This is topic Have you served on Jury Duty? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002853

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 01:43 AM:
 
I think it would be interesting to hear comments on my experience as well as your experiences.

I just got off a case that the maximum penalty for the accused was not death... thank God! I would REALLY hate to have to make ***that*** decision about someone.

The case I had was really interesting. It lasted 3 days and was in the Los Angeles County Superior Criminal Court just like they say on "Dragnet". [Smile]

I was one of 12 jurors and we had to have an unanimous vote to convict or acquit otherwise we would have been a hung jury. (Yes, I know.... I was THE "hung juror"!) [Razz]

The short version of the trial is basically: This 60-something y/o geezer High School teacher had a bunch of porno pics of underage 13+ y/o boys that he was sharing on the internet. He also had "pornographic" stills and video tapes of these kids ranging in age up to 19 or so in various sex acts.

One of the 15 year olds complained to his mom, and then she complained to the school, and then the school to the cops. That spurred an investigation and ultimately an arrest and an indictment.

The "evidence" pics and videos were pretty graphic. There was testimony from a couple of the kids as well as several adults.

Bottom line: The guy was/is a pedophile and it took about 20 minutes for all of us to vote for conviction.

I have no clue as to what the sentence will be. We were released this afternoon and the judge will pronounce that later. We will not know.

All in all... VERY interesting... I have never served on a jury before let alone a criminal case.

Your thoughts?

>>> Phil

OBTW: I want to thank Joe in advance for contributing to this thread. [beer]

[ 01-10-2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2004, 02:39 AM:
 
I have never had jury duty. You may now thank me for contributing to this thread.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-10-2004, 02:49 AM:
 
If that counts as a contribution, let me tell you I have never had jury duty myself either. Because where I come from, there is no jury system. A little while after I moved here, there was an invitation to jury duty in my letter box. But it wasn`t for me of course, it was for the guy who lived in the apartment before me!
Since I am not a US citizen, I won`t be called for jury duty in the future either. But maybe they plan on having illegal immigrants do jury duty?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-10-2004, 04:16 AM:
 
I haven't served on a jury before either, but that's interesting that you are not told the sentence. It's like watching a movie at a theater with Super platters. You watch damn near the whole movie, then the stupid platter throws the last reel onto the floor and you leave not seeing the ending!

(Of course the movie passes are probably worth more $ than the court paid.)

Regarding the case, did they establish a history of this through the guy's life, or did he turn pedophile over the last few years?
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-10-2004, 05:25 AM:
 
I usually receive a Jury notice every three years. Most of my adult life I lived in "The Bronx" where you received Jury notice every two years. I was called many times but never sat on a regular jury. Since I had members of my family on the NYPD, I was always eliminated from the pool by either the Defense Lawyer or the Prosecutor.

In I992 I was called for the Grand Jury, Bronx County which lasted for four weeks, Monday through Thursday from 8AM to 4PM with an hour off for lunch.

On this Jury we would deceide if the Prosecutor had enough evidence to indict the perpetraitor. We were a group of 20 and I was the Forman of the group. Most of the cases were drug related, with some robberies, knifings, and murders thrown in. It was extremely interesting as the cases and discussions ensued.

It was also interesting to follw the cases as they went through the regular court system.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-10-2004, 05:53 AM:
 
I've done jury service once. It was quite a complicated fraud trial. The accused was a landlord who fraudulently claimed social security benefits on behalf of people who weren't entitled to them, and split the proceeds with her 'clients'. There were boxes and boxes of documentation involved, and the trial dragged out for almost two months because the defence tried to get her off by citing very detailed changes to and interpretations of social security legislation to try and prove that she wasn't doing anything wrong.

But the bottom line was that she screwed the taxpayer out of almost £800k over a five-year period. It took us less than three hours to convict her, and all we did during those three hours was to go round all twelve jurors, with each of us confirming that we understood the arguments put by each side and the reasons for our decision. She was sentenced to 18 months.

I'm glad to have done jury service once (in the UK you only have to do it once, and are then exempt from being called again if you wish to be) just to say I've done it. I was a postgrad student at the time and therefore it didn't disrupt my life too much, but if I'd been trying to hold down some sorts of job I can imagine that it would have made things very difficult.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-10-2004, 06:37 AM:
 
I was called once. It was the most boring day of my life. I arrived at the court house at 8:00am, read three newspapers and half of a book, and then was released in the late afternoon.

Then I got called back one year later (which is not supposed to happen for three years) and had to prove that I had served the previous year and thus was ineligible.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-10-2004, 08:46 AM:
 
Since I travel so much they can never catch up with me for Jury duty. By the time I get back in town the case is over.....
Mark
 
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 01-10-2004, 09:04 AM:
 
I served once. It was a breaking and entering case where the homeowner arrived home at ten o'clock and found a man in the house, she got a very quick glonce at him as he ran out the back door. The accused was found walking on the street several blocks away about an hour later. In court, when the woman was shown photos of the man taken shortly after his arrest she said
"that looks like him". It took us about 3 minutes to accquit. If she had said "that's him" he would be in jail, but "looks like him" was not good enough to convict.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-10-2004, 10:36 AM:
 
quote:
Most of my adult life I lived in "The Bronx"
Bob, just the person I wanted to ask... what is the origin of that city name? And, why is it called THE Bronx, why not just Bronx? When they put it like that, it sounds like an upper-respiratory ailment.
[Big Grin]

I drive through there on the Cross Bronx every day, and have always wondered about that name.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-10-2004, 11:32 AM:
 
I've been called once in California and twice in Nevada. Got out of serving in Nevada both times by claiming economic hardship, something that used to be very easy to do here (took just a phone call). And the economic hardship was true--the hotel/casinos did not pay jury duty for hourly workers. At the time I was working at the LV Hilton--their entertainment director's policy was simple--getting impaneled on a jury meant termination. Nowadays the rules are similar to California's, meaning it is much harder to make that claim. Don't know if the hotels have to pay their hourly workers for jury time nowadays--the pay one gets from the court wouldn't even cover downtown parking fees, let alone one's time.

In California I got called for duty in Santa Monica (Los Angeles Superior Court I think--I lived in Hawthorne at the time). Had just resigned from Hughes Aircraft so I had the time. Actually made it into the box on one trial, but was dismissed by the defense team (I think they didn't like my 3-piece suit). I'll never forget the look on the prosecutor's face when my name got read--I think he was counting on having me in there. [Smile]

Never had to physically go back to the courthouse after that. Instead I just had to call in to their jury pool each morning for the next two weeks. That was it. In California you can be called to serve again after two years. My boss at PanAmSat in Long Beach got called and served twice in San Pedro during the almost three years I was there. PanAmSat pays for jury duty of salaried employees.

In Nevada we say every accused is guaranteed a fair trial--followed by a fair hangin'! [evil]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-10-2004, 11:57 AM:
 
I've served several times, but never made it to a panel. I filled out the questionnaire, and made it to the pre-trial jury interviews, and was dismissed each time.

For one trial of a DWI (driving while intoxicated), they asked me if I had ever been guilty of a traffic violation. When I replied that I have had two speeding tickets (in over 30 years of driving), I was immediately dismissed from that jury.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 01-10-2004, 12:01 PM:
 
I have been summoned, but seeing how I am a full time student I just send in the paper and check student. Maybe college is worth it
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-10-2004, 01:06 PM:
 
As I found out, being a student is no exemption. If anything it gives you less of an excuse.

I did read a feature article a few months back arguing that recruiting juries is becoming more of a problem. Basically, responsible professionals are getting better at arguing their way out of it with the result that juries - especially those for long and complicated trials - are increasingly consisting of students, the unemployed and the retired. The article called on a crackdown on exemptions for people such as teachers, doctors, lawyers, armed forces officers and other white collar professionals and also on some employers who make life difficult for people to do jury service, so that juries would become more representative.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 01:10 PM:
 
quote:
…but that's interesting that you are not told the sentence…
I think they do that cuz if you know before hand that some smuck could serve 100 years for having a 800 pounds of 420, then that knowledge might influence your vote rather than the evidence itself.

Also, in that type of case, they send in the shrinks and social workers for the sentencing portion and it has nothing to do with the original trial portion. If I was really interested I could find out. I'm sure it would be part of the public record. Juror's names and personal info are NOT part of the public record. We weren't allowed to talk to ANYONE about the trial, during the trial…even other jurors.

The news media were not allowed to show our faces in or out of court.

quote:
…did they establish a history of this through the guy's life…
No, nothing but evidence directly related to that case was allowed.

quote:
…It was the most boring day of my life…
Yeah, it is if you don't bring a good book to read. I've been called several times over the years and have made it to a few panels before, but this was the 1st time I made it to a trial. It was really interesting.

quote:
…did but "looks like him" was not good enough to convict…
Gosh, it sounds like that case reeked of poor police and prosecution work. Wasn't there any physical evidence like fingerprints, or "loot" etc.?

About 15 years ago, my apartment was busted into and they took all my Nikon cameras/lenses, VCRs, camcorders, etc. The cops covered my place with that blackish print powder and "dusted" for prints. (Yes, I had to clean it up… the bastards!) The detectives questioned me at length as to what was going on in my life before the burglary. They wanted to know who all was at my place for months before hand, …friends, repair people, etc.

They caught the guys. Local pizza delivery dudes would case someone's place during a delivery and then come back sometime later for a "pickup".

quote:
…In California you can be called to serve again after two years…
Actually they changed that law a few years ago. You can be called again after 1 year.

Once you get your summons to serve, you call in for a recorded message to hear if you must report for "cattle call" the next morning. If you are not called within 5 days to report, you have "served your time".

If you are called to report and make it thru the day without getting assigned a trial, you are also considered to have served.

Under the old system, you HAD to report the 1st day and then were "on-call" for 10 days.

BTW: For your "time and travel", starting the 2nd day, they pay you $15 a day and 32 cents a mile…one way. Since I live about 7 miles from the courthouse, I really cleaned up! I'm gonna go to Pinks and get a hotdog!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 01-10-2004, 01:34 PM:
 
I've been summoned for jury duty many times, but used to be excused when I was teaching full time. Now almost no-one is exempt in NYC. I reported to several calls, first sitting for three days at a time in the courthouse pool, and once called for a panel, but excused because it was an insurance case and I was involved in an insurance claim at the time, and thought I might not be entirely impartial if empanelled.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-10-2004, 03:36 PM:
 
quote:
Since I had members of my family on the NYPD, I was always eliminated from the pool by either the Defense Lawyer or the Prosecutor.

That`s probably better than being eliminated from the pool by the defendant`s cousins!
 
Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 01-10-2004, 04:46 PM:
 
Last time I was summoned for jury duty the case involved a stepson stabbing this guy in the heart with a hunting knife. Not a mortal wound. Guy was a friend of mine and it took sitting through the whole day to explain I had just been talking to the victim about the incident. Although it was an interesting case and the victim was an ex-green beret. He actually put the kid out....after he had been stabbed.
but I was excused because of discussing the case prior. [Confused]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-10-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
Ever since I was 18 they've called me in every year! First time i was still in highschool! gawd, give me a little break guys!

I've never been chosen to be on a jury though, probably my age.

Danny
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-10-2004, 05:24 PM:
 
How do you stab someone in the heart and not kill him? Yes, I have seen "Pulp Fiction", but I mean, not with a needle, but with a hunting knife!
 
Posted by Lance C. McFetridge (Member # 95) on 01-10-2004, 05:41 PM:
 
They claimed because the guy knocked the kid out before the knife was removed from his chest is what saved him. Took him a long time to heal after several hours of surgery. Guess the knife actually plugged the would be hole.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 05:46 PM:
 
Danny, there was a 19 y/o on the jury I was on...

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-10-2004, 07:50 PM:
 
No wonder you're all excited about the event.
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-10-2004, 08:03 PM:
 
quote:
what is the origin of that city name? And, why is it called THE Bronx, why not just Bronx?
Tim, When New York City was still New Amsterdam most of the people were living on the island of what is now Manhattan. To the north of the island was a farm where present day Marble Hill and Kingsbridge sections now stand. This area in those days was a farm which was owned by a gentleman named Jonas Bronk. The people would say we are going up to the Bronk's to buy some food. That is how it became "The Bronx."

I was born in the Bronx and was for many years a member of the Bronx Historical Society. I lived for over 60 years in the Riverdale section in the northwest corner.

Michael:

quote:
That`s probably better than being eliminated from the pool by the defendant`s cousins!
That only happen's in the movies.....never in the Bronx.Ask Leg's Diamond. [Smile]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 08:38 PM:
 
Yes Daryl, I did get his number, ya sickie! Hubba Hubba! [Wink]

But my post was meant to be info for Danny.

>>> Phil

[ 01-10-2004, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-10-2004, 08:48 PM:
 
I am summoned to report for jury duty on January 20. It would be nice to get on a jiuicy 6 month trial (I work for the public. I still get paid [Smile] )

Last time I was on a jury was in 1981. It was a murder trial. A 16 year old with no English speaking skills was accused of stabbing and shooting to death the much older man he was having a sexual relationship with. The man's body had been fished out of a canal a whole year earlier but had not been identified until shortly before the arrest, despite the fact of having a past record. The jury was hung, which pretty much gurantees I will never serve on a criminal case again.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
Jeeze Paul...too bad you are so jaded about the justice system...

I found it to be very "on target" much to my surprise.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-11-2004, 12:46 AM:
 
quote:
The people would say we are going up to the Bronk's to buy some food. That is how it became "The Bronx."
No kiddin'?! I have always wondered about that. Thanks for filling me in, chief! I'll drive through there on Monday, now, with a new outlook on the place, fascinating. I can't imagine it ever being farmland, though. [Wink]

Incidentally, as a truck driver -- and I'm sure this is something that won't surprise you -- I've been treated better by people at shippers in NYC and NJ than I have in a lot of places that are supposed to be famous for "southern hospitality". Life is at a different pace in NY, certainly, but I don't think the people are as cold as they would have you believe.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-11-2004, 05:34 AM:
 
quote:
When New York City was still New Amsterdam...
Another question: why the change to New York? Having lived in the old one for the last 4 years I still haven't found anyone who is able to answer that question. Maybe someone settled on the idea after the War of Independence, given that York was where both the Romans and then the Vikings kicked our asses...
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-11-2004, 05:37 AM:
 
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York

The Dutch were the first settlers in New York, establishing Fort Orange near Albany in 1624 and New Amsterdam on the island of Manhattan a year later. After the English took over in the 1660s, the colony was renamed New York, after the Duke of York.

In 1683, the government was reorganized into a pattern still followed, and the state was divided into twelve counties, each of which was subdivided into towns. Ten of those counties still exist (see below), but two (Cornwall and Dukes) were in territory purchased by the Duke of York from the Earl of Sterling, and are no longer within the territory of the State of New York, having been transferred by treaty to Massachusetts, Dukes in 1686 and Cornwall in 1692. (Cornwall County became a large portion of the State of Maine when that state was detached from Massachusetts in 1819; Dukes County is still a county in Massachusetts.) While the number of counties has been increased to 62, the pattern still remains that a town in New York State is a subdivision of a county, rather than an incorporated municipality as in most (but not all) other States.

New York was one of the thirteen colonies that revolted against British rule in the American Revolution.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-11-2004, 08:54 AM:
 
Here in Central Ohio, jury duty lasts for 2 weeks and pays a gigantic $12 per day. Voting and motor vehicle registration lists are used to pull jurors. Most employers are OK with this, as they see it as a civic duty, so they give employees the time off with pay. It's still very difficult on the self-employed, though.

I've served 3 times, and been on 3 juries. It is a fascinating process, and one that is well worth the time IF you get on a jury. You see a side of the court system that is very different then the one on TV. I was even involved in one rather controversial case that had reporters calling me when the case was over.

We have a very enlightened municipal court jury commissioner, and he turns jury service into a very interesting, educational experience. He brings in judges to speak, and lets jurors go into courtrooms to listen to non-juried cases. The judges LOVE to come into contact with jurors, as they know most of them come from the voter list. Judges will speak with the jurors during the recesses, and even invite jurors into chambers for a chat. I gained a real appreciation of the court system from this, and also knew which judges I would vote for and which I wouldn't.
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 01-11-2004, 08:56 AM:
 
I've driven the Cross Bronx Expressway. Now I understand why it is called 'the rolling parking lot.' The only way to widen it would be to destroy alot of apartment buildings, etc, and blast the walls out of the ditch. Wow.

Believe it or not, I have done jury duty. A big guy reached over a pizza store counter and bitch-slapped a 17 year old employee. She pressed charges. I was eliminated after the lawyers found that my grandad was a police chief, and I had endured a robbery of my home in 1992. Eventually, she won.

I had an interesting time that day. I got to the court house before 9am, and left around 4:30pm. I took my Holmes 8 manual that I had just down-loaded from Film-Tech for entertainment.

Got some strange looks from other prospective jurors. They were sharing a bunch of old People magazines, etc.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-11-2004, 11:07 AM:
 
I've thought about that, too, Bruce. The Expressway around the GW bridge is locked in place, it seems. The only way to go would be up and over.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 01-11-2004, 11:44 AM:
 
So, let's say your employer is not ok with it and won't give you time off with pay. I know they cannot fire you because of jury duty, but if you were picked for a trial that lasted 2 or 3 weeks you could be ruined financially.
 
Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-11-2004, 12:04 PM:
 
All I'm saying is that we Americans should be ashamed of ourselves for permitting a Canadian explaining to a Brit as to why New York is indeed called New York.

BTW, great explanation. Worthy of an A on my short answer essay exam for the college. [Smile]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-11-2004, 12:12 PM:
 
You can be excused from duty based on financial hardship reasons.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Pete Wolla (Member # 1581) on 01-11-2004, 12:12 PM:
 
I was called for federal jury duty once. Didn't have to serve wasn't even interviewed due to the large pool. the process was interesting to watch. One nice looking young lady tried to get out of serving by saying she worked at the local hospital. But the judge thought they( the hospital ) could get along with out her.

My uncle seemed to be an perpetual jury duty at the county court. every time i saw him he was on duty or just finished. maybe it just seemed like it but he served on many juries. I live in the same county and have never been called to county court
 
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 01-11-2004, 01:20 PM:
 
I was unlucky, or even lucky, enough to do jury service for a prison mutiny. The case lasted five weeks and as far as I'm concerned if thats the way it happens most of the time then there's a lot wrong with the system.

When we retired to consider our verdict it was very much like 12 angry men.... very personal and heated. I asked a lot of questions in court and the explinations were supplied to us. However it was the way evidence was given merit by different people that was quite frightening. There was one woman who fell asleep during the trial at least two times. She was happy to 'go with the majority'! There were others who thought 'He was a nice boy'! totally discounting the evidence presented.

I'm not sure if the system works at all! but what would you replace it with? The average jury member is not qualified to consider much of the evidence given in many cases so they are left with making a decison on 'personalities' Now I'm sure many would agree that a lot of politicians have got into office based on their personalitiy rather than ability.... so is that really the way to judge the innocence or guilt of someone.

On a goog day I can charm the angels from the heavens... on a bad day... let's not go there. I just hope that if I'm ever accused of something and I have to present myself in court that I only have good days!

[ 01-12-2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Ken McFall ]
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-11-2004, 01:37 PM:
 
Aaron, No need to be ashamed, Leo asked a question and Daryl answered three minutes later, with a perfect answer backed up with the research. Thank you Daryl.... [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-11-2004, 01:43 PM:
 
quote:
This 60-something y/o geezer High School teacher had a bunch of porno pics of underage 13+ y/o boys that he was sharing on the internet.
It amazes me that some people are so bold. Trading that kind of stuff on the net for god's sake, that can be traced back.

It wouldn't surprise me if he kept pics in his briefcase or desk at school too! Sometimes a person can think he's so clever and has everyone fooled, when in fact the whole world can see right through him and knows of his evil intentions and lies.

Danny

Danny
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-11-2004, 01:58 PM:
 
The main part of the trial was about the hard evidence on the tapes and photos.

While part of the case, the internet stuff was not a big part. I'm sure they are saving that for the feds where I'll bet they are checking out everyone on that guy's computer addr book and his IP records.

quote:
It amazes me that some people are so bold.

...when in fact the whole world can see right through him and knows of his evil intentions and lies.

That applies to all things in general including some business deals. That's what amazes me.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-11-2004, 02:08 PM:
 
At least in Ontario financial hardshipis getting very hard as the judge for a given trial has the final say
On one pool I was in we were advised that one of the trials was estimated to last over a year and the judge said anyone who comes forward with any excuse why they can't do their legalyu required duty would face contempt of court.
I always made sure I wore a WW2 deathheads lapel pin it suprising how quickly the defense excludes you [Smile]
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-11-2004, 02:57 PM:
 
I've been called for jury duty twice. The first time, I had to sit in a room on the 6th floor of our county's courthouse for 3 different days. After the first morning, I was smart enough to run home during lunch and pack a bag with stuff to do the rest of the time.

The second time, I ended up being selected on a case, and made the first cut for the jury, but not the second cut.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-11-2004, 03:11 PM:
 
Ken writes:

quote:
The case lasted five weeks and as far as I'm concerned if thats the way it happens most of the time then there's a lot wrong with the system.
I wasn't involved with your case so I really don't know if five weeks was too long or too short. But IMHO if it takes that long for both sides to have a fair hearing then so be it. If it doesn't actually waste time, we need to find ways of ensuring that if trials do take that long, then jurors can serve on them without risk to their personal or professional life.

quote:
There was one woman who fell asleep during the trial at least two times. She was happy to 'go with the majority'! There were others who thought 'He was a nice boy'! totally discounting the evidence presented.
That's really frightening and I hope I'm never at the hands of such people if I am ever tried. In the trial I served on, we were shown into the jury room after the judge's summing up, which was basically a two-day long lecture. I don't know how the system works in the US but here, the summing up is a crucial part of a criminal trial, in which the judge basically sets a series of questions which for which jury members have to arrive at an answer in order to reach their verdict. It's crucial because a great deal of criminal convictions are overturned on appeal because the defence alleges that the jury was misdirected, i.e. that being asked this question in that way lead them to return a false answer.

We're not allowed to reveal any issues around the discussion of trial evidence which took place, but I think I'm OK in recounting the following. I'd been making lots of notes during the trial - I think the reason was because, being a student, I was used to taking notes in lectures and this just came naturally to me. Once we got into the jury room there was a bit of a pregnant pause because no-one really knew how we were to 'start', except (as the court clerk had explained) that we had to elect a foreman. After a few minutes of pregnant pausing, I said that from my notes, it seemed to me that the judge had asked us to consider seven specific questions, and only if we could answer 'yes' to all of them could we deliver a guilty verdict and that 'no' to any of them would imply the presence of reasonable doubt. I can't remember the details (we had to hand our notes in at the end of the whole trial), but the questions were along the lines of 'did she intend this money to be paid in this way?', 'was she aware that she was committing an offence by doing X?'. So why not, I suggested, start by going round the table on each question in turn and then holding a debate on any 'no' answers which resulted?

That suggestion got me nominated as foreman and I chaired the discussion just like I suggested it should happen. There were a couple of 'I'm not 100% sure about...' responses, but whenever that happened others around the table supplied the relevant information needed to resolve the uncertainty. By mid-afternoon we were completely certain that the defendant was guilty of all the charges against her, according to the criteria the judge had told us to look at. Before I called the court clerk in at the end I said that we were just going to sit for five minutes and that if anyone, for any reason and however silly it may seem, was worried about the fact that we were about to convict the defendant, please say something. No-one did.

The whole thing couldn't have been less than 12 Angry Men (not least because eight were women!), apart from first five minutes or so of the jury room scene. It didn't reveal a little seed of doubt, just the start of a three-hour checking process which concluded that the defendant was guilty, end of story. I think we did the whole thing right and have never lost any sleep in my role over it.

quote:
Aaron, No need to be ashamed, Leo asked a question and Daryl answered three minutes later, with a perfect answer backed up with the research. Thank you Daryl....
Seconded, and don't feel too bad. There's a café in Exeter, Devon, England called the Boston Tea Party. I once had the honour of explaining to someone born in Boston, MA, what that title referred to! Admittedly though, she'd emigrated to Devon aged 3...
 
Posted by Ken McFall (Member # 845) on 01-11-2004, 03:22 PM:
 
I should have added that being a prison mutiny there were a lot of defendants which is why it took so long.

At least the judge had the sense not to sum up on Friday afternoon, he put it off until the Monday.

Not an experience I'm in a hurry to repeat. But I got a nice bit of paper excusing me from jury service for a while!
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2