Quick Question About Jury Duty

[Saniflush]

You've actually seen the inside of a court room?

I thought he only needed to successfully plea one more for a set of steak knives?

[Tiger Six]

I thought he only needed to successfully plea one more for a set of steak knives?

Where's his bat?  He thinks better with his bat.

[Snaggletiger]

Where's his bat?  He thinks better with his bat.

Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.

[Saniflush]

Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.

Do they still hang people from yardarms?

[Tiger Six]

Do they still hang people from yardarms?

My client is an idiot.  He was trying to buy a dime bag of oregano.

[GarMan]

They're peers in the sense that they are both citizens of the local community.  Essentially, when they tell a defendant that he/she is being judged by a jury of their peers, they just mean that they're being judged by citizens in the area.  The purpose of getting potential jury members in for selection is not to get people who are similarly situated, but rather people who are a representative "cross-section" of the local community. 

Blah, blah, blah...  Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic.  We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury.  There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers.  It's been lost...  This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit. 

[Snaggletiger]

Blah, blah, blah...  Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic.  We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury.  There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers.  It's been lost...  This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit.

Yes, but when has that ever been the case?  It's not something we lost over time.  It's always been that way.  If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyers, 4 musicians and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids.  Are those not my peers?  Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?

You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most.  If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework. 

[Tiger Six]

Yes, but when has that ever been the case?  It's not something we lost over time.  It's always been that way.  If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyer steriod users, 4 musicians queers and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing sip tea at Ms. Lucille...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids.  Are those not my peers?  Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?

You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most.  If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework.

Fixt!

[GarMan]

Yes, but when has that ever been the case?  It's not something we lost over time.  It's always been that way.  If I'm on trial, I don't care if 1933 or 1967 or 2011...I would never be judged by 6 lawyers, 4 musicians and 2 guys who love to go deep sea fishing...all 45-50 years old and married for over 20 years with 2 kids.  Are those not my peers?  Would that not be who I would consider a fair and impartial jury?

You're always going to have a jury pool and the lawyers on each side are always going to try and select the ones that they think will help their case the most.  If the jury is not fair and impartial, then most likely one of the lawyers didn't do his/her homework. 

Yeah...  I should have clarified.  This actually goes back further than that...  But, even after the formation of the Union, many states still respected the practices of the original colonial laws that existed with respect to jurys as described above.  Hunters were commonly tried/judged by hunters...  Farmers were commonly tried/judged by farmers...  Woodsmen were commonly tried/judged by woodsmen...  That was the practice.

[JR4AU]

Does that just mean they've shown up on time to make their roll call, or are you actually suggesting that most serve?  That reminds me of the last time that I was called.  This guy showed up wearing KKK garb.  They excused him for obvious reasons, but he still made his roll call!

Showing up is serving.  You have no say in if you're actually picked to hear a case.  The jury panel simply being present ready to hear cases causes cases to be settled.    Being in the jury panel answering voir dire is serving.

Jurors wearing KKK garb, passing out religious pamphlets....there's been more "juror trying to get off shenanigans" reported in this thread than I've seen in 10 years of trial work. 

Every jury week we have, we send notices to around 100 or so people depending on the docket, and cases.  A few, maybe 25% are excused for various reasons, or just don't show up.  Some legit work, medical, or family problems.  Others are actually the sick, lame and lazy that most of you believe sit on juries...the people that draw a check, and have no life.  They're the pieces of shit usually bucking to get out of service, and frankly I wouldn't want most anyway.   The vast majority serve.  And they are a good representative cross section of the county. 

[DnATL]

Fixt!

For him, they would never make it to a jury, because of summary judgment from his wife.........

[GarMan]

Showing up is serving.  You have no say in if you're actually picked to hear a case.  The jury panel simply being present ready to hear cases causes cases to be settled.    Being in the jury panel answering voir dire is serving.

Yeah...  That's what I thought.

Jurors wearing KKK garb, passing out religious pamphlets....there's been more "juror trying to get off shenanigans" reported in this thread than I've seen in 10 years of trial work. 

I'm not sure how it works in your area, but we don't even get to see the inside of a court room or any trial lawyers until we're selected from the pool.  Most of those shenanigans occur before they are ever selected from the pool, and in the two times that I've been called, I've seen a lot. 

Every jury week we have, we send notices to around 100 or so people depending on the docket, and cases.  A few, maybe 25% are excused for various reasons, or just don't show up.  Some legit work, medical, or family problems.  Others are actually the sick, lame and lazy that most of you believe sit on juries...the people that draw a check, and have no life.  They're the pieces of poop usually bucking to get out of service, and frankly I wouldn't want most anyway.   The vast majority serve.  And they are a good representative cross section of the county. 

A good representative cross section of the country would also include an assortment of goofballs, morons and idiots of which most of us would not ordinarily associate.  Just sayin'...

[JR4AU]

Yeah...  That's what I thought.
I'm not sure how it works in your area, but we don't even get to see the inside of a court room or any trial lawyers until we're selected from the pool.  Most of those shenanigans occur before they are ever selected from the pool, and in the two times that I've been called, I've seen a lot. 

That's how it is in Birmingham, and I guess other large metro areas.  In the counties I work, in, the venire comes directly to the courtroom, and they're there with all the lawyers, judge, clerk, and parties (except those in jail).  When we voir dire, we voir dire from the entire panel, not just a selected number as they do in places like Bham.

A good representative cross section of the country would also include an assortment of goofballs, morons and idiots of which most of us would not ordinarily associate.  Just sayin'...

And I'm arrogant and condescending?

[GarMan]

And I'm arrogant and condescending? 

I'm not going to hide my true position on this.  I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character.  You won't find drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats on my speed dial.  If you find that to be arrogant and condescending, so be it. 

[DnATL]

I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character.

I thought you were pals with Uncle Sani?

[JR4AU]

I'm not going to hide my true position on this.  I don't associate with people of lower moral or ethical character.  You won't find drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats on my speed dial.  If you find that to be arrogant and condescending, so be it.

I like how "goofballs, morons, and idiots" turned in to "people of lower moral or ethical character...drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats ".

Fact is, you're coming off as arrogant as they come, and as if everybody that doesn't think like you is a goofball, moron, or idiot of low moral or ethical character.

[GarMan]

I thought you were pals with Uncle Sani?

Nobody axed you... 

[GarMan]

I like how "goofballs, morons, and idiots" turned in to "people of lower moral or ethical character...drug addicts, crack whores or tax cheats ".

Fact is, you're coming off as arrogant as they come, and as if everybody that doesn't think like you is a goofball, moron, or idiot of low moral or ethical character.

Yeah...  My word is final.  What of it?

You know what I mean.  There are certain individuals who might make a jury who you would not necessarily want to associate with as good friends.  There's nothing wrong with that.  They may be folks who consider themselves victims of everything, or they may be those folks who can't manage their finances and always need to borrow a few bucks. 

[Vandy Vol]

Blah, blah, blah...  Once upon a time, it also meant that the "peers" were individuals of similar profession and socio-economic demographic.  We've lost that over time, and the Constitution was only written to guarantee an impartial jury.  There is no guarantee of a jury of your [TRUE] peers.  It's been lost...  This is one of the many reasons I hope to God that I'm never charged with a crime, especially a crime that I didn't commit.

Well, in 1975 the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population.  Thus, they've determined that the Constitution indicates that we should attempt to obtain a cross-sectional ideal.

Now, whether their interpretation of the Constitution is right or wrong, that's up for debate.  However, all I was pointing out is that by "peer," they don't mean someone similarly situated to you as far as socioeconomic standing, profession, etc.; they simply mean eligible citizens within your local community.

Prior to the 1968 Jury Selection and Service Act which instituted the cross-sectional ideal, jury commissioners typically solicited the names of "men of recognized intelligence and probity" from notables or "key men" of the community.  The theory was that they needed jurors of above average intelligence.  This obviously caused a variety of problems, which is why it was abandoned for the cross-sectional ideal.  So prior to the cross-sectional ideal, they still weren't picking jurors based upon the fact that they shared similar professions and socioeconomic demographics with the defendant.

In the 1700s and 1800s?  I don't know, they may have had a jury of woodsmen to judge woodsmen.  But it certainly hasn't been done in a long time.  But I don't know that this would necessarily lead to an impartial jury as the Constitution requires, which is probably why it was abandoned.  If the trial was intricately tied to your profession, then those who work in your profession may sympathize with you and grant you a remedy or result that the law doesn't actually afford you.

[GarMan]

Well, in 1975 the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury required that the jury pool be a mirror image or microcosm of the eligible community population.  Thus, they've determined that the Constitution indicates that we should attempt to obtain a cross-sectional ideal.

Now, whether their interpretation of the Constitution is right or wrong, that's up for debate.  However, all I was pointing out is that by "peer," they don't mean someone similarly situated to you as far as socioeconomic standing, profession, etc.; they simply mean eligible citizens within your local community.   

I thought we already established that the 6th Amendment only guarantees an impartial jury, but thanks for confirming...  I don't believe the term, peer, is even mentioned in the Constitution. 
       

In the 1700s and 1800s?  I don't know, they may have had a jury of woodsmen to judge woodsmen.  But it certainly hasn't been done in a long time.  But I don't know that this would necessarily lead to an impartial jury as the Constitution requires, which is probably why it was abandoned.  If the trial was intricately tied to your profession, then those who work in your profession may sympathize with you and grant you a remedy or result that the law doesn't actually afford you. 

Perhaps, that's open to debate.  Would a true peer juror's judgement be sympathetic, or would a true peer juror have a better appreciation of the situation or perceived circumstances?  For instance, an undereducated juror may not have the capacity to understand the details of a complex tax issue for which the defendant is accused of violating.  You could argue that the jury selection process should weed that person out of the pool, but what if the majority of your pool is made up of individuals like this?