Who should be on a Jury?

[Formaldehyde]

Well that's good to know, I'll still have to drag myself to the courthouse for a week though.

Not in any state that I have heard of. You typically have to spend about 3/4ths of a day in a room if you are not selected. If you are selected, you have to serve on one jury however long that takes. Most of them are done that day.

Sure, the simple fact that juries across the USA have people serve on them from all walks of life each and every day.

So you admit you really don't know how voir dire works, or why even you would likely not be selected because you are such a staunch "law and order" reactionary. But you have seen all on TV before, you have some experience with military courts, and so you think you must be an expert in the subject?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way at all. There seem to be a lot of misconceptions with the legal system from those who have no actual experience with it.

 

[MobBoss]

Not So you admit you really don't know how voir dire works

I have far more knowledge of 'how it works' than you since I participate in a form of it for military trials and admin board procedure. Like I said, it involves my career and not just a single experience, as in your case.

Frankly, its laughable that you even try to alledge such at thing.

or why even you would likely not be selected because you are such staunch "law and order" conservative.

I am curious about this. What kind of question would be asked to determine my exclusion in regards to being this 'type' of person? Can you give me an example?

But you have seen all on TV before, you have some experience with military courts, and so you think you must be an expert in this matter?

I have well over 2 decades of experience here, which in comparison to your singular instance does indeed qualify me as an expert in comparison. 'Course I would gladly defer that to any of our attorney brethren who are involved in trial procedure. Illram already pointed out that people jurors arent asked how smart they are, contrary to some of your suggestions, so I would certainly welcome more trial attorney insight to the process to see if it is indeed as elitist as you suggest.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way at all. Got any actual "proof" it does?

Sure. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule47.htm

It can also vary from state to state. For example from PA: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s631.html

and here is the juror information form from PA: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/234/chapter6/s632.html

(H) The form of the juror information questionnaire shall be as follows:


JUROR INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE
CONFIDENTIAL; NOT PUBLIC RECORD



NAME: LAST FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL
CITY/TOWNSHIP COMMUNITIES IN WHICH YOU RESIDED
OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS:
MARITAL
STATUS:
MARRIED

SINGLE
SEPARATED

DIVORCED

WIDOWED

OCCUPATION OCCUPATION(S) PAST 10 YEARS
OCCUPATION OF SPOUSE/ OTHER PAST 10 YEARS OCCUPATION OF
SPOUSE/OTHER
NUMBER OF CHILDREN RACE:
WHITE BLACK HISPANIC
OTHER

LEVEL OF EDUCATION
YOURS SPOUSE/OTHER CHILDREN




YES NO
1. Have you ever served as a juror before?
If so, were you ever on a hung jury?
2. Do you have any religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that would prevent you from sitting in judgment in a criminal case and rendering a fair verdict?
3. Do you have any physical or psychological disability that might interfere with or prevent you from serving as a juror?
4. Have you or anyone close to you ever been the victim of a crime?
5. Have you or anyone close to you ever been charged with or arrested for a crime, other than a traffic violation?
6. Have you or anyone close to you ever been an eyewitness to a crime, whether or not it ever came to court?
7. Have you or anyone close to you ever worked in law enforcement or the justice system? This includes police, prosecutors, attorneys, detectives, security or prison guards, and court related agencies.
8. Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or any other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?
9. Would you be less likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?
10. Would you have any problem following the court’s instruction that the defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
11. Would you have any problem following the court’s instruction that the defendant in a criminal case does not have to take the stand or present evidence, and it cannot be held against the defendant if he or she elects to remain silent or present no evidence?
12. Would you have any problem following the court’s instruction in a criminal case that just because someone is arrested, it does not mean that the person is guilty of anything?
13. In general, would you have any problem following and applying the judge’s instruction on the law?
14. Would you have any problem during jury deliberations in a criminal case discussing the case fully but still making up your own mind?
15. Are you presently taking any medication that might interfere with or prevent you from serving as a juror?
16. Is there any other reason you could not be a fair juror in a criminal case?

So, please tell me which of these questions would identify someone as a 'law and order' type and how would the answer exclude them from selection?

 

[emzie]

So, please tell me which of these questions would identify someone as a 'law and order' type and how would the answer exclude them from selection?

Probably something like this

8. Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or any other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?

I'm not accusing you of this (though I think it might be applicable) but a lot of law-and-order types will believe a cop due to his or her position, just like I'd give preference to the opinion of a doctor in a medical case.

I'm also not sure if that's bad or not, since cops probably are better at observation that the average eye-witness (who I'd never give much weight).

12. Would you have any problem following the court’s instruction in a criminal case that just because someone is arrested, it does not mean that the person is guilty of anything?

This would also probably apply to some law-and-order types. There's the old East German joke: they'd not have arrested him if he did nothing. I think that's applicable to a lot of law-and-order types as well. It probably references back to 8 though.

Of course, law-and-order could merely mean pure objectivity and neither of what I quoted would apply.

 

[MobBoss]

Probably something like this

8. Would you be more likely to believe the testimony of a police officer or any other law enforcement officer because of his or her job?

I'm not accusing you of this (though I think it might be applicable) but a lot of law-and-order types will believe a cop due to his or her position, just like I'd give preference to the opinion of a doctor in a medical case.

I'm also not sure if that's bad or not, since cops probably are better at observation that the average eye-witness (who I'd never give much weight).

I actually think this question works the opposite way you think, in that its probably used to weed out those with little or no respect for the law or may harbor anti-police officer feelings or bias. If one things the police are all possibly corrupt, how can their testimony concerning the accused by worthy? The point being as officers of the law, we generally put such trust in our officers by virtue of their position of law enforcement. Without such trust, how can we take the testimony of a police officer as worthy? Should we simply toss out cases where its a police officers word vs an accused? No.

12. Would you have any problem following the court’s instruction in a criminal case that just because someone is arrested, it does not mean that the person is guilty of anything?

This would also probably apply to some law-and-order types. There's the old East German joke: they'd not have arrested him if he did nothing. I think that's applicable to a lot of law-and-order types as well. It probably references back to 8 though.

Of course, law-and-order could merely mean pure objectivity and neither of what I quoted would apply.

Actually, any law and order type worth their salt would know the answer to this one is obvious. Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I dont accept your connotation that 'law and order types' are equitable to East German attitudes towards arrest. Bottom line, thats a really easy question to answer and certainly not going to trip up any law and order type worthy of the label.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, please tell me which of these questions would identify someone as a 'law and order' type and how would the answer exclude them from selection?

8, 10, 11, ands 12 are the ones where "law and order" types (as Form conceives them) often answer "wrong" and a bit of follow-up questioning can nail them down as a for-cause strike. As a criminal defense lawyer, I would likely burn a peremptory strike against anyone that answered those questions "wrong" and the judge wouldn't give me a strike for cause.

I'm sure you would be smart enough to answer those questions "right" but given your profession, you would be an initial target of my strike list and I would certainly hit you with some questions or pay fairly close attention to when you raised your hand on questions to the panel as a whole to see if you should stay a target.

In a civil case a "law and order" type might be useful, depending on my client, so the game changes a bit.

I actually think this question works the opposite way you think, in that its probably used to weed out those with little or no respect for the law or may harbor anti-police officer feelings or bias. If one things the police are all possibly corrupt, how can their testimony concerning the accused by worthy? The point being as officers of the law, we generally put such trust in our officers by virtue of their position of law enforcement. Without such trust, how can we take the testimony of a police officer as worthy? Should we simply toss out cases where its a police officers word vs an accused? No.

The "wrong" answer to #8 is yes. The defense lawyer will try to get you struck for cause and the prosecutor will have to do some work to head off the challenge. If you are not struck for cause, the defense lawyer will likely burn a peremptory strike on you, especially given your profession. #9 is the question for the reasoning your are giving.

That you do not see the correct purpose of question number 8 brings your expertise on this subject a bit into question.

 

[MobBoss]

8, 10, 11, ands 12 are the ones where "law and order" types (as Form conceives them)often answer "wrong" and a bit of follow-up questioning can nail them down as a for-cause strike.

Actually, the way I read the PA rules on this, this questionaire is all they use unless its a capital case.

I'm sure you would be smart enough to answer those questions "right" but given your profession, you would be an initial target of my strike list and I would certainly hit you with some questions or pay fairly close attention to when you raised your hand on questions to the panel as a whole to see if you should stay a target.

That actually works both ways Jolly. For example, a legal professional would absolutely grasp issues like the accused refraining from their own testimony and not holding that against them. Lots of laymen would view that as possible default guilt.

In a civil case a "law and order" type might be useful, depending on my client, so the game changes a bit.

Exactly my earlier point and thanks for confirming. Each case stands on its own merits and those doing the selection process. In that regard, simply being a 'law and order type' doesnt necessarily equate non-selection anymore than anything else.

The "wrong" answer to #8 is yes. The defense lawyer will try to get you struck for cause and the prosecutor will have to do some work to head of the challenge. #9 is for the reasoning your are giving.

I would argue that the vast majority answer to #8 is yes (imho, but also utterly dependent on venue and local history), and given that, odds are that juries will probably contain a few 'yes' and/or 'no' answers to #8 given that the prosecution and defense can agree on them. That being the case, I would argue that there is no wrong or right answer to #8 that would get you out of or gurantee jury selection. Fair enough?

That you do not see the correct purpose of question number 8 brings your expertise on this subject a bit into question.

I would say its impact depends on the amount of actual police testimony to be given in said case. And I also in turn point out that your only looking at it from a defense attorney stance which is only 1/2 of the choosers in voir dire. Surely you can admit a yes answer might be more palatable if you were on prosecution?

Like I said earlier Jolly, I am not an attorney, and will glady defer to your expertise (especially where Texas is involved), but I do seem to recall than even your own trial experience has been a bit limited per your choice of law speciality. How often have you been a part of the jury selection process?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I have far more knowledge of 'how it works' than you since I participate in a form of it for military trials and admin board procedure.

Which is clearly irrelevant in this case, since the military doesn't have anything like voir dire.

So it would appear that I have considerable more experience than you have with this particular matter, and so obviously does JollyRoger. Your clear misunderstanding of the process in general as well as the specifics is quite evident in this thread.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, the way I read the PA rules on this, this questionaire is all they use unless its a capital case.

I haven't looked atthe rules. My guess is that is the only questionairre allowed in criminal cases. I can't imagine the state bar letting them get away with live voir dire. It helps claify yes or no answers on questionairres.

I would argue that the vast majority answer to #8 is yes (imho, but also utterly dependent on venue and local history), and given that, odds are that juries will probably contain a few 'yes' and/or 'no' answers to #8 given that the prosecution and defense can agree on them. That being the case, I would argue that there is no wrong or right answer to #8 that would get you out of or gurantee jury selection. Fair enough?

The right answer is No. If you answer yes, \you are showing that you are giving a head start to the state's witness. Now you may very well make it on the jury. Where I practice, I would challenge you for cause and me and the prosecutor and even the judge would question you. If you gave an explanation like you just did, the judge would likely give me a strike for cause and I would get to save one of my peremptory strikes for a slicker "law and order" type.

Edit: To answer your ninja edits, I am a "door lawyer" - I don't take any case that comes in the door, but I take just about any type of case that comes in the door. About a third of my practice is criminal law and every case that I have taken to trial there has gone to a jury on the guilt phase. Whether I take it to a jury on the punishment phase (if I lose at the guilt phase) depends on the reputation of the judge. In civil matters, about half my trials end up jury trials and half bench trials. I end up picking a jury every month or two. I have 3 jury trials in the next two months assuming they all go off on their scheduled dates, which is a big assumption. Prior to picking my first jury, I attended the voir dire segments of 25 cases (one a week while waiting for my first jury case to actually make it to a jury trial).

Given that I used to be very shy, I never thought I would do trial work, but it is actually the most fun I have in my practice.

 

[MobBoss]

Which is clearly irrelevant in this case, since the military doesn't have anything like voir dire.

Uhm...you are precisely incorrect on that allegation. As I am mostly involved in the Admin Separation procedure, AR 15-6 covers panel challenges. Here is a cut and paste of the appropriate regulation.

5–7. Challenges for cause
a. Right of respondent. A respondent is entitled to have the matter at issue decided by a board composed of impartial members. A respondent may challenge for cause the legal advisor and any voting member of the board who does not meet that standard. Lack of impartiality is the only basis on which a challenge for cause may be made at the board proceedings. Any other matter affecting the qualification of a board member may be brought to the attention of the appointing authority. (See para 3–3.)
b. Making a challenge. A challenge will be made as soon as the respondent or counsel is aware that grounds exist; failure to do so normally will constitute a waiver. If possible, all challenges and grounds will be communicated to the appointing authority before the board convenes. When the board convenes, the respondent or counsel may question members of the board to determine whether to make a challenge. Such questions must relate directly to the issue of impartiality. Discretion will be used, however, to avoid revealing prejudicial matters to other members of the board; if
a challenge is made after the board convenes, only the name of the challenged member will be indicated in open session, not the reason for believing the member is not impartial.
c. Deciding challenges. The appointing authority decides any challenge to a board of officers composed of a single member and may decide other challenges made before the board convenes. Otherwise, a challenge is decided by the
legal advisor or, if none or if the legal advisor is challenged, by the president. If there is no legal advisor and the president is challenged, that challenge is decided by the next senior voting member.
d. Procedure. Challenges for lack of impartiality not decided by the appointing authority will be heard and decided at a session of the board attended by the legal advisor, the president or the next senior member who will decide the
challenge, the member challenged, the respondent and his or her counsel, and the recorder. The respondent or counsel making the challenge may question the challenged member and present any other evidence to support the challenge.
The recorder also may present evidence on the issue. The member who is to decide the challenge may question the challenged member and any other witness and may direct the recorder to present additional evidence. If more than one
member is challenged at a time, each challenge will be decided independently, in descending order of the challenged members’ ranks.
e. Sustained challenge. If the person deciding a challenge sustains it, he or she will excuse the challenged member from the board at once, and that person will no longer be a member of the board. If this excusal prevents a quorum
(see para 5–2b), the board will adjourn to allow the addition of another member; otherwise, proceedings will continue.

Also, under the MCM (Manual for Courts Martial) rule 912 - Challenge of selection of
members; examination and challenges of, also allows for challenges to any jury members prior to final jury selection.

In both of these instances military attorneys refer to this as the voir dire process. Always have.

So dont presume to lecture me on things military. Your're simply not qualified to.

So it would appear that I have considerable more experience than you have with this particular matter

Whatever your ego demands for you to sleep at night I guess. But like in the example above, your just incredibly wrong about a lot of your 'expertise' in such matters.

Your clear misunderstanding of the process in general as well as the specifics is quite evident in this thread.

Yeah. Right.

IThe right answer is No. If you answer yes, \you are showing that you are giving a head start to the state's witness. Now you may very well make it on the jury. Where I practice, I would challenge you for cause and me and the prosecutor and even the judge would question you. If you gave an explanation like you just did, the judge would likely give me a strike for cause and I would get to save one of my peremptory strikes for a slicker "law and order" type.

Thanks for the honest answer Jolly and mentioning that even a 'yes' answer on that could still end up on jury duty. You may want to explain to Form the differences in strike for cause and such, and even how those law and order types may still end up on juries despite his denial that they ever do.

And a thumbs up on the trial work. Even as a kid sitting in on my dad's trials, I always found that part fascinating and fun. If I ever did puruse a law degree that would most likely be where I would end up.

 

[JollyRoger]

Lack of impartiality is the only basis on which a challenge for cause may be made at the board proceedings.

You do get that answering "Yes" to that question 8 demonstrates a lack of impartiality, right?

 

[MobBoss]

You do get that answering "Yes" to that question 8 demonstrates a lack of impartiality, right?

Sure...just as much as you admit that 'yes' answer can still end up on juries. Like I said earlier, people just need to be honest in their answers and let the chips lay where they will. Heh, if everyone in the pool answer yes to that you think they are going to send everyone home and get another pool? Most likely not. They will do they best they can with what they have and move the process foward.

Also like I said, your ratio of yes to no answer on that will certainly change dependent upon venue and local history. As we are talking about PA, I can see courts in rural PA certainly having a different ratio of that answer to those in inner city urban areas.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sure...just as much as you admit that 'yes' answer can still end up on juries. Like I said earlier, people just need to be honest in their answers and let the chips lay where they will. Heh, if everyone in the pool answer yes to that you think they are going to send everyone home and get another pool? Most likely not. They will do they best they can with what they have and move the process foward.

It just means I can can call every juror up before the judge and get a pretty good feel for them. The truth is, most people are smart enough to realize that answering "yes" shows impartiality and end up answering "no" because they don't want to look impartial.

As to having to empanel again, I have actually seen a case where so many jurors got struck for cause that they were in the danger zone of not being able to have enough left for the peremptory phase. The fact of the matter is, that a judge doesn't want to get struck down on appeal, so you can get strikes for cause pretty easy as a defense lawyer. A prosecutor generally has a tougher time getting strikes for cause because the judge worries more about an appeal from the defense rather than an appeal from the state.

As to the ratio - it does vary. There is a big difference between Dallas County (big city) and Collin County (big suburbs) even though they are next to each other. Go out to my favorite courthouse in Webb County (rural) and it is different still. Rural counties seem actually the easiest for the defense even though you would likely get a more "law and order" questionairre returned fromthe typical panel member. Suburban counties here have the toughest juries from my experience, but the prosecutors are so inflexible at plea bargaining that sometimes the smart thing to do is go to the jury to be found guilty and let the judge decide punishment (which often ends up softer than the best deal from the prosecutor). Not the smartest thing if your client has a clean record (because you are looking ahead to expungement), but if it's a non-expungeable offense (dui) or the client has a record, a guilt finding doesn't do all that much harm (from a collateral consequence perspective), so you are trying to figure out if your judge will give you a better deal than the prosecutor.

 

[MobBoss]

It just means I can can call every juror up before the judge and get a pretty good feel for them. The truth is, most people are smart enough to realize that answering "yes" shows impartiality and end up answering "no" because they don't want to look impartial.

And earlier I pointed out that its more than easy enough to answer questions in such a fashion to get yourself removed from consideration...

 

[JollyRoger]

And earlier I pointed out that its more than easy enough to answer questions in such a fashion to get yourself removed from consideration...

If someone wants to be removed, I don't want them on my jury anyway. It's just a matter of figuring out if I have to burn a strike or if the other side will do so (assuming it gets past the for cause phase - never challenge for cause if you know the other side will burn a strike).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I'm ok with every citizen having the opportunity to sit on a jury, but the process of selection has to be far better than the current. For one, the process is left up to the counsels for the two sides. By default, that makes it biased, because each side will try to keep the jurors they believe most favorable to their cause. Anyone who believes that counsel earnestly picks the jurors with the least bias is incredibly naive. What I have noticed happening is that, because the two litigants in the case have opposing interests, they will end up picking a jury that favors neither side, but is also incredibly ignorant and easily persuaded. This makes juries pawns of the counsels, rather than astute judges of the facts of the case. It is why you occasionally see really freaky verdicts, like the OJ Simpson trial.

I would favor having a 3rd party in a trial screen the jury. It could be some other officer of the court, that would be randomized to a trial, and would question the potentials to determine bias and qualification. If the counsels don't like the results, they could demand another random officer of the court to do it again.

I cannot believe that anyone can take jury selection from the current American system seriously. Even my wife was called for jury duty and she's not even a citizen of the United States! Yet, under penalty of law, she had to send a response letter with "proof" that she's a completely illegitimate choice for jury duty.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Uhm...you are precisely incorrect on that allegation..

Which yet again obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand! The voir dire process obviously had nothing to do with any of that! You are trying to compare apples and oranges now.

Let's face it. You really know nothing about the voir dire process that you haven't learned since this thread started. Your responses to my posts and others makes that quite obvious.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm ok with every citizen having the opportunity to sit on a jury, but the process of selection has to be far better than the current. For one, the process is left up to the counsels for the two sides. By default, that makes it biased, because each side will try to keep the jurors they believe most favorable to their cause.

We don't really "pick" juries though, we eliminate potential jurors from being seated. Each side can challenge biased jurors for cause and the most obviously biased get removed this way. The judge makes the decision on a for cause challenge and has an incentive to get it right (since a faulty decision could cause the appeals court to take some nasty action that the trial judge doesn't want - like remand for a retrial). After the for cause challenges, each side gets x number of strikes. The first 6 or 12 that have not been struck are seated on the jury. So it really is a process of eliminating potential jurors, not picking them. Since each side has an incentive to eliminate jurors that are biased against them, the detectable biased jurors tend to get eliminated by one side or the other.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The judge can also remove jurors, at least in Florida. His questions were more directed towards trying to pick out nullification problems, medical conditions which may impact your ability to properly serve especially difficulty hearing, and conflicts of interest. But he also questioned some jurors about bias as well.

All told, we spent about half a day on the process. It was quite comprehensive and really impressed me.

 

[woody60707]

I'd have no problem lying to a prosecutor about my beliefs wrt jury nullification, but thats illegal too and they'd go after me if I made the jury and acquitted based on an immoral law.

Lying aint always immoral sometimes morality requires it

Hey JR, is lying really illegal? Are you under oath? What about lying about facts (like are you married) vs lying about something more abstract (like my beliefs on nullification)?

 

[JollyRoger]

Hey JR, is lying really illegal? Are you under oath? What about lying about facts (like are you married) vs lying about something more abstract (like my beliefs on nullification)?

I don't think you are sworn in until you actually make it onto the jury, but lying during the process is likely a prosecutable offense (though it is very unlikely that you would be prosecuted)