Jury Duty

[jerseydevil]

I just had my interview for Jury Duty. Damn was it nerve wracking. It wasn't what I was expecting at all. I thought it was just going to be a face to face with the judge. NO - it was not that. I walk into the COURTROOM - am told to sit in the jury box - where I get sworn in on the Bible. There was the judge, the person who takes dictation, all the lawyers, the person on trial and then all these other people sitting around.

The judge started asking me questions and then the lawyers each asked me questions. Some of it was on my opinion of the death penalty and whether I had a problem with it, or if I would lean to the death penalty given the facts of this case - if he was determined to be guilty. I told them that it is based on far more than just the 3 main facts of the crime, that it is based on the demenor of the person during trial, past history, and other facts that may come out during trial.

The defense attorney also asked me about my AboutNewJersey.com website, I was all too happy to tell them about. That was rather interesting - at least I was able to get my two cents in on NJ there.

They did have to keep asking me to speak up. I was so nervous - it just wasn't what I was prepared for.

Also discussed the Maryland sniper case and my feelings toward the death penalty there.

[Rían]

Whew, JD - come on over to the Teacup Cafe and have a drink and relax! That sounds like it was really intense! ANd having the accused guy there would be rather nervewracking, too.

BTW, just as an interesting aside, I think you can decline to swear on the Bible if you don't want to. Does anyone know for sure, and what the other options are?

[Jonathan]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, just as an interesting aside, I think you can decline to swear on the Bible if you don't want to. Does anyone know for sure, and what the other options are?

If one submits to another religion than Christianity, it must feel rather weird to be forced to swear on the Bible. So, if there is any freedom of religion, one must be able to decline. Don't know how it affects your credibility though if you are Christian and still decline to swear.

[Rían]

Yes, that's what I meant - I know JD doesn't think the Bible is true, so why should he swear by something that is meaningless to him? OTOH, I would swear on the Bible.

[All Bran]

What is it with the American system of jury 'selection'? To me choosing the jury based on questionnaires and interviews seems to defeat the whole point of it. Jury sentencing is supposedly more democratic because a representative slice of the population is involved, but that's completely negated if you deliberately iron out jurors who have moral objections to the death penalty.

[Jonathan]

The reason for having a selection is to look to it that there are no persons in the jury which are not capable of coming to a decision of whether the accused is guilty or not.
If your objections to the death penalty blinds and prevents you from stating that the accused is indeed guilty - you can't be in the jury.
The jury must always be able to come to a just decision as to if the accused is guilty or not. The punishment which the accused risks if he is convicted must not affect the jury.

[All Bran]

Ah, but juries must, having found the defendant guilty, find further 'aggravating factors' making them death-eligible (or, alternatively, recommend or pass the final death sentence themselves). Supreme Court precedent requires it.

So a juror opposed to the death penalty can still find the defendant guilty, but veto a death sentence. And there's no basis for screening out jurors who would do that, the whole purpose of a jury being that it is representative.

[Hemel]

All Bran
So a juror opposed to the death penalty can still find the defendant guilty, but veto a death sentence.

That's interesting - so what happens if a juror does veto a death sentence? Does the one veto prevent that sentence being passed, or does it have to be a majority of jurors vetoing it? Do jurors have to give reasons for a veto?

And what would be the further 'aggravating factors'?

[Jonathan]

That is true. But I don't think their intention is to screen out jurors who don't like the death penalty. From what I know, the lawyers and prosecutor are able to exclude a certain number of people who they don't think fit in the jury.
That means they have to carefully decide which jurors are most likely to have a good judgement.
If the prosecutor is hoping for a death sentence and all the jurors are against it - too bad for the prosecutor.

Originally posted by Hemel
so what happens if a juror does veto a death sentence?

And what would be the further 'aggravating factors'?

All of the jurors have to agree. If one of them veto, there can be no death sentence.

Aggravating factors could be the nature of the crime. E.g if the defendant not only murdered someone but also ate his victim's guts, videotaped it and sent the tape to the victim's family - that would be quite an aggravating factor.

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Jonathan
Aggravating factors could be the nature of the crime. E.g if the defendant not only murdered someone but also ate his victim's guts, videotaped it and sent the tape to the victim's family - that would be quite an aggravating factor.

You have nice examples!

But I guess it's really hard to be a juror. Deciding about other peoples lives can't always be nice. JD, hope you come to a fair conclusion!

[Valandil]

About a year ago, I was called to go in. It was a slow day though (and there were HUNDREDS of people called in - even saw someone I knew!) and I didn't even get called up.

My wife got a notice a little while back and had to go in today. She just called me. Not only did she get called up, she got put on a jury! She said she can't talk about the case until it's finished, but the judge told them cases like this normally take about 3 days.

Bummer! Good thing we have my in-laws downstairs to help with watching the kids!

[brownjenkins]

in my 37 years i have never been called for jury duty... is it luck, or do they just realize that i would make it a living hell for all the other jurors involved

[Valandil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
in my 37 years i have never been called for jury duty... is it luck, or do they just realize that i would make it a living hell for all the other jurors involved

Yeah - I've 'dodged the bullet' for so long myself... I was 40 when I was called in for my first time ever* last year, but didn't get 'called up' - which is when they take in a pool of people from whom they select the jury. Now my wife gets called in, called up and selected! Bummer!

* Got a notice one time when I was in college, because I had registered to vote in that community. However, as a college student, I didn't have to serve, so I got off.

[Daisy Baggins]

I live in a small west Texas city, and I get called to Jury duty every year and to year and a half. They always call many more people than they need, so I've only actually served on a jury once.

My husband hasn't been called in years. A few years ago when I was called, I met a woman I knew who said that she was always picked. She had even been the forewoman of a murder case. And sure enough that day she was picked, and I got to go home.

[Janny]

Just my luck! I just got called to do duty in Baghdad.

[Valandil]

My wife's case finished yesterday, so she was able to tell me about it. It was an 'Eminent Domain' case - the City of Chicago wanting to buy someone out of some downtown property. My wife said she went into it sympathetic with the owner, but as the case unfolded, she switched over to the city's POV (and sure enough, that's how the case went - the City's Way) ... which has all really gotten me thinking about the whole concept and use of Eminent Domain... especially since my Libertarian brother has just come for another brief stay. I think I'll start up a thread on it soon...

For those who don't know (and I imagine other countries have something similar - even if with different terms), 'Eminent Domain' is the power of a government to assume ownership of property. Whatever government body (and here in the US, that could be federal, state, county, city or whatever) is expected to compensate the owner with a fair market value price... I'm not sure what other requirements there are on the governing body. My brother (not surprisingly) thinks there are frequent abuses... which we could discuss in a dedicated thread.