Jury Duty

dano · 10-04-2007, 05:29 PM

Just finished my jury duty and i must admit i have a different view of our legal system than before.

I was interviewed by lawyers for possible selection to 2 civil cases but both sets of lawyers rejected me. Apparently they didn't like my opinionated rants about the Law.

However, I am now of the opinion that it's not our legal system that's broken. What makes the over litigation and outrageous awards so bad are PEOPLE!
People who file ridiculous lawsuits. Jurors who ALLOW ridiculous lawsuits and who decide to award the outrageous amounts the rest of us laugh at in disgust.

The decisions jury's make as to if someone or some entity is liable, and the decision the jury makes as to the amount awarded is totally up to them. Americans make our legal system shitty! Thus WE are shitty.

**Buckyrig** · 10-04-2007, 05:32 PM

I've always said, if I were ever on trial for a crime:

If I were guilty, I'd want a jury.

If I were innocent, I'd just want a Judge deciding.

FA · 10-04-2007, 05:39 PM

"Jury of your peers" sounds great until you're introduced to Mary-Sue-Ellen-Jo who has worked Household at Wal-Mart for the last fifteen years.

dano · 10-04-2007, 05:56 PM

Yes, and I can't forget the lawyers. They are the ones who pick jury members. In that sense they know exacty the personality types they want up there.

I'm sure all the jurors are decent people but a bunch of us in the back were taking guesses on who the lawyers would take and not take and many times we were wrong. the ones that sounded fair and objective were may times rejected and people with similar events as the victim or defendant were chosen.
I think they wanted people who would SAY they'd be objective but who the lawyers knew had something to not make them so.

And as a funny social observations a lot of people would just say what they thought the lawyers wanted to hear and when pressed further on answers they couldn't elaborate or became confused. Funny how people act when confronted with 'authority'

theflash · 10-04-2007, 07:06 PM

ok...so what would you change? i mean seriously. we have this screwed up system and yes it allows for a LOT of stupid bullshit going on. but would you rather leave it up to the discretion of one person?

now think about that. you are accused of a crime, arrested, and brought before the judge. he's gonna decide whether you spend the next 20 years of your life getting ass raped by guys three times your size. you enter the court room and the judge happens to be the father of some chick you got caught banging in highschool. the last time this guy saw you it was your naked ass jumping out his window and he swore he'd get you. how bad would the 12 juror system look to you at that point?

sure, picking jurors is a big game, but then pretty much everything in life can be boiled down to one form of game or another if you try hard enough. lawyers get paid to get you off. if that means picking 12 sympathetic or at least not antagonistic jurors to hear your case, well that's how the game is played. yes, it allows for some level of stupidity to enter into things on occasion, but in the end i think it's better than getting your hands amputated for stealing some underwear at Wal Mart.

**Buckyrig** · 10-04-2007, 07:14 PM

I'd still trust one person who has studied law over 12 people from wherever.

There was a poll of high school students a couple of years ago where the majority said they believe that freedom of speech should be limited!!!!!

HELLLLLL NO!

dano · 10-04-2007, 07:23 PM

I don't have a problem with a jury system necessarily. Maybe the fix would be having unassociated parties select the jury instead of the trial lawyers? They were obviously trying to load it with people they thought they could convice or control or hedge a bet towards, instead of the truly impartial people. At least in both my panels.

Maybe if there was an outside party of lawyers or judges or whatever who weren't associated with the case or the law firms repesenting the two parties, they'd pick more generically.

kdmelrose · 10-04-2007, 07:28 PM

But the selection process is set up so that the opposing counsel can challenge a prospective juror. There's a system of checks and balances that, in theory, prevents one side from loading the panel.

**Buckyrig** · 10-04-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdmelrose

But the selection process is set up so that the opposing counsel can challenge a prospective juror. There's a system of checks and balances that, in theory, prevents one side from loading the panel.

In theory...

a lot of things should work better in the system.

kdmelrose · 10-04-2007, 07:37 PM

That's not really in theory ...

dano · 10-04-2007, 07:38 PM

I'm not sure what rules they have to follow. They were definitely picking people with experience or knowledge similar to the case. Maybe they have an agreement to each pick X jurors that may sympathize with their clients views.

**Buckyrig** · 10-04-2007, 07:39 PM

Can I require my jury to have at least 3 athiests?

kdmelrose · 10-04-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dano

I'm not sure what rules they have to follow. They were definitely picking people with experience or knowledge similar to the case. Maybe they have an agreement to each pick X jurors that may sympathize with their clients views.

Sure, the defense is going to try to select jurors it thinks will be sympathetic to its client, and the prosecution is going to try to select jurors it thinks will be sympathetic to the state.

That's why, according to the rules of voir dire, each attorney can challenge a prospective juror for cause. Each side is also given a certain number of peremptory challenges, which allows them to dismiss jurors without stating a reason.

Newt · 10-04-2007, 07:44 PM

I am apparently good juror material. The only time I've been called for jury duty I served on two juries and was selected as an alternate in a third, but begged off of that one because I vaguely knew one of the victims.

dano · 10-04-2007, 07:45 PM

For example, there was a car accident case to determine liability. They excused a few reasonable impartial people who had not been in accidents and chose a poor english speaking cabbie who admitted to being in a lot of accidents himself has sued people, and a mom who's 2 yr old kid was hit by a car with significant injury and the driver settled out of court.

I guess it seems as if instead of getting an impartial, fair jury they were getting a jury of evenly mixed bias. It just seemed wierd

10-04-2007, 05:29 PM	#1
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	Jury Duty Just finished my jury duty and i must admit i have a different view of our legal system than before. I was interviewed by lawyers for possible selection to 2 civil cases but both sets of lawyers rejected me. Apparently they didn't like my opinionated rants about the Law. However, I am now of the opinion that it's not our legal system that's broken. What makes the over litigation and outrageous awards so bad are PEOPLE! People who file ridiculous lawsuits. Jurors who ALLOW ridiculous lawsuits and who decide to award the outrageous amounts the rest of us laugh at in disgust. The decisions jury's make as to if someone or some entity is liable, and the decision the jury makes as to the amount awarded is totally up to them. Americans make our legal system shitty! Thus WE are shitty.

10-04-2007, 07:28 PM	#8
kdmelrose Pope of Appalachia Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: In the conservatory, with a candlestick Posts: 7,567	But the selection process is set up so that the opposing counsel can challenge a prospective juror. There's a system of checks and balances that, in theory, prevents one side from loading the panel. __________________ Robot 6 at Comic Book Resources

10-04-2007, 07:37 PM	#10
kdmelrose Pope of Appalachia Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: In the conservatory, with a candlestick Posts: 7,567	That's not really in theory ... __________________ Robot 6 at Comic Book Resources

10-04-2007, 07:44 PM	#14
Newt Common cold fusion Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: On the mighty Cumberland Posts: 5,136	I am apparently good juror material. The only time I've been called for jury duty I served on two juries and was selected as an alternate in a third, but begged off of that one because I vaguely knew one of the victims. Last edited by Newt; 10-04-2007 at 07:46 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-04-2007, 05:32 PM	#2
Buckyrig I Coulda Had a VH Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Steve Buscemi's Couch Posts: 11,453	I've always said, if I were ever on trial for a crime: If I were guilty, I'd want a jury. If I were innocent, I'd just want a Judge deciding.

10-04-2007, 05:39 PM	#3
FA The New Red Scare Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: On the Cusp Posts: 2,152	"Jury of your peers" sounds great until you're introduced to Mary-Sue-Ellen-Jo who has worked Household at Wal-Mart for the last fifteen years.

10-04-2007, 05:56 PM	#4
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	Yes, and I can't forget the lawyers. They are the ones who pick jury members. In that sense they know exacty the personality types they want up there. I'm sure all the jurors are decent people but a bunch of us in the back were taking guesses on who the lawyers would take and not take and many times we were wrong. the ones that sounded fair and objective were may times rejected and people with similar events as the victim or defendant were chosen. I think they wanted people who would SAY they'd be objective but who the lawyers knew had something to not make them so. And as a funny social observations a lot of people would just say what they thought the lawyers wanted to hear and when pressed further on answers they couldn't elaborate or became confused. Funny how people act when confronted with 'authority'

10-04-2007, 07:06 PM	#5
theflash Cary Kelley Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: in the darkness where it's nice and cool Posts: 1,679	ok...so what would you change? i mean seriously. we have this screwed up system and yes it allows for a LOT of stupid bullshit going on. but would you rather leave it up to the discretion of one person? now think about that. you are accused of a crime, arrested, and brought before the judge. he's gonna decide whether you spend the next 20 years of your life getting ass raped by guys three times your size. you enter the court room and the judge happens to be the father of some chick you got caught banging in highschool. the last time this guy saw you it was your naked ass jumping out his window and he swore he'd get you. how bad would the 12 juror system look to you at that point? sure, picking jurors is a big game, but then pretty much everything in life can be boiled down to one form of game or another if you try hard enough. lawyers get paid to get you off. if that means picking 12 sympathetic or at least not antagonistic jurors to hear your case, well that's how the game is played. yes, it allows for some level of stupidity to enter into things on occasion, but in the end i think it's better than getting your hands amputated for stealing some underwear at Wal Mart.

10-04-2007, 07:14 PM	#6
Buckyrig I Coulda Had a VH Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Steve Buscemi's Couch Posts: 11,453	I'd still trust one person who has studied law over 12 people from wherever. There was a poll of high school students a couple of years ago where the majority said they believe that freedom of speech should be limited!!!!! HELLLLLL NO!

10-04-2007, 07:23 PM	#7
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	I don't have a problem with a jury system necessarily. Maybe the fix would be having unassociated parties select the jury instead of the trial lawyers? They were obviously trying to load it with people they thought they could convice or control or hedge a bet towards, instead of the truly impartial people. At least in both my panels. Maybe if there was an outside party of lawyers or judges or whatever who weren't associated with the case or the law firms repesenting the two parties, they'd pick more generically.

10-04-2007, 07:38 PM	#11
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	I'm not sure what rules they have to follow. They were definitely picking people with experience or knowledge similar to the case. Maybe they have an agreement to each pick X jurors that may sympathize with their clients views.

10-04-2007, 07:39 PM	#12
Buckyrig I Coulda Had a VH Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Steve Buscemi's Couch Posts: 11,453	Can I require my jury to have at least 3 athiests?

10-04-2007, 07:45 PM	#15
dano . Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Penna Posts: 923	For example, there was a car accident case to determine liability. They excused a few reasonable impartial people who had not been in accidents and chose a poor english speaking cabbie who admitted to being in a lot of accidents himself has sued people, and a mom who's 2 yr old kid was hit by a car with significant injury and the driver settled out of court. I guess it seems as if instead of getting an impartial, fair jury they were getting a jury of evenly mixed bias. It just seemed wierd