Who should be on a Jury?

[MobBoss]

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.

Now that is truly pathetic. You make a hugely incorrect statement about the military, get called on it with proof...and this is the best you can do? If it had nothing to do at all with the topic (it does actually) then why did you bring it up? This is just you in damage control mode, trying to worm your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

Form, its apparent you havent ever learned your lesson about things military. Dont argue with professionals. Capeesh?

Let's face it. You really know nothing about the voir dire process that you haven't learned since this thread started.

Again, I have worked as a legal professional for over 2 decades. You've been on a jury .....once. I gladly defer to Jollys expertise, but even then we agree more than we disagree to be honest.

You? Your're just a layman. And thats truely the only real obvious thing this debate has revealed.

Your responses to my posts and others makes that quite obvious.

Thanks for the entertainment. Truth is you got owned bad in this thread. Deservedly so.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

That's not what I observed while in a jury pool.

You are right that juries aren't picked, but rather eliminated, but that still leaves much discretion to counsels. What I have watched happening is that counsel will eliminate, as much as it can, any juror with an education. The first question out of a counsel's mouth will usually be what profession the juror belongs. There may then follow other questions, usually gratuitous ones like "can you be certain that you will judge the facts of this case without bias?" Nearly everyone always answers "yes" to that one. After the group is questioned, candidates are chosen for elimination, and it is ALWAYS the ones with the highest level of education that are eliminated, no matter their other answers. What that indicates to me is that counsel just wants some ignorant rube who will believe anything he's told, so that they can make any plausible argument and the jury will believe it. This pattern has been so consistent on every jury summons I've ever had that I have never had to worry about being selected. Since I am a physician, I am guaranteed to be eliminated by simply admitting it. (Some people, as you know, try to weasel out of it by lying in some way.) To this day, I have never sat on a jury and have no illusion of it ever happening. I may sooner live to see my wife, who is not even a citizen of the US, sit on a jury before me.

 

[Japanrocks12]

The jury system should be disbanded and trials should be conducted like they are in 99% of the Ace Attorney series, replete with voice actors and theme songs.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

JR what exactly entailed is the voir dire process in the US. The one jury I was called for (not selected), was a sitting of the High Court in Limerick (a murder case).

150 people showed up, 120 arrived (a sterling performance according to the judge). There was 1/4 checking us off a list, 1/2 an hour of the Judge telling us the responsibilities of the Jury, and then about an hour of selecting the jury. Numbers were pulled randomly out of a hat by the court bailiff (not sure if the title is correct), and then the individual jurors were asked a number of questions, almost all by the judge (mainly about being able to serve for the length of time, murder cases being a bit longer, and about the prospective jurors ability to be impartial). There was one question, asked by the State, about a juror from a town about 12km from the town of the defendants residence, basically did the juror know the resident, which was no. That was the only participation by either of the SCs involved.

Three jurors were excused, one because he was a doctor, and the other two because they had holidays booked prior to being called. I was pretty miffed not being picked myself, as I was just out of college, looking for a job, and it was €56 a day with free lunch thrown in, and the case was very interesting of itself.

So is the Irish system different from the US one, and where if so?

 

[illram]

Doctors make lawyers nervous. Especially if it's a case involving injury. I could see a doctor being problematic on a DUI case too, since a DUI case involves a lot of hokey pokey "science." (With both sides trying to inject their own hokey pokey-ness.) Jurors will also look to a doctor for a leadership role in the deliberation room.

The conventional wisdom is highly educated specialists are more likely to have biases. One side or the other usually has a reason to kick them out. But I also think the conventional wisdom that lawyers want a panel of idiots is also false. Sometimes, sure. In the OJ trial the defense wanted people who were skeptical of DNA evidence. So would that qualify you as an idiot? Perhaps. (Back then though forensic DNA science was not as popularly accepted as it is now.) What I tend to see is lawyers want a panel of people that don't make them nervous. Decisions come down to "I don't like that guy" or "that answer seemed to indicate so and so" and other not scientific and highly speculative reasons that could very well have been completely wrong. The people that say they always believe cops or whatever are the easy ones... it's the ones who answer all the right questions that it takes a very skilled master to pick out.

Voire Dire is a very inexact science. More of an art, really. For instance as Jolly pointed out sometimes its more about getting jurors to say things you want other people on the panel to hear, or introducing a topic you could not bring up but now, lo and behold, you get to discuss. Watching a seasoned trial attorney really work their magic on a panel during voire dire is truly fascinating.

 

[Bill3000]

The jury system should be disbanded and trials should be conducted like they are in 99% of the Ace Attorney series, replete with voice actors and theme songs.

Dude, they reintroduced the Jury system.

 

[Japanrocks12]

Dude, they reintroduced the Jury system.

Hence the 99% (the jury figures into the very last case of Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney.)

 

[metatron]

Some countries have citizen juries. Others apparently use serious professionals.

No, no, no. That's a rather incorrect way of putting it.

The U.S. has citizen juries. In... pretty much the rest of the world (with rather fex exceptions) one gets judged by judges.
Please note that the medieval concept of the prosecutor being the direct adversary of the defense is - at least in Europe - allmost unknown, too.

Anyway... if juries are such a good idea cause of the participation offered to ordinary citizens, why shouldn't ordinary citizens participate in all procedures of law enforcements?
Serving one day as a cop, or a prison warden or administering lethal injections...

 

[otago]

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.



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?



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.



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



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?

Hmm, why do I have a feeling if you handed a form with those questions on it to a Aussie or Kiwi the answer back on the form would be, sod off.

 

[otago]

No, no, no. That's a rather incorrect way of putting it.

The U.S. has citizen juries. In... pretty much the rest of the world (with rather fex exceptions) one gets judged by judges.
Please note that the medieval concept of the prosecutor being the direct adversary of the defense is - at least in Europe - allmost unknown, too.

Anyway... if juries are such a good idea cause of the participation offered to ordinary citizens, why shouldn't ordinary citizens participate in all procedures of law enforcements?
Serving one day as a cop, or a prison warden or administering lethal injections...

Done no traveling ?

 

[MobBoss]

Hmm, why do I have a feeling if you handed a form with those questions on it to a Aussie or Kiwi the answer back on the form would be, sod off.

Well, if they cant read then thats a different issue entirely. Is that what you are talking about?

 

[Nobody]

In new zealands courts, well atleast the two times iv been on a jury we got asked no questions. All we did was have our names randomly sellected from a barrel and then we had to walk across the room and sit down if we sat down we were in. On the way to sit down the lawyers could veto us, and atleast to me it seemed as if these were random. of course they weren't but i couldnt tell why. These were both low profile cases.

And if you knew someone involved in the case, or if you had a real good reason not to be on the jury rather than walk to the seat, you walked to the judge and explained why you couldn't be on the case.

 

[metatron]

Done no traveling ?

Feel free to list all the nations outside the Anglosphere who still use juries (not lay judges or anything but juries).
I'm sure it won't take you long to round them up.

 

[JollyRoger]

JR what exactly entailed is the voir dire process in the US. The one jury I was called for (not selected), was a sitting of the High Court in Limerick (a murder case).

150 people showed up, 120 arrived (a sterling performance according to the judge). There was 1/4 checking us off a list, 1/2 an hour of the Judge telling us the responsibilities of the Jury, and then about an hour of selecting the jury. Numbers were pulled randomly out of a hat by the court bailiff (not sure if the title is correct), and then the individual jurors were asked a number of questions, almost all by the judge (mainly about being able to serve for the length of time, murder cases being a bit longer, and about the prospective jurors ability to be impartial). There was one question, asked by the State, about a juror from a town about 12km from the town of the defendants residence, basically did the juror know the resident, which was no. That was the only participation by either of the SCs involved.

Three jurors were excused, one because he was a doctor, and the other two because they had holidays booked prior to being called. I was pretty miffed not being picked myself, as I was just out of college, looking for a job, and it was €56 a day with free lunch thrown in, and the case was very interesting of itself.

So is the Irish system different from the US one, and where if so?

The attorneys are the default questioners in the U.S., with the judge asking some questions, but basically staying out of the way.

As Illram said, it is an art. Along with getting as good a jury as possible,you want to get certain messages out, so you are looking for people who won't end up on the jury to speak for you. I was once sitting in the "target zone" for being picked for a murder trial (about the 20th seat for a jury of 12 plus alternates). I knew I would probably get kicked because I was an attorney, so I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't get kicked for cause and that the prosecutor had to burn a peremptory strike on me instead of the defense. I sent the right signals when answering the questionairre (we were asked to pick 3 people we admire and 3 we did not, so it was very easy to signal).

The defense attorney used me to explain why I might go to trial if I was not guilty. I explained that I would be more likely to go to trial if I wasn't guilty. If I was guilty, it is likely I could cut a plea bargain with the prosecution that was better than I would end up with as punishment if I went to trial. If I was not guilty, I might not want to cut a plea deal because I wouldn't want to plea to something I didn't do.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Thanks for that JR. I prefer the Irish system myself, seems like there's less room for manipulating the selection, while provisions exist for invalidating obviously unsuitable candidates.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Doctors make lawyers nervous. Especially if it's a case involving injury. I could see a doctor being problematic on a DUI case too, since a DUI case involves a lot of hokey pokey "science." (With both sides trying to inject their own hokey pokey-ness.)

I believe they call that skepticism.

The conventional wisdom is highly educated specialists are more likely to have biases.

Sounds like a convenient cop-out. Why would someone more informed be more biased? It is the uninformed that are usually the most biased.

But I also think the conventional wisdom that lawyers want a panel of idiots is also false.

That's what I have seen. The more pliable the mind of the juror is, the more easily he is persuaded by flawed arguments. The less knowledgible he is, the less he has to go on in making an informed decision. He is at the mercy of the attorneys to educate him in the court, on the spot. That kind of haste does not usually make for sound decisions. A particularly adept attorney also prefers morons because they are easily distracted by emotional appeals. Many a malpractice trial has been decided on the basis of the jury's disdain for the physician, rather than judgement of the facts.

Whether this is intentional by attorneys or not is not important to me. The system makes it possible.

 

[JollyRoger]

Many a malpractice trial has been decided on the basis of the jury's disdain for the physician, rather than judgement of the facts.

Don't worry - many a malpractice appeal has been decided on the appellate panel's disdain for the patient, rather than judgment of the law.

 

[illram]

I believe they call that skepticism.



Sounds like a convenient cop-out. Why would someone more informed be more biased? It is the uninformed that are usually the most biased.



That's what I have seen. The more pliable the mind of the juror is, the more easily he is persuaded by flawed arguments. The less knowledgible he is, the less he has to go on in making an informed decision. He is at the mercy of the attorneys to educate him in the court, on the spot. That kind of haste does not usually make for sound decisions. A particularly adept attorney also prefers morons because they are easily distracted by emotional appeals. Many a malpractice trial has been decided on the basis of the jury's disdain for the physician, rather than judgement of the facts.

Whether this is intentional by attorneys or not is not important to me. The system makes it possible.

You're not supposed to use facts you know of outside the evidence introduced at trial in order to reach your decision. Other than things like basic common sense a juror is supposed to be informed by what they are provided in court and nothing more. Which is why a Mr. Smarty Pants juror is a potential liability in some cases.

Obviously in practical terms this is difficult but that is what every jury is instructed to do, more or less. More educated folk tend to cling to biases they have already developed during their lifetime of becoming learned. Being highly educated does not make it less likely one is biased. If anything you are far more biased towards those things you have already learned or think you have learned.

edit: An example: If you were a juror in a medical malpractice case you would have mounds of testimony from "expert" doctor witnesses. Technically the universe of knowledge you would have to rely on would be limited to these expert witnesses. Obviously for a doctor experienced in what the experts were talking about, your decision would be informed by your own training, which would be bad, because your expertise is not evidence before the court and was not subject to challenge by either party. Being human, however, no matter how many times the Judge instructed you not to use your own expertise and only to rely on the evidence before you, you would undoubtedly come to a decision biased by your own training.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now that is truly pathetic.

Yes it is. Continuing to claim you had any knowledge about voir dire, much less expertise, when your own posts show you clearly did not until you were educated in this thread. And you still don't even know why you would likely be excluded from any important criminal case due to your obvious reactionary "law and order" bias.

Even I obviously know far more about voir dire than you do from merely going through the process once.

I'd be happy with someone who thinks murder/rape/theft is bad.

What complete contempt and total disregard for the judicial system in this country. That is truly "pathetic".

 

[MobBoss]

Yes it is. Continuing to claim you had any knowledge about voir dire, much less expertise, when your own posts show you clearly did not until you were educated in this thread.

Educated? Please re-read. Jolly actually confirmed several of my earlier points, and we certainly agreed on more than we differed in our opinion.

The only person who got educated was you on the military certainly having a voir dire process in its Courts Martial and Admin board procedure.

And you still don't even know why you would likely be excluded from any important criminal case due to your obvious reactionary "law and order" bias.

I do recall the point that irregardless of what you 'think' Jolly confirmed that I could end up on a Jury despite such 'law and order' bias you may think exists.

Even I obviously know far more about voir dire than you do from merely going through the process once.

Like I said earlier, whatever your ego requires of you to get to sleep at night. Everyone else has no problem seeing the truth however.

What complete contempt and total disregard for the judicial system in this country. That is truly "pathetic".

Sarcasm. Its a concept.