Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 6/24/2002 12:01:14 PM EDT
I reported to the Collin County courthouse this morning, and checked in with the clerk. The room was full -about 120 people- but five didn't show and the judge who did the initial screening said that they would be hearing from the Sheriff, and they would wish they had been there. 18 of us went on the first call, and reported to the courtroom. We were welcomed by the judge and got some basic information. The case was for Class B misdemeanor marijuana possession, which is less than two ounces. The defendant was a fairly pathetic looking woman, and her defefnse counsel made some mention in the selection question about the nature of possession, and how you could be in possession of something but not know it. She asked the women on the panel if husbands or children had ever put anything into or taken anything out of their purses without their knowledge. Some folks stated some pretty strong opinions on drug prosecutions in general and on prosecutions for such a small amount of marijuana as well. We were shown out of the courtroom and let back in 15 minutes later. I was number 15 out of the 18 possibles, and they didn't get to me. Five of the first nine people were eliminated, and they seated a six person jury. The judge said "thanks, have a nice day," and the rest of us left. It was far better run than the system in California and Pennsylvania. Very little of my time was wasted and I was out of the courthouse by 10:45AM.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:06:36 PM EDT
I hope she goes free.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:08:30 PM EDT
I got stuck on a jury down here in Austin a few years back. Almost 2 weeks. It was a sexual harassment lawsuit. It was pretty interesting, getting to be in the courtroom, and seeing how it all works. It was even better to park just about anywhere, get a ticket, and take it to the judge to be dismissed. me and 11 other citizens cost a large department store several hundred thousand dollars.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:12:33 PM EDT
You had it better than I did. I sat reading for two week's. Was called on one cast and throw off the jury, because the defense attorney did not want ex-cop's on the jury. It was back to the jury pool for me. I read the Ultimate Sniper cover to cover once each week. Clearly the seat's around me were vacant. [smoke]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:30:34 PM EDT
ETH might be able to answer this or explain it better than I can. "questioning" the prospective jurors about their beliefs is considered by some to be illegal/unconstitutional. The argument goes something like this: You are supposed to be tried by a jury of your peers. However, by selectively choosing/deciding who is your 'peer' and who is not prior to the trial by jury, the results are skewed so that you are not being tried by your peers, but by a panel of 'carefully selected peers.' Basically, the prosecution will try to find hardliners who hate drugs (in this case) and the defense seeks to find those who are not concerned with the nature of the crime. However, since you are already dealing with a skewed audience (people who could get off work, older persons, housewives, lower education levels, etc.) then the results are already biased prior to the pretrial interviews. TheRedGoat PS. If I find the article that I read in regards to the subject I will post it.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:35:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 12:36:48 PM EDT by TheRedGoat]
[url]http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Jury%20Duty/Jurors%20Guide[/url] An interesting read. From the Article : "More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be made a safety valve way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the `conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions." TheRedGoat
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:35:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:42:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 12:42:51 PM EDT by ilikelegs]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:56:25 PM EDT
I know alot of you on this site are against weed. Of course you type that right after you sip your beer, but O well. If I was caught with weed, I would just admit to having it, this lady sound be prosecuted for not owning the weed, but for trying to lie.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:00:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:06:00 PM EDT
Jarhead- I can't believe they were gonna let you on a jury. You are COMPLETELY unqualified. You are - intelligent literate gun owner military productive member of society COMPLETELY unqualified. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:11:44 PM EDT
So many people don't want to be inconvenienced with being on a jury, yet they are often times the first ones to complain about criminals getting light sentences.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:15:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sf46: So many people don't want to be inconvenienced with being on a jury, yet they are often times the first ones to complain about criminals getting light sentences.
View Quote
Shoot, I'm dyin' to get on a jury, but I'm so fricken conservative, I think the trial lawyers assoc. had legislation passed to take me off all 50 states jury duty pools. garand(Hang'EmHigh)man
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:32:36 PM EDT
My only opportunity for jury service involved a civil case - some guy rented a Bobcat, dropped a tree on it, plus a few other things. They were suing for damages. I was #2. #1 was an architech who sniffed out where the trial was going, and when asked if he'd ever been involved in a law suit, replied - "My partners and I successfully sued the pants off three dentist for breach of contract." I doubt he was even late for work that day. In the course of deliberations, this one guy kept trying to make it a class issue, a race issue, anything except some guy rented a piece of equipment, destroyed it, and wouldn't make it right. I wish I coulda had #1 handcuffed to this fellow. Remember this when you try to get out of Jury duty folks. Shut your mouth, leave your Rush Limbaugh books at home, and do your best to get an honest seat. For once in your life, somebody is asking you for what YOU think is the right thing to do, and it carries the full weight and authority of the govt. Don't squander it.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:51:42 PM EDT
Hmmm, wonder [b]why[/b] she wouldn't have been offered deferred adjudication for this Class 3 misdemeanor, and if she was offered this, why she didn't take it? I'm dead set against criminal prosecutions of folks for possessing less marijuana than I can comfortably fit in the glove compartment of my Jeep, but that's another issue altogether. There is probably more to this case than meets the eye. When I represented pot possessors back 'in the old days' the usual sentence was 'six months in jail, suspended for one year, deferred adjudication, and a $250.00 fine.' With 'deferred adjudication' the conviction does not become final until you fail to keep clean for the probation period. If you do, the Court dismisses the charges and the crime doesn't even go on your record! The arrest will be there, but the offense will be shown as 'dismissed with no finding of guilt.' Eric The(EasyDoesIt!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 1:54:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 2:03:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ilikelegs:
Originally Posted By MurderSHO45: this lady sound be prosecuted for not owning the weed, but for trying to lie.
View Quote
Your stoned right now aren't you ? LOL!!!
View Quote
No I don't get stoned at work.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 5:05:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: "questioning" the prospective jurors about their beliefs is considered by some to be illegal/unconstitutional.
View Quote
A jury of your peers? Forget about it. It's not gonna happen. The lawyers were careful to elicit information, and then phrase the questions in such a way as to make sure that, whatever your beliefs, "would you still be able to make a fair judegment based on the evidence?"
Originally Posted By Sweep: Not guilty! Nevermind how pathetic she looked. A natural occuring weed just should not be illegal.
View Quote
I should have been clearer. I made no judgement on her appearing "pathetic" based on what she was charged with. She was just very small, mousey and pale looking, and looked like she hadn't been dealt a square hand or a square meal in twenty years.
Originally Posted By garandman: I can't believe they were gonna let you on a jury...
View Quote
Well, I made it into the courtroom, but like I said, they never made it to my end of the jury pool. I spoke up twice on "reasonable doubt" and some other point they asked questions about, and someone said on our way out of the courtroom that lawyers don't like anyone with strong opinions, so who knows? Thanks for the vote of confidence, anyway.
Originally Posted By sf46: So many people don't want to be inconvenienced with being on a jury, yet they are often times the first ones to complain about criminals getting light sentences.
View Quote
I hope you don't think this post was in any way a complaint. I was eager to sit on the jury and am actually disappointed that I didn't get a chance to do so. I only hope that I get some of "our kind" on any jury that ever sits in judgement of me, God forbid.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 6:50:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 6:52:07 PM EDT by jpitblado]
Originally Posted By TheRedGoat: "questioning" the prospective jurors about their beliefs is considered by some to be illegal/unconstitutional.
View Quote
Voir dire is french for jury tampering. [url]www.fija.org[/url]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 6:54:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By poikilotrm: I hope she goes free.
View Quote
I take it your a dope smoker? Sgtar15
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 9:32:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 10:08:05 PM EDT by DVDTracker]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 10:06:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 10:08:50 PM EDT by FishKepr]
Hey DVD, I just got a summmons as well. I don't know what to expect in WA, but I guess I'll find out. BTW, I served on juries down The Bay from you in Alameda county a few times. During one juror examination a candidate said that his boss didn't want him to serve. When the judge asked who his boss was, the guy sheepishly admitted that his boss was Angela Aliotta. (You know, one of the SF handgun ban engineers besides Feinstein) The judge went ballistic. "SAN FRANCISCO CITY SUPERVISOR ANGELA ALIOTTA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SERVE? WELL YOU TELL SUPERVISOR ANGELA ALIOTTA THAT YOU WILL DO YOU CIVIC DUTY! IS THAT CLEAR?"
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:35:32 PM EDT
I served on a jury for a trial of a crack cocaine drug dealer in L.A., dealing drugs at MacArthur Park. We convicted him and put him away for life without possibility of parole. The defendant was no more than 35 years old.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:57:11 PM EDT
I have served as juror 2 times in superior court. You are welcome.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 2:05:34 AM EDT
I have never served on a jury. I avoid it any way I can. With the laws and rules of evidence as they are, I feel as though I would not be able to make a fair judgment. I would probably always vote not guilty because of what was hidden from me. It always completely miffs me how people can answer opinion polls about someone's guilt or innocence without all the details? I know I am wrong, but I just can't get around it.
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 2:20:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 3:08:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Magic: With the laws and rules of evidence as they are, I feel as though I would not be able to make a fair judgment. I would probably always vote not guilty because of what was hidden from me.
View Quote
The rules of evidence generally protect the defendants in these trials, not the government. I'd be more likely to vote to convict because of 'what was hidden from me.'
It always completely miffs me how people can answer opinion polls about someone's guilt or innocence without all the details?
View Quote
It's a [b]poll[/b], not a trial, so don't get too miffed until the government starts locking folks up based upon polls! Surely you have an opinion on people's guilt or innocence before you hear all the evidence? I knew OJ was guilty long before I heard about the DNA evidence! BTW, wasn't he guilty?[:D] Eric The(SureHeWas,HeJustHadBetterLawyersThanTheSt­ateOfCalifornia)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 4:49:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: Not guilty! Nevermind how pathetic she looked. A natural occuring weed just should not be illegal.
View Quote
That's called jury nullification. It's how the system is SUPPOSED to work. Juries should judge the facts, AND THE LAW. It is "The Peoples" protection against tyranny....
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 4:56:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/25/2002 4:57:33 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By Magic: With the laws and rules of evidence as they are, I feel as though I would not be able to make a fair judgment. I would probably always vote not guilty because of what was hidden from me.
View Quote
The rules of evidence generally protect the defendants in these trials, not the government. I'd be more likely to vote to convict because of 'what was hidden from me.'
It always completely miffs me how people can answer opinion polls about someone's guilt or innocence without all the details?
View Quote
It's a [b]poll[/b], not a trial, so don't get too miffed until the government starts locking folks up based upon polls! Eric The(SureHeWas,HeJustHadBetterLawyersThanTheSt­ateOfCalifornia)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Ummmm..Eric, I think we already are locking people up based on polls.......
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 5:00:32 AM EDT
This is how it begins............. [img]http://www.citybeat.com/2002-04-25/filmcouchpot-1.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 5:13:13 AM EDT
[img]http://www.eatonlink.com/main/uploaded/FreakOnALeash/maryjanesnack.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 8:35:19 PM EDT
Da Big Judge said of all the animals that walk this earth,and all that creep or crawl,and of every herb that growest upon this earth you shall have dominion and use of. Something like that. To each his own. Bob {8D]
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 8:39:53 PM EDT
I don't know about ou guys, but I am looking forward to going to jury duty when I am called. Granted, I am only 20 and haven't really had the chance yet but it kinda sounds like fun to actually serve on a case. Am I an idiot for being excited? Keving67
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 9:25:59 PM EDT
I thought I was going to be called in Collin county last year, but it never happened.... I don't know if I would rather do this or go to work......
Top Top