I was called for jury duty

[jaksavage]

Yesterday went in and it was a
Manslaughter Trial

I wasn't selected and so was released.

Two young men under 19 yrs old, drinking.
They got in a fight they both drew knives.
One did not survive.
Neither are citizens of this country.
The defendant spoke no english.(translators)

The gentleman beside me grumbled about the expense of it.( we were already deselected)
I tried to support the social side of it, but is was hard to defend.
I sure felt bad for that kid on trial.
And his dead friend.

[bluestateguy]

1. I would love to get called in a non-violent drug possession case

and then be a nullifying juror.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. Would you warn the judge beforehand of your intention?

The job of jurors is not to do justice; it is to uphold the law.

I want two things from the law: I want to be able to look the laws up in a book and be certain a) that if I don't break them, I won't be punished, and b) that I am safe from other people breaking them.

Imagine how you would feel if you were accused of a crime, and the jury admitted that you hadn't technically broken the law, but convicted you anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do. Or if someone committed a crime against you, but the jury let them off if because they decided they weren't a bad person.

One of the things a judge asks a jury (I believe) is whether they understand this and are willing to check in their consciences and not collect them til it's over, and to interpret the law of the land as accurately as they can; if they say they aren't then they're refused. Would you lie about this?

[Greyhound]

10. Aren't conscience and justice in the face of the written law the very reasons

for a jury trial? If the only relevant factors are the letter of the law and the facts surrounding the case judges and juries are superfluous.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. No! The reason for a jury trial is to determine the facts.

A standard piece of legal idiom is "the jury are masters on matters of fact, and the judge is master on matters of law".

The judge tells the jury "if you believe that the facts are X; convict of this crime; if you think the facts are Y, convict of that lesser crime; if you think they are Z, acquit completely". The sole duty of the jury is to determine whether there is reasonable doubt that the accused committed something legally defined as a crime.

The place for conscience and justice is when *writing* laws (and within the bounds permitted by the law - most crimes have variable sentences).

We have elections, by which everyone gets to contribute equally. If juries get to apply their consciences, you are in the power of twelve random people, not of the electorate as a whole.

[Greyhound]

15. Yet juries regularly consider extenuating circumstances and intent is a major

factor as is relative harm/benefit of an act, no?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. I believe yes, yes and no, although I'm not certain about that.

Juries certainly consider extenuating circumstances; because the law tells them to. But they interpret (or, at least, should interpret) them strictly according to the law's dictates.

For an act to be considered criminal, both intent (mens rea) and deed (actus rea) are generally required, although some crimes (e.g. traffic offences) are "offences of strict liability", and don't require proof of intent, and there are laws against things like loitering with intent to commit a crime which enable people who intend to commit crimes but are thwarted to be prosecuted.

I don't believe relative benefit/harm is generally taken into account in criminal prosecutions, although it certainly comes up in things like determining scales of damages in civil suits. I'm not confident of that, though.

But in all those things, what the jury are doing is deciding what the facts are - "is he insane?" "did he intend to do it?" "how much did it cost to repair". What verdict they return based on those facts is strictly dictated by the law.

[Greyhound]

23. On the last point, I was considering the old law school saw of breaking into the drugstore

to steal the life-saving medicine. Laws were definitely broken, but the circumstances excuse it.

Rule of law over rule of men, innocent until proven guilty, and a jury of peers are the foundation of our system. It just seems to me that the jury of peers is the most relevant to the average defendant and is a safeguard against institutionalized, or legalized tyranny.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. Aren't there legal provisions for that sort of thing?

In the same way that self-defence negates a charge of murder, I'd be very surprised if breaking into a drug-store in an emergency wasn't legal under some clause.

I find it hard to imagine a situation where you have time to rob a drug store and find and administer the right drugs before an ambulance has time to arrive, though.

[aikoaiko]

17. I'm curious what you think of jury nullification....

...and its role in the justice system.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. It's a bug, not a feature.

The jury *has* to have the last say on matters of fact, which means that jury nullification will always be with us, but it's an abuse of power on the part of the jury.

The highest-profile example I can think of is Dan White, the guy who shot Harvey Milk (although that wasn't a full nullification).

[Lisa0825]

27. I was.

I admitted during the juror interviews that I was for decriminalization of drugs. A few others said the same after me. I also happened to know the defense attorney personally, but I wanted the opportunity to STATE that I was for decriminalization. She ended up winning the case.

It would be great to be on the jury for such a case and influence the outcome, but my compulsion to be honest wouldn't let me go that route. I had to answer truthfully.

[monmouth]

2. Not to be picky but it's "manslaughter." Thanks for your post, very interesting...n/t

[-..__...]

3. How did you feel about the victim?

[jaksavage]

4. Equaly sorry. nt

[Warpy]

5. Old, sad story around here

Young guys get drunk, get stupid, get angry, and fight to the death over nothing. The survivor sleeps it off and wakes up in jail, minus his best friend.

It's too bad there isn't an alternative to prison like a one-five year inpatient substance abuse treatment facility. These guys usually aren't psychopaths, they're salvageable.

[MineralMan]

7. Actions have consequences...

So I would have no problem sitting on that jury. Had the two young men not been drunk, or had they not been carrying knives, the incident would not have occurred and both would be alive. They might have gotten into a fist fight, but that seldom ends in death.

Both circumstances were preventable...the drinking and the knives. For that reason, manslaughter is a reasonable charge under the circumstances, and if the evidence supported the knifing of one by the other, I would find the survivor guilty. The sentence for manslaughter is not onerous, and provides time for self-education in such matters.

[rug]

8. You would find him guilty without hearing a shred of evidence?

Are you as quick to follow the law on the presumption of evidence?

Actions may have consequences but they should be preceded by thought.

[MineralMan]

9. Perhaps you did not read my post.

I stated that I would serve on the jury. During the trial, I would be presented with evidence. In my post, I distinctly said that if the evidence supported the guilt of the survivor of this fight, I would vote to find the defendant guilty.

I try very hard to present what I am saying in a clear fashion. I believe I did so in the earlier post.

[Obamanaut]

11. "They got in a fight they both drew knives." We need stricter knife

laws. Ban edged weapons. :sarcasm:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. If knife crime is a serious problem, laws restricting the carrying of knives are a sensible response

If it is rare, they aren't.

[tjwash]

14. Last time I was called, I got on a real fucked up one.

It was a very racially charged civil suit about an black man, who got wrongfully fired from his job as a maintenance guy at a mobile home park.

The thing that made it screwed up...was the absolute blatant bigotry of the other jurors, and that there were no black folks picked to be on the jury. It dragged on for 3 weeks, and completely killed my faith in humanity for a little while.

I'm just starting to get a a bit of that faith back, and it's been over a year.

[Contrary1]

18. Be relieved that you were not selected.

I served on a murder trial several years ago. It was very stressful. What was estimated to be a 1 and 1/2 day trial ended up lasting an entire week. We were sequestered, for reasons unexplained, during deliberations. Kept in a hotel...no phone, no tv, no radio, no change of clothes. The judge personally called our families to let them know we wouldn't be coming home soon.

One juror went for a "walk" with the bailiff, and never returned. We suspected that she had been threatened by the victim's family, and removed for her own safety, but never found out for sure.

In the end, we found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. There was never any question that he was guilty, we were there mainly to determine which crime.

I hope I never have to serve again.

[Lex]

20. No change of clothes for a week?

I've never heard of that, ever. Usually family members can send necessary items with no trouble.

[Contrary1]

22. No, not for the entire trial, just during part of the deliberations.

We were sequestered after the 2nd day, so it was from Thursday morning until Friday night, when we reached a verdict.

Lucky for us (and anyone within a few hundred feet), it was December, and not July. :)

[trollybob]

24. If it was such an open-and-shut case, how come you were still deliberating

at night? Should have come back with a verdict in 5 minutes.

[Contrary1]

26. To be honest, it was because I was the lone holdout on the first degree murder conviction.

Just living up to my nickname. :D

If it had been up to the other 11, we would have probably been out in 5 minutes.

The defense did not prove to my satisfaction that the man went back to his home with the intent to kill his common law wife. He had been pitched throw a window earlier in the evening by the victim's brother. He claimed that he returned home because he needed his work clothes for the next day, or would have been fired. That turned out to be true.

He also claimed that he borrowed a gun from a friend for protection from the brother. Not a smart move, but the friend backed him up on this.

He turned himself in the following morning, wearing the work clothes he went back to get.

There were no witnesses other than the defendant, and he chose not to testify. Several of the other jurors wanted to play act what they thought happened. I kept repeating that, as per the judge's instructions, we should deliberate only on the testimony and other evidence presented in the courtroom, not a demo by fellow jurors on what "probably happened".

We eventually came back with a guilty verdict on the lesser charge. Even the prosecutor said it was the right decision.

[alfredo]

21. I found something odd about jury duty. If you are completely honest, hold

nothing back including biases, you will never serve on a jury. It was a real blow, and it took a long time to get over the feeling. Honesty will disqualify you.

[backscatter712]

28. I just got a jury duty summons last week.

I'm scheduled for mid January.

Usually, the system is set up so the evening before, I call a phone number on the jury summons, and you get a recording that if your juror number is between X and Y, you need to come in. The last time I got a summons, I wasn't between X and Y, so I didn't even have to come in.

Let's hope the experience isn't too soul-destroying...