to go with jury nullification on the school charge, because it didn’t involve children, and I thought that was piling-on.

There was a black woman from the ghetto and a rich Jewish woman from the rich section who both thought the black female druggie was set-up, the drugs planted, etc. Ridiculous, I thought. If it was a violent crime or such, I would have stuck to my guns; however, the day was ending and they weren’t budging, so I and a few others folded. I figured the defendant wasn’t going to rob a bank if we let her go.

Still, the evidence was so clear, the judge questioned us after the verdict to ask if we were pressured or intimidated. We did, after all, eat lunch at the same place as the defendant. But no.

Now that I’m older and wiser, I’d be that hold-out for “not guilty”. There is little integrity in this world. Whereas my prior interaction with the police was solely as protecters of me or my property, I had one incident later where someone flat out lied about me, and while my situation was nipped in the bud, I could visualize the police’s transcription of the lying neighbor to just be accepted as the case ruined my life and made me miserable for months or years. Oh, impoverished, too. I no longer trust the criminal justice system.

Never. But I wanted to. Seemed cool. Love the stories though.

I love serving in a jury, though never got a case that lasted more than a day.

Those judges really are quick to snap. One time, a judge volunteered that he could see I was having trouble hearing, so he allowed me to move closer to the front. I just said “Thank you” to him, and I could see he was about to tell me to shut up, but stopped himself when he realized I had nothing more to say.