OT: I've had a long couple of weeks...

[sockii]

...as I've just spent them on jury duty in the state of Pennsylvania.

I would honestly state that it is an experience that all Americans should have the privilege - and yes, it is a privilege - to take part in. Whether it is a criminal or, as in my case, a civil case, you will learn a tremendous amount about the legal system and feel the weight of responsibility entrusted upon you to decide on a case that will have effects on countless individuals and lives.

It's not a duty to try to shirk or make fun of. Most likely, you're going to have to make tough decisions against what your heart may tell you vs. what the letter of the law allows for. You'll have to learn to argue your own case among a group of your peers, and allow yourself to be open to others' opinions and arguments in order to reach a consensus vote.

I feel proud to have served. There is much I wish I could have conveyed to both parties in this case beyond what a final verdict would allow, but that is beyond the scope of the law. It's not the most perfect system in the world and can I say I'm 100% happy with the verdict we rendered? No. But I also know it was the only decision that *could* be reached, and there was too much uncertainty and speculation to decide otherwise.

Anyway, so that's how it went. And if anyone's curious, this is the case I was on. We ruled for the defendant.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2 ... useum.html

[njperry]

I am glad you feel good about serving.

Not surprising that you don't feel 100% satisified with the verdict. Civil cases that go all the way to jury trial are not clear cut or they wouldn't have made it that far.

[sockii]

Not surprising that you don't feel 100% satisified with the verdict. Civil cases that go all the way to jury trial are not clear cut or they wouldn't have made it that far.

True, that. I'd say we all in turn felt some sympathy for both the plaintiff and the defendant, but also thought both had done some assy things too. So the hardest thing is really putting aside personal feelings in order to best follow what the law allows for and whether the evidence more strongly supported the claim or not.

[DirtyMartini]

Word.

[ltwoman]

That's the one thing I really like about this site is it takes us in all different directions and sparks alot of different ideas and discussions. It's not just about SC, but he is the common thread that brought us all together. We're a group that wouldn't otherwise have met each other, but here we are, today discussing the merits of our judicial system and in particular, the experience of jury duty (I've done it to a few years back, but didn't get picked. I spent two days while the proscpective jurors were interviewed. It was murder trial: an 86 year old (white) woman murdered by a then 18 year old (black) male. He came in through the bathroom window-- it was the bedroom window in reality. He was found guilty.)
It sounds like a fascinating case to be involved in!

[DirtyMartini]

Whatever it is about me that draws crazy people talk to me in airports and bus stations must also have jury mojo because I've been called twice and served twice. Both criminal, the second a triple homicide. The details are too hideous to relate here, and it took 6 weeks. But as hard as it was, I still feel good that I served.

Like sock said, I think it really is an experience every one of us should have once. It's necessary, important, you begin to understand a lot more about the legal system, and you never know when you yourself will be on the receiving end of a jury box.

I did luck out with an incredible jury. By the end, we were carrying in crockpots and making meals together. Because of the nature of the case, there was a lot of tension and discomfort, so it was helpful to have a group that got along well and were able to comfort each other and have fun in in-between moments while never forgetting the gravity of the situation.

How was your jury, sock? The crockpot jury was an anomaly, but even within the realms of normal, you can a jury that does or doesn't make things go smoothly.

[sockii]

How was your jury, sock? The crockpot jury was an anomaly, but even within the realms of normal, you can a jury that does or doesn't make things go smoothly.

Our jury was...ok...but I had a feeling going into deliberations that things wouldn't go too smoothly and I was correct. We had several people who were very, very set in how they felt they were going to vote and they just were not going to listen to other people. One of them in fact just seemed determined to keep repeating this fact loudly over and over again to drown out everyone else trying to talk, until myself and one other juror told him to shut it, sit down, and stop derailing the deliberations. (Maybe not quite so bluntly, but that was the idea...!)

Things went a lot better after that. 'Cause I can have a big mouth too, even if I use it to make sure other people get a chance to speak.

(We did end up with two dissenting votes to the final verdict...thank goodness civil cases don't require a unanimous jury as I'm afraid I'd probably have been there for another week or two at least...)

[Divemistress of the Dark]

Ha. One thing I love about you, Sock, is your directness (and I'm not just blowing smoke here; it's so hard to deal with folks who equivocate, you never know where you stand.)

As a hardcore 'Law and Order'phile, I'd love to serve. One time I got to play a witness in a mock trial while my mom was in law school, but as I was wearing a Girl Scout uniform at the time, you get the idea of how long ago it was

[sockii]

ETA: I'm not totally surprised, but I'm sort of "bitch, please" to find out that they're going to try to file post-trial motions to reject our jury verdict.

Good luck with that.

Honestly? The best piece of witness testimony we had was from the defendant's expert witness in Public Relations Consultancy. Who flat out said, "If a PR consultant is claiming it's going to take him 10 years to rebuild his own reputation and ability to work in the industry? Then he's working in the wrong damned field. Damage control is what being a PR person is all about...and bringing a law suit against your former contracted employers is just the worst possible thing to do."

[Susan]

I'm glad to see you say this, Sockii, as I've seen way too many people talk about getting out if it as if it is to be avoided like the plague. When I served, I could NOT believe the crap excuses some people were giving. It amazed me how people could look a judge right in the eye and lie. Some people have no shame, I guess.

Granted it is a problem for the self employed but I know some freelancers who were able to make it work out. And if they can't, or you're a primary caregiver for a child or parent, that's excusable.

But who among us would not want a jury of intelligent peers if THEY were on trial or had to bring a suit against someone? Oh yes then the tone changes. What is the alternative? Trials with no juries? Maybe no trials at all? No, I'll take my jury trials even when they are not perfect over the alternatives. Kudos to you, Sockii.

[moonstone]

[quote="Susan"]I'm glad to see you say this, Sockii, as I've seen way too many people talk about getting out if it as if it is to be avoided like the plague. When I served, I could NOT believe the crap excuses some people were giving. It amazed me how people could look a judge right in the eye and lie. Some people have no shame, I guess. [/quote]

Your right Susan. Jury service is often seen as something that's going to disrupt your routine and be a damn nuisance hence the crap excuses, but if were in court for any reason then I'd want a decent jury. I'm self employed but if I get called then I'll find a way to do it.

My biggest fear would be getting called for a trial like the triple murder that Dirty Martini had to jury for, and having to see and hear unimaginable things. I suppose you'd have to tell yourself that you're helping to get justice for the victims and their families.

Good on you Sockii for your positive attitude and posting on here. Puts the whole concept in a different light hearing people who've actually done it talk about their experiences.

[sockii]

My mom was called on a very difficult civil case a couple of years ago...it ran for about 3 weeks and involved nursing home neglect and an eventual death...her experience on that and what she told me about it afterward definitely gave me a different perspective going in to this trial than I might have had before. And as I said, I learned a great deal from the experience.

Also, the court, judge, and council all repeatedly treat jurors with a HUGE amount of gratitude and debt because they understand what a "burden" or "responsibility" it can be.

I'm only a little miffed that after the fact, apparently the plaintiff's council is looking to appeal our verdict and drag this case out even longer. Well, good luck to them on that.

[conroy]

I've only had my name drawn once so far. I was bummed I never got to deliberate on an actual case. We actually got called in one day for selection. It was kind of weird, because our county courthouse was closed for renovations at the time so they were holding court cases in the room at the county center where the local Board of Supervisors held their meetings. While we sat there for about 20 minutes waiting to see what would happen, we saw the defense attorney almost begging on his knees with the prosecutor. A few minutes later the prosecutor advised that the defended agreed to a plea deal so we were let go but we still got the paid for the whole day even though we spent less than half an hour in the room. They never told us what the charges were against the defendant.

[luddite lady]

Good for you, sockii! I agree that jury duty is an important privilege of members of a democratic society. I've never been called to jury duty, but would not hesitate to serve.

Although the basic principals are the same, I find the differences between the American and Canadian jury systems quite striking. This is not said as a criticism of either system, just an observation. In Canada the names of the jury members are never released, and it's a criminal offense for jury members to talk about deliberations regardless of how long ago the trial took place. I know scads of people who have done jury duty, and all of them have been very respectful of this confidentiality. Even some co-workers who are notorious blabber-mouths have been uncharacteristically tight lipped upon their return to work after serving on a jury. When I was in highschool, my dad was on the jury of a criminal trial that spanned a few weeks. To this day, I don't even know what the trial was really about or how it ended up.

[DirtyMartini]

HAHA. Nice job in deliberation, sock. I personally get frustrated with the people for whom "beyond a reasonable doubt" equates to (for guilty vote) "there's no evidence, but I just feeeel it/don't like the way he looks" and (not guilty vote) "I require a notarized photo of the hand of God pointing to the accused." Twice now I've found myself in a room of strangers repeating the definition of the word "reasonable."


[quote="sockii"]Also, the court, judge, and council all repeatedly treat jurors with a HUGE amount of gratitude and debt because they understand what a "burden" or "responsibility" it can be.[/quote]

This.^ Anyone who ever gets called, know that the court is quite accommodating to the jury's needs. Sick kid, someone in the hospital, you have a condition, etc. -- Just tell your officer what the deal is, and they'll figure out how to handle it. And (one of the fears of many, myself included) if you need to pee, just raise your hand. They understand.

I admit that I did love our judge on the last one. He reminded me of John Laroquette. He was very friendly (and whip-smart), but he could turn on a dime when someone was fucking with him. Our jury selection took 2 days (we went through something like 125 people), during which he heard every excuse in the book. But he was not afraid to call people out on it. He got so frustrated with this one woman who had been nothing but trouble from the start and who had no genuine reason to be dismissed, he finally asked (loudly), "Why is your time so much more important than everyone else in this room? There are 100 people here with jobs and families and hardships. Why are you more important than them? What makes you so special? " It was kinda awesome.