News story on the Muhammad sniper trial sentencing deliberations

1:08 PM Nov. 21

The jury charged with deciding whether John A. Muhammad lives or dies for his role in last year's sniper shootings was sent home shortly after 1 p.m. and told to come back to court at 9 a.m. Monday.

A female juror asked Judge LeRoy Millette Jr. if she would be permitted to do legal research over the weekend. Millette emphatically told her that she was not to do any reading or Internet research that might relate to the case. He said she was required to base her decision on the evidence presented in court alone.

The woman persisted, asking whether she might be allowed to do research on cases other than this one. Millette insisted that she was not allowed to do any research.

Another juror, who had apparently planned to leave on a trip next week, told the judge, "My husband will kill me if I don't go on this trip." The judge told her that he didn't want to get involved with her personal situation, but that she had to be back Monday to continue deliberations.

Uh, stupid applies equally.

another case of "keep the ignorant on the jury and keep them ignorant"

I seriously don't think most women, and more resonably, most OLDER WOMEN should be on juries.

I'm mainly basing this upon the fact that housewives, and older women often do not have jobs, and base their decisions mostly upon emotions.

One of my family was on a jury, and they pay about $20/day.  Well, this was a trial to convict a gunman who did a drive-by shooting.  Nobody was killed in the drive by, but several were nearly missed.  The guy did this because his GF was "dissed" by somebody, and she told him to shoot them.  Well after it happened, the GF was dumb & drove past the scene to see what was happened.  Well, the cops were everywhere, and when she tried to drive past, the cops were stopping cars, and when she was asked what she was doing there, she burst out in tears.  Ratted the BF out to the cops.  So this P.O.S. was basically screwed.  Cops found him WITH THE GUN at his house, the car fitting the description, THE TESTIMONY OF HIS GF AGAINST HIM, and the spent casings in the passenger seat of his car!!!  This guy is guiltier than shit & caught red-handed!!!

Well, there were three women on the jury that caused HORRIBLE problems.  Everyone else was a man with a career.  The men could see clear as day that he was guilty!  They all voted guilty, except the WOMEN!  One woman simply WOULD NOT vote him guilty because SHE WAS A SINGLE MOM, UNEMPLOYED, AND ON WELFARE!  She was trying to extend the deliberation as long as possible by disagreeing so she could capitalize on the 20 some dollars per day!!!  Then there was the other woman, who was a housewife.  FOR THE SAME REASON, she WANTED THE $$, so she was holding out, and voting not guilty as many days as possible!  The third troublesome woman was a retired ELDERLY lady.  She simply COULD NOT BEAR THE GUILT OF SENDING A PERSON TO PRISON, and said that SHE FELT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BOTHER HER FOREVER!  This went on for a LONG time, and kept getting drawn on...  These men were career men, and get WELL OVER $20/day, and their businesses were suffering without their presence.  Finally they couldn't budge these hard-headed, ignorant bitches, and after days, this P.O.S. was declared NOT GUILTY!!!  He was set free!  The same happened with his P.O.S. GIRLFRIEND!!!  SET FREE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER!

An education certainly is expensive!  BUT NOT AS EXPENSIVE AS IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY!!!

Here we go: Another thread about something "women shouldn't ...". Do the people who start these threads have ANYTHING POSITIVE to say about women?? Do they even HAVE any women in their lives? Probably not, is my guess. It might be news to you, but women are citizens to. They have every right that you as a male have, and good thing too. Being male is no guarantee that your desired outcome will be reached, maintained, or whatever it is that the thread of the moment thats knocking women is complaining about.

$20 an hour for jury duty?

I wish, take it you haven't been on many juries, or I'm in the wrong state, down here your lucky to get enough to cover your parking bill at the end of the day.

Mike

I was on a petit jury a while back (small claims court) and it just really disillusioned me about the concept of a "jury of my peers."

As soon as we shut the door one woman said, "Let's get this over with- I'm hungry."  I told her to slow down- that we needed to consider this stuff carefully and do the right thing.

It was a case with a woman trying to get compensated for treatment by a chiropractor following a traffic accident where she was rear-ended.  She was suing the other party for the chiropractor's bill.

Another juror immediately was adamant that we should not award the victim any money.  As I discussed this with her it came out that her view was based on her belief that ALL chiropractors are quacks who scam people out of their money.  Nevermind that the victim testified that the treatment worked.

I'd hate to trust my life to the average person out there.  It's scary that some of these people are allowed to breed and vote.

You guys get paid 20$ and hour for Jury duty? Is that above and beyond your basic expenses, and normal wages?

Seems like an odd way of doing things to me, but I'm Welsh, what would I know.

/Phil

Quoted: $20 an hour for jury duty? I wish, take it you haven't been on many juries, or I'm in the wrong state, down here your lucky to get enough to cover your parking bill at the end of the day. Mike

Here in Texas it's $6 per day, unless you're "lucky" enough to get tapped for a federal jury.  Then it's a whopping $40 per day.

IIRC, it was $20/hr or so that I was told.  It's possible that I misheard, and it's $20/day, but I could be mistaken.  I want to look this up!  Where do I go find this info???  I'll check local government websites.

JUST FOUND OUT!!!  You guys were right!  It's only $20/day!!!

How much do I get paid? Jury compensation is set by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  At this time, it is $20.00 for each day of service and $.27 per mile round trip mileage from your home.

Quoted: without their presence.  Finally they couldn't budge these hard-headed, ignorant bitches, and after days, this P.O.S. was declared NOT GUILTY!!!  He was set free!  The same happened with his P.O.S. GIRLFRIEND!!!  SET FREE FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER!

Sounds to me like there shouldn't be any "career men" on juries.  They decided to declare the scumbags not guilty because it was taking too long?  Had they never heard of a hung jury, so the state could retry?  They're no better than Brohawk's juror who just wanted to go to lunch.

BTW, some reading for the next time you're picked for jury duty:  www.fija.org

Its my opinion that only engineers should be allowed to serve on juries.

Kharn

Believe me, I was VERY disappointed when I read this in the local paper.  I was confident my fellow Virginia Beachians would come back with the Death sentance before 1pm and now Mrs Johnny Cochran wants to do legal research over the weekend???  GEEEEEZZZZZZ

Quoted: Uh, stupid applies equally.

Exactly.

Anyone else see the juroy in the Texas cross-dressing millionair murder case?  The victim's dismembered body(no head) as found floating in several garbage bags.  This women said she didn't think you could convict someone if the head wasn't found.  

Don't those stupid judges explain to the Jurors that they need to commit during the selection process?

I had to do a 4 month stint on a Grand Jury before. They should try that once

Based on truly extensive experience, and on the opinions of others with similar amounts of experience I can tell you that women on juries are generally trouble. Not all women, not all the time, but for some reason ppl tend to run true to stereotypes when seated on a jury.

Women are far more likely to acquit, and are far more likely to hang a jury, than are men. I think this is because while opinions can be changed through reason, emotions can't. I know a female prosecutor who does everything she can to keep women off her juries, and it is the talk of the courthouse when an all-woman jury (it happens) returns any verdict at all, much less a guilty verdict.

OTOH, if you're trying a personal injury case with a sympathetic plaintiff, the more women on your jury, the better off you are.

Quoted: Here we go: Another thread about something "women shouldn't ...". Do the people who start these threads have ANYTHING POSITIVE to say about women?? Do they even HAVE any women in their lives? Probably not, is my guess. It might be news to you, but women are citizens to. They have every right that you as a male have, and good thing too. Being male is no guarantee that your desired outcome will be reached, maintained, or whatever it is that the thread of the moment thats knocking women is complaining about.

Yack yack yack. Can't we all just get alooong? The discussion deals with how certain people behave in certain situations. There are facts about categories of people that make it possible to predict their behavior in given circumstances. That's why they have voir dire in jury trials: so the ppl can be categorized and sorted and selected. [I personally think all juries should be the 1st 6 (or 12) qualified citizens in the box, but that ain't how it's done.] That's why they have training for policemen: because human behavior can be predicted with greater precision than random chance would yield. The world is full of uncomfortable facts. The way most women act on juries most of the time is one of them. The way crime statistics break down by race is another. It doesn't mean that anybody has contempt for any given individual, it's just how the world is.

Look I truly believe in what the Constitution says about equal rights and I will fight and die for the right for libs to vote.

However if you look at the voting statistics of women it makes you wonder what kind of country we would have if the 19th Amend. was never ratified.

Quoted: A female juror asked Judge LeRoy Millette Jr. if she would be permitted to do legal research over the weekend. Millette emphatically told her that she was not to do any reading or Internet research that might relate to the case. He said she was required to base her decision on the evidence presented in court alone. The woman persisted, asking whether she might be allowed to do research on cases other than this one. Millette insisted that she was not allowed to do any research.

I'm not sure if this woman wanting to do more research should be condemned.  It sounds to me like she is actually taking her duty SERIOUSLY and putting some real thought into her decision.  In my opinion, this is what juror's OUGHT to do.  It is the direct opposite of the person who says, "I don't care how you vote so long as I'm home in time to make dinner."

So what's the problem with the woman wanting to do a little more research before she makes her decision?  I say good for her!

-Nick Viejo.

Quoted: Its my opinion that only engineers should be allowed to serve on juries. Kharn

Wow, given that 90% of all engineers I meet seem to think of themselves as better than the average man, and given that these same 90% also seem to be the dumbest saks of crap on the planet, up to and including not listening to anyone elses'  opinions or suggestions, often leading to more work for those who have to deal with the consequences of engineers' overeducation and yet underthinking on all decisions.......

Why again do you think only engineers should serve on juries?

I really want to know

I think everyone should serve on Juries, without pay, and with reprisals for failing to act as is expected, perhaps with monitoring to ensure that people are not just jumping to a decision to leave early....

But then again, I think public hangings are a good way to deal with pedophiles and murderers as well.....

My wife sat on a jury for a double murder. They convicted him and sent him to jail for the rest of his life. She done good.

If you think being stupid is limited to females then you should set up as a dealer of anything at a local gun show.

dont blame the jury members, the prosecution and defense attorneys have an oppurtunity to boot them off in the beginning.
they can prolly motion to boot them off in the middle for other reasons if they see fit, thats why there are alternates.
its obivous strategies to keep some on and kick others off.

This SCUMBAG COWARD commited some of the most horrible crimes. It was all such a complete waste of innocent peoples lives. WHAT THE FUCK IS THERE TO DELIBERATE! KILL THE COWARD PRICK!
(By FIRING SQUAD!) I can't even imagine what the fuck she needs to research? I'd be researching which bullet would cause the coward the most pain!



I believe in real justice....COZ

Quoted: I'm not sure if this woman wanting to do more research should be condemned.  It sounds to me like she is actually taking her duty SERIOUSLY and putting some real thought into her decision.  In my opinion, this is what juror's OUGHT to do.  It is the direct opposite of the person who says, "I don't care how you vote so long as I'm home in time to make dinner." So what's the problem with the woman wanting to do a little more research before she makes her decision?  I say good for her! -Nick Viejo.

Because no jury member can arrive at their decision using information that was not available to all jury members.

TacticalPenguin:
Engineers should be able to think things through logically and analytically, removing their emotions from their conclusion.  With non-engineers, you cant be so sure the above is going to occur. (not to say that it wont occur, or that engineers will always do the above, but the probabilities are higher when you use people who have made their careers by using analytical skills, logic and number crunching)

Kharn

Quoted: dont blame the jury members, the prosecution and defense attorneys have an oppurtunity to boot them off in the beginning.

The one time I was entangled in the criminal justice system (falsely so-called) my lawyer told me that the definition of a jury is "twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty."

All of this may make a good case for professional jurors.

Quoted: All of this may make a good case for professional jurors.

I saw some bimbo on Fox news the other night saying the same thing.

[Mr. Rogers] Can you say A GREAT TARGET FOR CORRUPTION???

There you go,  I knew you could. [/Mr. Rogers}