Jury Duty

[Steve Gagne]

I was called for jury duty monday.

Court was jammed ... almost 200 people called to be culled, to try 3 different defendants of some nasty stuff.

The screening process involved questioning us about backgrounds, beliefs, influences. There was the usual "no speak English", DWI's, some questions about my church's prison visitation ministry & "don't you think you're going to have too much sympathy for the defendant"'; a few raised eyebrows when I questioned any case involving capital punishment. They even excused a Civics teacher, BECAUSE she was a Civics teacher. Sheesh.

But the zinger came when that state attorney stated that he wanted everyone to swear that they would automatically find someone guilty if the facts alone supported it, in accordance with the judge's reading of the law.

Man, they got me.

I launched into a tirade about jury nullification and how it is the citizen's last hope against egregious injustice, and how at no point does a human being EVER give up the right and responsibility of independent judgment, especially on a jury, and that the demand that we do so was fundamentally immoral. I went on for a while, including a few sharp exchanges in which I corrected the Judge Robert Pegg's deliberate misrepresentations of what I was saying; him accusing me of running around willy-nilly disregarding and disobeying the law, and me saying no, I am a LAW-ABIDING citizen, in that I ABIDE WITH, that is, I TOLERATE, the LAW AS AN INSTITUTION, with its inconveniences and petty imperfections, because it is the tool by which we make the social contract work, and we make civil society possible.

I doubt anyone else in the room understood a word I said. Not even the Civics teacher.

Needless to say, I didn/t get picked, even after 8-1/2 hours of this. What a waste of a day.

[Brant Gaede]

I was called for jury duty monday.

Court was jammed ... almost 200 people called to be culled, to try 3 different defendants of some nasty stuff.

The screening process involved questioning us about backgrounds, beliefs, influences. There was the usual "no speak English", DWI's, some questions about my church's prison visitation ministry & "don't you think you're going to have too much sympathy for the defendant"'; a few raised eyebrows when I questioned any case involving capital punishment. They even excused a Civics teacher, BECAUSE she was a Civics teacher. Sheesh.

But the zinger came when that state attorney stated that he wanted everyone to swear that they would automatically find someone guilty if the facts alone supported it, in accordance with the judge's reading of the law.

Man, they got me.

I launched into a tirade about jury nullification and how it is the citizen's last hope against egregious injustice, and how at no point does a human being EVER give up the right and responsibility of independent judgment, especially on a jury, and that the demand that we do so was fundamentally immoral. I went on for a while, including a few sharp exchanges in which I corrected the Judge Robert Pegg's deliberate misrepresentations of what I was saying; him accusing me of running around willy-nilly disregarding and disobeying the law, and me saying no, I am a LAW-ABIDING citizen, in that I ABIDE WITH, that is, I TOLERATE, the LAW AS AN INSTITUTION, with its inconveniences and petty imperfections, because it is the tool by which we make the social contract work, and we make civil society possible.

I doubt anyone else in the room understood a word I said. Not even the Civics teacher.

Needless to say, I didn/t get picked, even after 8-1/2 hours of this. What a waste of a day.

Good for you. Next time just say you're an anarchist and will vote "Not Guilty" on any charge.

Or, try my method: ignore the call you get in the mail. Last you'll hear of it. They've got 200 smucks who didn't to work with; they don't need you.

But if I was able I'd go once for the fun and experience. I love to confound.

Let's say you are wanted in court for a criminal offense, say a low grade felony. You don't appear. A warrant is issued for your arrest. Two years later you are stopped for a driving violation and the warrant is discovered and you are taken to the county jail. WHY DIDN"T THEY COME TO GET YOU PRIOR? It costs too much. Do you think they are even issuing warrants for people who fail to respond to demands for jury service delivered by uncertified mail? Horse shit.

--Brant

if you don't want to go don't respond--no response = nobody will put your response into a computer--that's when you really start to be screwed

certified mail?--don't sign for what you don't know

if they have their jurors they don't need you--and if they need you they'll go out in the street and grab a passerby--are you passing the courthouse by?

[BaalChatzaf]

Next time swear falsely. Become a stealth nullifier.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

"If a jury have not the right to judge between the government and those who disobey its laws, the government is absolute, and the people, legally speaking, are slaves. "

-- Lysander Spooner

[syrakusos]

I have never been called, but I consider it a fundamental duty. Otherwise, you might as well live as a hermit.

[Brant Gaede]

I have never been called, but I consider it a fundamental duty. Otherwise, you might as well live as a hermit.

Yeah. A shallow fundamental IMHO.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

I've done jury duty once and was part of the jury for the trial. Interesting stuff. I don't remember much other than I was the youngest one. There was a certain piece of evidence that we saw that I was on the outs with everyone else based on testimony, that for me didn't sum up. But there was other evidence beyond that that saw him go to the slammer.

~ Shane

[Steve Gagne]

But I already served on the jury a year ago, even ended being the jury foreman.

It was a bad case -- domestic altercation between two young divorced kids being treated as criminal assault. The woman got drunk and tried to beat up the guy in front of their kid, and just ended up hurting herself.

We the jury all thought it belonged in family court, and even spent the better part of an hour debating the merits of jury nullification on that one. But we all knew people who had dealt with family court, how there are no rights there, double jeopardy is practiced often, and we figured that the little girl would receive more mercy at the hands of a criminal court judge, who is ruled by law and established procedures, than she would at the hands of a family court judge, who is allowed to make up the law and procedures as he goes along.

So on the basis of the facts presented to us, and under direction of the judge concerning the law, we DID convict her.

But now this state's attorney is demanding we forego the type of discussions we made in the previous case? Unh-unh.

But it's all a moot point now. They chose a bunch of airheaded ex-cheerleaders fresh out of highschool, who had zero understanding of the discussion at hand, and told them they HAD to do what the state's attorney told them too. Land of the free ...

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for your story, Steve; that was educational. In the rightful world that should be, the state's attorney loses his job for his demand or is too afraid to make it.

Usually such cases don't go to trial. A plea is copped. Might have something to do with the child being present.

Just because you're a man doesn't mean you can't be beat up by a woman. I saw an example a month ago. The poor guy all but went to the hospital. For two days he could hardly walk and his face was bruised up. It wasn't domestic violence for he said he didn't live in his apartment so he had the option of of pressing charges or letting it go. He let it go. With dv in Arizona the state becomes the third party and the victim has nothing to do with pressing charges or not--the state does. The whole idea is to stop it in its tracks. One reason is the high danger faced by the police answering dv calls which may happen time after time at one address.

Jury nullification is mostly nullified because of control freak judges who want unto themselves the effective privilege of dismissing charges. I don't have time myself to do jury duty, but if I did I'd try it for the educational value and experience. Since my excuse, as opposed to my previous excuse, would not be acceptable, I merely never respond to the initial demand I report. Once you respond it gets put into the computer and they are off to the races with you. There should be no penalty for this if you didn't sign for the letter. A certified letter is another matter. I have a PO Box and that's on my driver's license. This you can do in Arizona. The DMV knows my street address but all my jury letters go to the PO box. I never have a mailman knocking on my door with a certified or any letter for jury duty. That's nice even though I've never even been sent a certified letter for jury duty. I have gotten two letters apropos one event, but then it stopped. When I was taking care of my Mother one letter said I had to get a letter from her doctor instead of taking my word for it as had been the case previously in both New Jersey--taking care of Dad--and Arizona. That's when I simply started ignoring those damn letters. The PO box also provides me with a nice psychological barrier or buffer with these state demands.

--Brant

[Steve Gagne]

Brant --

What really got my goat was that, had I followed the State Attorney's rule on the previous case, half of the jury's discussions would have been effectively censored by prior restraint, possibly even forcing us to find for the defendant and to cause a loss for the State Attorney's office. And now I was expected to make that type of "commitment" to prior restraint, that is, to stifle the truth, prior to the trial even starting? Nope nope nope ... can't do THAT Ralph ... nope nope nope ...

I seem to remember a Supreme Court Case decades ago where prior restraint was ruled unconstitutional, and a presidential administration was stopped from preventing the publishing of The Pentagon Papers ... yes, they went after The New York Times ... The Denver Post ... The Los Angeles Times ... The Washington Post ... The Detroit Free Press ...all courtesy of the antiwar Daniel Ellsberg ... now we have Julian Assange ... will the press support him the same, or as corporatist lapdog thugs, will they smear Assange & attempt to destroy him? But that's for another day.

Back on subject, jury duty doesn't get pulled from DMV records around here but from voter id records, which require a physical address.

Around here they take the jury calls seriously on the penalty side (bench warrants, followup visits by deputies, etc) but not so much on the notification side -- it's a little informal (1st class mail only / no certified letters, having to call into the court house to see if you are actually scheduled to be there, etc.).

They wouldn't take me the first four times they called me either ... they were upset that I used to be a professional safecracker. Bigots. Nothing but pure prejudice. Bunch of haters. Heelots -- a bunch of heels, the whole lot of 'em!

[Brant Gaede]

Enough of this, Steve, tell us what you really feel! (Tip-o-the hat to Adam!)

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I have never been called, but I consider it a fundamental duty. Otherwise, you might as well live as a hermit.

It is a small price to pay for even the possibility of a fair trial. And it is an opportunity for Stealth Nullifiers.

The commandoes strike at dawn.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I have never been called, but I consider it a fundamental duty. Otherwise, you might as well live as a hermit.

It is a small price to pay for even the possibility of a fair trial. And it is an opportunity for Stealth Nullifiers.

The commandoes strike at dawn.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If Michael thinks it's a "fundamental" duty he might as well be living in jail. In the context of liberty we can talk about duty even in a fundamental sense, but not jury duty that way. I'm not into serving society on the King George level.

--Brant

"freedom . . . "

[syrakusos]

While the jury system has ancient roots, the modern jury of Anglo-American law only goes back to about 1200 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

but also the Constutional Rights Foundation of Chicago.

No, it is not perfect and never was.

“The jury system,” Mark Twain famously observed, “puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity, and perjury.” “I desire to tamper with the jury law,” Twain continued, “to so alter it as to put a premium on intelligence and character, and close the jury box against idiots, blacklegs, and people who do not read newspapers. (College of Social Sciences, University of Maryland here.)

Juries originally investigated crimes directly, but soon, divisions of power made the coroner the investigator and the sheriff the executor of the court's decision.

Although trial by ordeal was no longer sanctioned in the 13th century, it was only in 19th (!) that it was removed from British law.

Sure, I understand the libertarian objections to being forced to serve at your own expense. The objection also comes that America has too many lawyers, that we live in a litigious society. Would you rather live in a society without lawyers and without juries? To live in a society of law is as rare and special as the blessing of fire and the the wheel.

[9thdoctor]

This story warmed the cockles of me heart. Toasted them, in fact.

http://reason.com/bl...d-by-glaring-st

"I have NEVER seen a full on mutiny by an entire jury pool before."

Not just a jury, the whole freaking pool!