Have You Ever Served On A Jury?

[arwalden]

Poll question: Have You Ever Served On A Jury?

If so, what can you share about your experience? How long was the trial, what was the charge and how did you vote?

-- Allen

Edit: Changed subject line. Indeed you're correct KMLA... I suppose "sitting" on the entire jury would be difficult. Thanks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Summoned but not chosen

Nobody wants a person with a JD on a jury.

[RebelOne]

5. Was chosen, but then defendent plea-bargained.

It would have been an interesting trial, because the judge was Ellen Morphonious (sp?), known as "the hanging judge." This was in Miami.

[BiggJawn]

30. Or a friend of 1/2 the judges in the courthouse....

"John? So, they called you in?"

"Yes Gar...Uh, Your Honour..."

"Well...You'll be excused, so just sit back and watch how this works. Is the Defense ready?..."

[lastliberalintexas]

38. Too true

And I'd LOVE to serve, especially if I could hide my profession from the other jurors and see what their thought process is really like. But alas, I'll never be chosen. I'm guaranteed that every defense atty in town would exclude me just for being the pinko, pro-plaintiff commie that I am! :-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. HEY!!!

Where the HECK have you been??? :hi: Nice to see you!

The last thing they want is someone who understands the law...

[lastliberalintexas]

41. Hi Teena!

I've been engaging in the S & M of the GD 2004 forum! Nasty stuff over there. :evilgrin:

I decided it was definitely time to come back to the lounge! :hi:

[R3dD0g]

2. Trial was 2 days.

It was a personal injury case.

Redneck jurors decided for the defendant. I was only one to vote for plaintiff. Unanimity wasn't needed.

[kmla]

3. No. My tuckus isn't THAT big. It would have to be a reallly small jury..

Oooooooh. You meant *served* on a jury.

Never mind. Heh heh.

No. Called, but dismissed.

[Scout]

4. It was interesting!

I was glad I was chosen, it was a good experience. I was bummed when I was called two more times but not chosen either of those times, just the first. Kind of pisses me off when people don't want to serve, and try to get out of it, and it REALLY pisses me off when people make comments about "too stupid to avoid jury duty."

The case was attempted murder of an undercover police officer, during a drug buy/bust.

I think the whole thing went one week, from first reporting until completion of the trial. We deliberated for almost 1.5 days, if memory serves.

We voted to convict. I don't recall what the sentence was, or if there was an appeal.

[dolo amber]

6. I once sat

on a guy whose nickname was "Judge"...does that count? :D

edit: Sorry, it was *The* Judge...

[Loonman]

7. Wrongful termination

Lawyer dropped the case after he heard a jury pool had been selected.


I remember all these non-civic minded assheads trying every excuse in the book to get out of serving.

Judge almost cited this one whiny jerk with contempt.

The Jury Pool room in Dedham, MA is totally depressing. Great pizza joint across the street, though.




Second time I went to Roxbury District Court. Got a rasberry danish and a coffee from the "roach coach" outside.

Nice room, plus some cute college babe sat next to me.

[Richardo]

8. Called many times - served once

DUI, lasted about 2 hours, we convicted. The guy's story was WEAK.

[Jack_Dawson]

9. Yes - Felony Stalking Trial

Fascinating experience. I highly recommend it.

[arwalden]

10. So-o-o... How did it turn out? Guilty Or Innocent?

[Jack_Dawson]

24. Guilty as sin

We were 10-2 right off the bat, and wore down the other two by the end of the day. You wouldn't have believed this guy. What a creep!

[Padraig18]

11. Yes.

It was a wronful-death civil action, and the trial lasted 3 days. We voted to award damages against both the at-fault driver and the hospital, but did not vote to award damages against the physician overseeing the deceased's care.

[EV1Ltimm]

12. yup... but i was an alternate

i want my three days back!!

[EdWesKer]

15. me, too!

so frustrating; was a drug case; I wanted to acquit; they convicted; I had hoped someone would get a tummy ache or something and I could make the world safe for recreational drug users; sigh.

[never cry wolf]

13. 1st degree murder

Young guy on a three day crack binge blew away a gas station attendent during a robbery.

For me it was very intense. Lots of boring testimony during the trial phase and they had the kid nailed. After a week of testimony by the prosecution the court appointed defense laywers rested their case with no testimony. We deliberated for 30 minutes, found him guilty and thought that would be it.

So, the verdict is pronounced and the judge says he'll see us all Monday morning for the start of the sentencing phase. That is where it got intense, the options were life without parole or the death penalty. This is also where the defense put their efforts.

About another week and a half of testimony and we were sent to the jury room. Most just said to let him fry and lets get outta here, it was something like 9-3. Soon it was 10-1 with one undecided, I was the one against death. This guy did the crime, but he also had a 5 year old daughter and claimed to have found Jesus. Our charge was to determine if he was beyond all hope of rehabilitation. We were supposed to be convinced of that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Well, I damn well wasn't going to condemn a man for the sake of convenience. The death panalty take a unanimous vote, I convinced the undecided to stick with me and after 14 hours of deliberation the other side was finally convinced we would not give in. It ended as a hung jury which by default meant life without parole.

It was the most adult thing I have ever done.

[arwalden]

18. Good On Ya!

I'm opposed to the death penalty as well. But not because someone found Jesus... or because they have children. Only because life imprisonment lasts longer. Once they are dead, the punishment is over. You did the right thing.

-- Allen

[never cry wolf]

20. Actually, at the time

I didn't really realize I was against the death penalty. And the Jesus thing only meant to me that maybe he could somehow be productive and help others in prison, or at least that he thought about changing and maybe could take up some sort of study.

The daughter did get to me though, my son was about the same age. I also figured that prison for life is cheaper than prison for over a decade with all the state paid for mandatory appeals.

[arwalden]

22. Excellent Point...

... I'm always maddened at those who argue that it's "cheaper" to kill the bastard than to feed him for 60 more years.

-- Allen

[Wwagsthedog]

29. Good for you!

One of my unselections to a jury came when I told the inquisitor that I was firmly anti-death penalty and would never change my mind. Got sent home straight away.

[SiobhanClancy]

36. I was rejected because I wasn't "death qualified"...

They asked me if I could vote to impose the death penalty,and I said no...they said 'thanks,you are excused'. I have served two other times,one a drug case and the other a robbery case. I voted guilty in both cases(in spite of my belief that drugs should be decriminalized),because there was little doubt in either case. I found it disturbing to be in the position of sending someone to prison,and I hope I never have to serve again. I also don't like that "death qualified" business. This was in FL,and I don't know if other states are like this.

[Bertha Venation]

43. BRRRRRRRRAVA SIOBHAN!

eom

[TheMightyFavog]

54. Wow.

This just makes me all the more grateful to live in a state that had the good sense to abolish capital punishment 152 years ago.

[underpants]

14. I got kicked off first two weeks in a row.

Same lawyer both times. Both were car accidents and trucking companies were being sued.

:kick:

[xray s]

16. Yes. Wrongful death case

Someone drove into some hard to see pipe at an unbarricaded construction site on the side of the road late at night. Alcohol was involved. Very tough case. 2 1/2 day deliberation. Was a troubling but very interesting experience. You learn a lot about human interaction in the jury room. Getting 12 people to agree on anything is very difficult. We awarded a settlement to the family of the victim, but less than what they were asking for. As soon as I got home I raised my insurance coverage. It would be very easy to award someone $1,000,000 when you add up loss of income, pain and suffering, etc.

My advice; Elect a foreman that can keep things focused. We had a very amiable guy running the show and we wandered way off course.

[AngryAmish]

17. Vehicular homicide

The State bounced me.

[nostamj]

19. yes. a pretty big murder trial in NYC

young woman visciously murdered in a midtown Gap store.

the trial lasted (IIRC) three weeks. it was a very interesting experience. i kept lots of notes and tried to get a non-fiction book deal... but, it wasn't a BIG enough case to interest anyone.

the key evidence turned out to be his shoes. they had been cleansed of blood, but he left distinctive footprints in the blood with a pair of worn Doc Martens (the exact shoes I was wearing at the time!)

FBI Agent Bodziac(sp?), who got a lot of air time during the OJ trial, laid out the evidence and it was really conclusive.

we even had a 'perry mason' moment when a witness stood up and pointed to the defendant: "he's the man I saw in the basement!"

I won't get into the full narrative but basically, this guy (who was a fired employee) hid in an air conditioning duct and waited for the morning staff. what he didn't know was that there were a couple of contractors coming in as well. he killed the girl in a panic (stabbed with a screwdriver and shot after being tied up with duct tape).

once the jury agreed that only that pair of shoes could have made the prints in her blood inside and outside the office (and they had the piece of flooring in evidence!) it was a pretty fast deliberation.

I met her parents after the trial (regarding donations to a trust fund should the book have been picked up) and attended the sentancing. I was even on local radio.

a very interesting experience!

[Endangered Specie]

21. sentence?

[nostamj]

32. sorry! (and some more details)

life without the possibility of parole.

sidenote: the judge was pretty famous too. judge harold rothwax. and, get this coincidence, the victim's name in my trial was "Lisa Steinberg"

you probably remember the child who was killed in NYC years back by Joel Steinberg (Hedda Nussbaum. well, Rothwax presided over that trial too!

Joel Steinberg and the Murder of Lisa Steinberg
In 1987, Steinberg, a New York lawyer, beat his illegally-adopted 6-year-old daughter to death, was convicted of first degree manslaughter, and was sentenced to 8 1/3-to-25 years in jail. Today, he was denied parole for a fifth time, though he's scheduled to be released June 30 anyway, having served two thirds of the maximum sentence without having beaten any 6-year-old girls to death. Here's where I offend the politically-correct, though:
The media portrayed Hedda Nussbaum, Steinberg's live-in companion and Lisa's de facto mother for 6 years, as a victim in this case: Though she knew what was going on, and helped cover it up, she too had been frequently beaten by Steinberg (the photos of her released at the time of Steinberg's arrest are unrecognizable as the same person whose photos were attached to the children's books she wrote) and in the end was granted immunity in return for testifying against him.

I was then and I remain unsympathetic: A mother's greatest purpose is to protect her child -- even against her significant other, even if she suffers abuse herself. And in this case, we're talking about an intelligent, well-to-do woman who had a world of options open to her. Nussbaum chose to stay.

[Rowdyboy]

23. Called and selected for a crack cocaine possession charge

of a 23 year old black man. Racially diverse jury selected a black foreperson who was clearly pro-guilty. The young man strongest defender was an older white farmer-type. Took about two hours to deliberate and the vote was guilty on the first vote.

[Tracer]

25. Been Summoned Several Times, Chosen Once.

I was stunned to be chosen and needed to tell the judge that I couldn't serve. My excuse was absolutely genuine — I wasn't trying to get out of anything.

The case would have been a hard one to be a jury member. A man accused of sexually molesting a 9-year-old girl (a relative).

[NoPasaran]

26. Summoned but not chosen

It turned out that my case for which I was summoned was a lawsuit against the small company I work for. The judge excused me before voir dire. I still got the ten bucks for showing up that day though.

[pmbryant]

27. Yes. "Trial" lasted about 15 minutes.

Only been on a jury once, and it was just a few months ago.

It was not a real trial in the traditional sense, but a pre-trial proceeding to determine if the defendant was mentally fit to stand trial. Both the prosecution and the defense were on the same side: the person was not fit, and would thus have to be placed in a mental institution and forced to take medication, in hopes of making her mentally fit at a later date.

So there wasn't much to decide. It was just a formality.

I was out of the courtroom before lunchtime.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Kat45]

28. Yup. Served on a jury on a DUI case.

I got called early in the morning, and fortunately the trial was over by the end of the day. We let the guy off because there was not enough evidence to convict. A number of people had a hard time with letting him off, in case he was driving drunk. But I'd say the cops totally blew it; what they presented as 'evidence' was no such thing. For all we know, the guy could have been a habitual drunk driver known by the cops, but they didn't do their job in proving that he was driving drunk in this instance.

I had been called to jury duty two other times, but this was the only time I had to serve.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

31. Hung jury on most counts

A white cabbie accused a young black man of shooting him during an attempted robbery. The defense said the cabbie picked the guy up and wanted to buy drugs from him; then got mad when he said he didn't have any, and was shot in a struggle when the passenger pulled out a gun to defend himself.

We all agreed the defendant was not guilty of attempted murder. Three other jurors and I felt attempted manslaughter was committed. Unfortunately, this case came to trial right after the OJ thing, and on the remaining charges, we were divided along racial lines.

While I was upset about the prospect of a criminal victimizing others, regardless of their race; I can understand why the remainder of the jury wanted to declare the defendant innocent. The police in this county have a reputation for dealing unfairly with non-white minorities and blacks (we're majority African-American).

I also live in a state in which blacks on death row highly outnumber whites, and of those blacks, most were found guilty of murdering white people. Those found guilty of murdering black people rarely receive the death penalty.

Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever get beyond the color of our skin to see the human beings inside.

[PerpetualWar]

33. Yes, drunk driving case

But was misleading on its face. Amounted to a fender bender and the victim decided after she went home and talked to her husband to go to the hospital to go to the hospital and get xrays for her prior back problems and work she was already missing and asked for millions for it. Was a gouge and we didn't let them get away with it.

But we still socked the kid for some amount for the drunk driving accident.

[Bertha Venation]

34. Dismissed from murder trial during voie dire

because of my history. Subsequently served on a drug case, where the defendant was charged with posession. He was arrested for something else and the sheriff's deputy claimed that when he pulled the guy out of the cop car, he found drugs stuffed in a crack in the back seat. The guy claimed the deputy planted it. We found the defendant not guilty. There was no evidence that the drugs had ever been in his posession.

[Susang]

35. My recent jury service was a nightmare *warning-long story*

I used to have much more respect for the jury selection process until I was forced to go through it last summer in Cook County, IL. I was selected for a jury, then was removed during questioning, as the case involved a urologist who allegedly had botched a penile implant surgery so badly that the man lost a great deal of the little function he had left (the gentleman suing was a parapalegic. Since I'm related by marriage to a urologist who enjoys shocking everyone at family gatherings with graphic descriptions of penile implant surgery, the defense's lawyer used one of his challenges on me. That was fine.

However, after that, I was placed back in the jury pool, since there was a severe lack of jurors that day. I was interviewed for a insurance case regarding a traffic accident involving an hispanic family and a Polish-speaking woman.

The judge involved in this case had a serious attitude after most of the people claimed that they had been involved in an accident almost exactly like that one. He dismissed all of those people and refused to let anyone else go, no matter what their conflicts might be. He insisted that an obviously stressed out working mother sit on the jury, even though she tried to claim hardship, saying that her two young children got out of grade school at 2PM and she couldn't afford a babysitter. There were other, even more heartbreaking circumstances that just couldn't be bothered with. The jury ended up being myself, a crack addict (he actually needed the $11.00 check), a college student, as well as a woman who could barely speak English.

As for myself, I should have been excused, as my mother works for the insurance company that was involved. I told the judge that and he still insisted I stay on, despite the clear conflict of interest.

As the trial (as I laughingly call it) progressed, the two ridiculously inexperienced attorneys (straight out of law school) called a humongous amount of witnesses, showed charts and graphs, and interrupted each other, their witnesses and the judge.

To make this more absurd, the representative of the auto insurance company who was suing the Polish woman was the single most petulant and angry looking woman I have ever seen. She sat slumped next to the attorney who was presenting her company's case and made audible noises when she didn't agree with something or was agitated. She reminded me of how a spoiled six year old would act if she was forced to go to church against her will.

The gist of the case was that the family and the Polish woman were involved in a collision at a busy Chicago intersection. The Polish woman was turning left and the family (driven by the 18 year old daughter) smashed into the woman's left fender. From the start, it was obvious that the family's car had run the red light, their car was in the far right lane and the other cars were stopped when the woman started her turn. Having driven through that intersection daily for the past 6 years, I knew the insurance company's story (as well as the family's)was BS.

The insurance company was seeking to recover a ridiculous amount of chiropracter bills that the family presented them with, though they refused treatment at the scene. They even submitted chiropracter bills for the baby (who was not in a child care seat as mandated by law, but sitting in the back seat throwing a fit when the accident happened, at least according to the grandmother's testimony). It was pretty obvious that they had really taken the insurance company for all they could and the insurance company couldn't do anything but try to get it back from the other driver.

When they finally stopped presenting their cases (we started at 9AM and it was 5PM when we finally got to deliberate), we all filed into the jury room, were told that they would have all the documents we would need in a few minutes. In the meantime, one of the other jurors stood up and asked "okay, who's for the insurance company and who's for the woman?". We all voted for the woman. We didn't even bother to elect a foreperson. Then we had to wait for all the official documents so that we could actually render our verdict. It took us a total of 20 minutes from the beginning of the deliberation to the end, and only that long because we had to wait ten minutes for the paperwork. It was a total and complete waste of my time, the other juror's time and the government's time and money.

[AngryAmish]

56. Who was the judge?

[MrMonk]

37. Yes, about 1/2 dozen times.

All but one were for drug possession with intent to distribute, in every case a kilo of cocaine carried in a bag or backpack or under the seat of a car. Every time the guy was caught with the kilo and with a gun or knife. And he told a bullshit story on the stand. (Didn't know what it was; didn't have it on him; holding it for a friend, etc. One guy said that a stranger threw it into his car just before the police arrived, and it landed in his briefcase which then shut itself and slid under the car seat.) Even so, each trial lasted two days, including jury selection.

The other was for property damage (one guy had destroyed another's garden, claiming it was on his side of the property line. no survey was made.) After about two hours, the judge sent us out of the room and when we were called back the matter had been settled.

I was also called for a 10-week trial for a guy accused of murdering three women hitchhikers. Fortunately, I was excused. They had the guy in cuffs in the courtroom! Even so, he still scared me. This guy just looked crazy evil, like Manson. I would have been looking over my shoulder the whole time.

[SOteric]

40. I have served on 4 separate juries.

The first was a hotly contested case in which two very young men were tried together on charges of armed robbery.

I had never heard from any other human beings such petty-minded stupidity as I heard from select representatives of my fellow jurors on that case. One woman voted to convict the younger of the two (whose guilt was in serious question) on the grounds that "The little shit just looks guilty, you just know if he didn't do this he's done something he should be in jail for."

As it is, we voted to convict one of the two and drop the charges for the second. That was my vote as well. The one was pretty clearly caught on video-tape and the second had an alibi. Not an iron-clad alibi, but an alibi, and reasons to have been in proximity with the 1st fellow and the getaway vehicle which were not necessarily related to the crime.

So, sure on the 1st guy, but not enough to convict on the second.

****

Embezzlement of school funds. I regret I don't feel I can talk about this trial. The individual was not convicted and many of the details are known publicly. It could do undue harm to someone's reputation in the community.

****

Drug Trafficking, - A young black man with a previous record of petty theft and some history of hanging with the wrong crowd was identified as a participant in the transaction by a police officer who apparently took two days to think of who the guys was and where he'd seen him before. Then went to his house and arrested him, inspite of assurances that he'd been at work at the time.

We unanimously voted to release the young man.

*****

Rape. This was another contentious trial with more feats of amazing stupidity, and it brought up some intriguing questions I still have not resolved to my satisfaction. A woman who was a known drunk, liar and often found in mild to moderate altercations claimed rape against a relative stranger in she'd met in a bar.

At first, she told her daughter that she'd been smacked around by her husband. Then she told her daughter that she'd gotten in a fight at the bar. Then she told her she'd been raped. Then took it back and said she'd had consensual sex.

The accused had a checkered past, but had been sober for 3 years, had a job that required him to clock in and out (and that became relevant) and had married and been conducting himself in a respectable manner for some time. He had a fight with his wife, and went out to a bar to pound back some brews. Not in keeping with the 'clean & sober' philosophy, but certainly within the realm of believeable.

Ultimately, we were a hung jury. I voted to acquit but I could not help debating back and forth in my mind, - Does the fact that a woman is a loathsome and fairly unbalanced person mean that she cannot ever bring charges of rape?

[Rhiannon12866]

57. Wow. I admire you for having gone through that.

My experience is nothing compared to yours, just long periods of waiting. I do agree with you, however; it is so difficult to judge. I became more cynical about the American judicial system after this.:shrug:

[lumpy]

42. I have to laugh just think9ng about it.

Was on a DUI case. The defense lawyer was quite interested in me since my husband at the time was convicted of a DUI which caused some financial,etc. hardship to the family of course. I guess he thought I would be sympathetic to the drunk driver. During the trial he pointedly addressed me with his arguments. I didn't prove to be his ace in the hole however and was not swayed at all by his pandering to my sympathy. I simply had no 'sympathy' for the drunk. I still have no sympathy for drunking drivers and the problems they create.
The other cases I was on were very uninteresting.

[ronnykmarshall]

44. Civil trial

Pretty much a snoozer. Me and one other jurior we're the lone desending votes. But they just needed a majority.

The whole process was interesting, but I was about to nod off in court.

I was selected on a murder trial once, but my company wouldn't pay me the whole time of the trial (possibly 6 weeks). The judge even called my company ..... the bastards wouldn't pay me!

I wanted to be on the trial soooooooo bad. But I couldn't afford to lose the money. They let me off the case.

[jus_the_facts]

45. Called but right before they were gonna start pickin' us.....

....the guy plead guilty to a lesser charge...so we were dismissed. :shrug:

[Piperay]

46. Yes & I HATED it...

was on a jury where a man was charged with 'plain drunkenness' and the trial lasted for over a week. It sounds like it wasn't a big deal but it was, was even a big story about it in the local newspaper because it involved charges of police brutality and racism. A young Hispanic man was charged with walking through the parking lot of a hall where a party was going on, the police saw him bump into the mirror on a car and they decided he was drunk. The whole thing hinged on whether the arrest was even legal and if he was indeed drunk. The police botched it (the blood test was lost etc) but they claimed they knew he was drunk because they 'knew they had a drunken Mexican cause they could smell him in the car' :wtf: I voted NOT guilty along with two other people, the rest voted guilty and we never reached a unanimous decision so the jury was hung. The prosecutor claimed he was going to retry it but I don't believe he ever did. I HATE, HATE, HATED the whole thing and NEVER want to be on a jury again. :mad:

[BlueCollar]

47. Aggravated Sexual Assault

The defendant sexually assaulted an eighteen year old girl as he threatened her with a gun.

He had been previously imprisoned for stabbing a girl after raping her. He was out of prison after serving 10 years and assaulted the eighteen year old girl after being out for three months. While he was out on bond for the assault he raped a third woman at his girlfriend's apartment. We weren't told about the third rape.

We found him guilty of the sexual assault of the eighteen year old.

During the punishment phase, we were told of the prior conviction and the victim in the third rape testified.

We sentenced the defendant to life in prison. In Texas, it means he will not be eligible for parole until he has served thirty-five years.

The trial lasted a week, which included the jury selection phase. The Judge was extremely competent and gave the defendant every benefit of the doubt.

I found it very interesting and educational. The jury included both men and women and fairly represented the make-up of the community.

The defendant's attorney was a Public Defender and she did the best she could considering her client's history. What I couldn't understand was how the defendant's girlfriend could be so supportive.

I'd do jury duty again if asked. Fortunately, my Union contract has a clause that ensures I don't lose any pay or seniority for serving on a jury.

[mvd]

48. No

But I've been summoned a few times locally and one time federally. I think because there aren't that many Democrats in my county, I've been selected a lot.

[dmr]

49. Yes, cocaine smuggling in Miami 1989

A Columbian couple swallowed condoms filled with cocaine. They brought their 4 year old daughter with them hoping the feds wouldn't think a family would be smuggling. The very saddest part of the trial was this mom and dad made the 4 year old swallow condoms too. I sat on the mom's trial, which lasted 3 days. Her defense was that she needed money for medical care on a leg sore that wouldn't heal. This had been their 7th smuggling trip. She was found guilty.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. no

if I did I would try to be found unsuitable for one, unless I was unemployed. I wouldn't give up my job for that shit pay.

[Skittles]

51. I served on a intoxication manslaughter jury

a gal who was driving, flipped her jeep and killed her passenger, her boyfriend. Both of them were only children; it was a dreadful experience finding her guilty but I felt she was very guilty. I'm glad the judge had to decide her sentence; I wouldn't have a clue what to give her. The strange thing was, her boyfriend had no alcohol in his system. In my mind, if they had hit someone on the road I would have held them BOTH responsible because he was allowing a drunk to drive. I never did find out what her sentence was.

Speaking of jury duty, I have to show up at 08:45 tomorrow for jury duty. I don't try to avoid jury duty and I do understand its importance but that doesn't mean I want to get selected.

[Zorro]

52. Attempted second degree murder

Trial lasted about a week.

We felt that the prosecutor was stretching it with the attempted murder charge, so we convicted the defendant of attempted manslaughter and a couple of other things.

We had trouble with one juror, who had seen the movie "Eleven Angry Men" and wanted to play the Henry Fonda role. Even brought it up during our deliberations. She was a complete idiot, so we used idiot logic to persuade her to see the truth of the situation.

[TheMightyFavog]

53. Well last week and today...

I served on a Jury last week. The one-day case involved a dispute between an 18 year old kid and his insurance company over how much the kis should be awarded for pain and suffering stemming from a dog bite he suffered in 1999. The kid wanted $45k for past and future pain and suffering his insurance company wanted no more than $7500. We ended up awarding him $6250 for past pain and sufering and zero dollars for future pain and suffering. We decided to award him bugger all for future pain and suffering due to the testimony from one of his doctors that said that the irritation and sensitivity of the remaning scar that the kid was sufering would only be temporary.

I had to go in earlier today to sit on another civil suit scheduled to last for two days. I was one of the 18 called up to the Jury box, however, once voire dire was over, I was one of the six that had been struck by the lawyers.

[Rhiannon12866]

55. Yes, but I didn't get chosen. It was this fall.

I just kept hoping that they would choose me already since they already had chosen the two women in front of me and the elderly gentleman sitting next to me and I felt that my number surely was up. I couldn't stand the suspense. They rejected as many as they chose.

The case was about giving a monetary award to a man who had been permanently injured in an auto accident by someone driving for the local YMCA. Apparently, a previous trial had already determined that the YMCA was culpable. I never understood why this was not all taken care of at the same time. I must say, however, that the lawyers were very solicitous of those of us waiting all day to be called. The lawyer for the defense kept emphasizing that a monetary award of zero dollars was a real consideration.

I never did learn how it turned out. And this reminds me, I never did send in my form, telling them how I felt about the experience, Oops!

[rexcat]

58. Grand Jury for 3 months