Just spent a week on Jury Duty...

[Outlander Systems]

So, I've spent the last five days on a Civil Case between a Plaintiff seeking damages against two separate defendants over a business sale/purchase.

It sucked royally. At the end of the day I was left with two options; side with my morality, or side with the Law.

In the end, I was arguing in defense of the defendants, who, as I later discovered, are opportunistic, lecherous scumbags, but they were opportunistic, lecherous scumbags who did NOT, in my mind, breach their contractual obligations.

This case sucked. The Plaintiffs have pretty much lost everything, because their broker was operating for HER best interest, (to obtain a commission), and the buyer's purchase offer/agreement was skewed so heavily in his favor it wasn't even funny.

I learned some things, ex-post facto that were not admissible, and it made me want to puke.

At the end of the day, we are a Republic, and had I sided with the Plaintiff, whom I believe had the moral high-ground in this case, but didn't have the savvy or wherewithal to consult their legal counsel prior to engagement of the agreement, I would be sleeping much better this evening. These were good, albeit naive folks, who got bent over and breech-loaded; however, the Defendants did not operate outside of of any contractual agreements, and per the letter-of-the-law, were entitled to everything in their counter-claims.

It was painful to do what needed doin, but, hopefully, it was for the greater good.

I will state this...ALWAYS, ALWAYS have an attorney oversee any type of "agreement" before committing your signature to ANYTHING.

In this day and age, your handshake might actually mean something, but in the eyes of the law, it doesn't mean shit.

So, in a roundabout way, what's your jury story if you've got one?

[Moose-Knuckle]

For some strange reason my line of work always keeps me from being selected for any jury pool lol.

[Outlander Systems]

For some strange reason my tattoos always keep me from being selected for your line of work.

; )

I need to find a department that is lenient on inked up, bearded badasses.

[SilverBullet432]

I have jury duty on the 4th.... Not looking forward to it.

[SteyrAUG]

It sucked royally. At the end of the day I was left with two options; side with my morality, or side with the Law.

That is why I never make it past the point where I am asked to swear to uphold and apply the laws as they relate to the case. And as soon as I mention that I will not do so and begin to explain about my rights of "jury nullification" as a US citizen I am usually out the door within minutes.

I learned long ago we have a "legal system" rather than a "justice system."

[Outlander Systems]

That is why I never make it past the point where I am asked to swear to uphold and apply the laws as they relate to the case. And as soon as I mention that I will not do so and begin to explain about my rights of "jury nullification" as a US citizen I am usually out the door within minutes.

I learned long ago we have a "legal system" rather than a "justice system."

Truth.

I mean, the decision I had to make sucked. One of my concerns was that, should I side with the Plaintiff, we'd be opening Pandora's box, via case law, to allow anyone who didn't agree to the terms of an agreement to litigate their way out of it.

Steyr, I know you don't want to do it, but if you get summoned again you should. If I was brought up on charges, I'd want you on the jury.

But you're right; in our case the Plaintiffs DESERVED justice, but based on the law, as we understood it, they didn't get it.

[ralph]

I remember what a lawyer friend of mine, (he's a public defender) told me once, and I never forgot it. "Anytime you go to court, It's not about who's right, or who's wrong, But rather, who presents the best argument".

[montanadave]

OP, your comments reminded me of John Travolta's character (an attorney representing a plaintiff) in A Civil Action:

"The odd's of a plaintiff's lawyer winning in civil court are two to one against. Think about that for a second. Your odds of surviving a game of Russian roulette are better than winning a case at trial. 12 times better. So, why does anyone do that? They don't. They settle. Out of the 780,000, only 12,000 or 11/2% ever reach a verdict. The whole idea of lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle. And you do that by spending more money than you should, which forces them to spend more money than they should, and whoever comes to their senses first loses. Trials are a corruption of the entire process and only fools who have something to prove end up ensnared in them. Now when I say prove, I don't mean about the case, I mean about themselves."

I've only been called for jury duty once and was jury foreman in a civil case involving a building owner who had withheld payment to a subcontractor, arguing the sub's failure to complete a drywall job during remodel had resulted in the owner losing a major tenant in the building.

The sub filed suit to demand payment for the work. It was readily apparent that the sub had known the owner needed to complete the remodel and have the space ready for the tenant by a certain date. And he didn't get the job done by that date. But it was also evident that the contract the owner signed with the sub never specified a completion date and contained no language penalizing the sub for failing to complete the job within a specified time period. And the owner was an experienced builder with years of experience supervising large construction projects with big budgets and multiple sub-contractors.

Bottom line: The sub did the work (albeit a week or two late) and we awarded him his money. The owner ****ed up, didn't cover his ass, and it cost him a tenant.

[HD1911]

nvrmind

[jerrysimons]

I hope that the level headed people who frequent this site would not attempt to shirk jury duty. We need people like you in the courts. More importantly, we need to keep crap laws from being passed and pass good laws.

Good job, op, in seeing your duty as an American through.

Here is an interesting video on jury nullification, http://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ

SteyrAUG, what do you know about being charged with perjury for "premeditated" jury nullification? Has this ever happened? The way it was explained in the video as being a consequence of other laws doesn't sound like it is a right proper in the proper sense.

[jerrysimons]

I suppose it is a clearly established right, since it is a absolute right of a juror to not be held legally liable for their decision:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/08/01/justice-often-served-by-jury-nullification/

How them the the perjury aspect that was mentioned, lying under oath? An Interesting topic to say the least.

[jmoney]

I will state this...ALWAYS, ALWAYS have an attorney oversee any type of "agreement" before committing your signature to ANYTHING.

In this day and age, your handshake might actually mean something, but in the eyes of the law, it doesn't mean shit.
So, in a roundabout way, what's your jury story if you've got one?

If there is one thing I took away from law school, it was the bolded part above

in regards to the underlined, believe it or not, a handshake can and will, along with other parol evidence, be sufficient for some contracts. Statute of frauds prevents the vast majority of deals from being conducted in that manner, and for good reason.

Nearly everyone struggles at first with the result of many cases. It took 2 years for me to really understand the reasoning behind many of the laws we have. When you get to that point, you really do start to understand why you MUST make a decision to follow the law. The best examples of these kinds of cases come from wills, trusts, and estates. For example, in Texas, the law heavily favors the well advised testator over a person who attempts to do things on their own. The reasoning behind this results in some decisions that really screw people over. But, the result of such strict adherence to the law, allows a person who does take the time to have their probate issues properly settled, to know that their wishes will absolutely be followed after their death.

In regards to comments getting out of jury duty. I am sure people have their reasons for wanting to dodge jury duty, but I find it pretty abhorrent. So many people shirk this duty that many times the jury panel is left with people YOU would absolutely not want sitting in your judgment. It varies county to county, but the results can make it nearly impossible to put criminals in jail. I have seen not guilty verdicts when the defendant soaked in the victims blood, flat out admitted to committing the crime, was so drunk they couldn't even stand up. The reasons behind the juries verdicts would simply make your head explode. Things work the other way as well, I have seen convictions where the defendant should have been found not guilty as well. Sometimes its bad lawyering, sometimes its bad evidence, but most of the time, things start and stop with bad juries.

The system works best when a diverse jury can meet a reasoned judgment. When nobody reasonable shows up for jury duty, finding a proper outcome becomes significantly more difficult.

Just something to think about next time you get the dreaded jury duty letter in the mail.

[montanadave]

^ Agreed. Some folks thought I was nuts running every thing through an attorney when we bought some property a few years back, but I don't regret a nickel I spent. The fact that the sellers had attorneys also was a clue. Doing it right the first time can avoid a lot of hassles down the road. Case in point, I found an error in the legal description concerning an easement which the seller's daughter, an attorney, had missed twice on previous transactions. We got the appropriate instruments corrected and recorded, and the guy had a little something to razz his daughter about.

As for jury duty, I found the experience quite interesting. And I learned a few things. Like one of the attorneys in town, who I know has represented a lot of folks over the years, was totally inept. I don't know if he was ill-prepared or what, but I wouldn't hire the guy to get me out of a parking ticket.

[jmoney]

^ Agreed. Some folks thought I was nuts running every thing through an attorney when we bought some property a few years back, but I don't regret a nickel I spent. The fact that the sellers had attorneys also was a clue. Doing it right the first time can avoid a lot of hassles down the road. Case in point, I found an error in the legal description concerning an easement which the seller's daughter, an attorney, had missed twice on previous transactions. We got the appropriate instruments corrected and recorded, and the guy had a little something to razz his daughter about.

As for jury duty, I found the experience quite interesting. And I learned a few things. Like one of the attorneys in town, who I know has represented a lot of folks over the years, was totally inept. I don't know if he was ill-prepared or what, but I wouldn't hire the guy to get me out of a parking ticket.

Your experience is actually pretty par. Many people who get a chance to see lawyers in action, whether or not they know anything about law, can usually pretty quickly pick up on who is the best one in the room. At least you got a chance to see an attorney you knew actually practice, and know better than to seek out their services in the future.


and yes, I have dealt with attorneys before who literally could not even handle a parking ticket for their client...some of whom had been practicing for many many years.

[jmoney]

I hope that the level headed people who frequent this site would not attempt to shirk jury duty. We need people like you in the courts. More importantly, we need to keep crap laws from being passed and pass good laws.

Good job, op, in seeing your duty as an American through.

Here is an interesting video on jury nullification, http://youtu.be/uqH_Y1TupoQ

SteyrAUG, what do you know about being charged with perjury for "premeditated" jury nullification? Has this ever happened? The way it was explained in the video as being a consequence of other laws doesn't sound like it is a right proper in the proper sense.

it isn't right in any sense. Maybe someone with a lot more experience would have a better thought, but jurors take an oath to follow the law, consciously ignoring the law is a violation of that oath. That being said, jurors don't often flat out say I refuse to follow the law, they just give their reasoning. It has happened though, and if I remember correctly there was an attempt to punish the juror, some amnesty international guy, i don't recall the result. I doubt there was any punishment assessed. However, I strongly believe that a juror may make their decision based on any doubt that is reasonable to them...even if it isn't to the rest of us, thats kind of the point of the whole system.

[SteyrAUG]

Truth.

I mean, the decision I had to make sucked. One of my concerns was that, should I side with the Plaintiff, we'd be opening Pandora's box, via case law, to allow anyone who didn't agree to the terms of an agreement to litigate their way out of it.

Steyr, I know you don't want to do it, but if you get summoned again you should. If I was brought up on charges, I'd want you on the jury.

But you're right; in our case the Plaintiffs DESERVED justice, but based on the law, as we understood it, they didn't get it.

If I swear to apply the law as it is written I have taken an oath and no longer have the options. I can actually be held in contempt for not doing so. The requirements is designed to eliminate people like me from the jury pool.

[3 AE]

I've been summoned three times and have yet to be selected to be on the jury panel. I hope to be chosen someday so that I can fulfill what I consider to be a very important civic duty along with voting. As jmoney stated previously, if you want good decisions, have good jurors.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I've been summoned twice in two years. Didn't get selected either time. First time they asked me what I thought about cops, and I said "They do their jobs." and the second time I got asked what I felt about cheating on somebody who physically abused you and my answer was "justified, if the physical threat prevented leaving the relationship."

I don't know what either case was for.

[Caduceus]

If there is one thing I took away from law school, it was the bolded part above

in regards to the underlined, believe it or not, a handshake can and will, along with other parol evidence, be sufficient for some contracts. Statute of frauds prevents the vast majority of deals from being conducted in that manner, and for good reason.

Nearly everyone struggles at first with the result of many cases. It took 2 years for me to really understand the reasoning behind many of the laws we have. When you get to that point, you really do start to understand why you MUST make a decision to follow the law. The best examples of these kinds of cases come from wills, trusts, and estates. For example, in Texas, the law heavily favors the well advised testator over a person who attempts to do things on their own. The reasoning behind this results in some decisions that really screw people over. But, the result of such strict adherence to the law, allows a person who does take the time to have their probate issues properly settled, to know that their wishes will absolutely be followed after their death.

In regards to comments getting out of jury duty. I am sure people have their reasons for wanting to dodge jury duty, but I find it pretty abhorrent. So many people shirk this duty that many times the jury panel is left with people YOU would absolutely not want sitting in your judgment. It varies county to county, but the results can make it nearly impossible to put criminals in jail. I have seen not guilty verdicts when the defendant soaked in the victims blood, flat out admitted to committing the crime, was so drunk they couldn't even stand up. The reasons behind the juries verdicts would simply make your head explode. Things work the other way as well, I have seen convictions where the defendant should have been found not guilty as well. Sometimes its bad lawyering, sometimes its bad evidence, but most of the time, things start and stop with bad juries.

The system works best when a diverse jury can meet a reasoned judgment. When nobody reasonable shows up for jury duty, finding a proper outcome becomes significantly more difficult.

Just something to think about next time you get the dreaded jury duty letter in the mail.
If I can go off-topic for a minute, what do you think about the whole "jury of your peers" thing, in this context? Mainly, it seems that the jury is full of people unable to get out of jury duty.

Has anyone successfully pulled something like "these aren't my peers" and had a jury completely changed? Or is that phrase not something that's even real?

To explain my ... reasoning ... behind my curiousity: Let's say an astronaut is on trial. well, "peers" by definition would be someone of the same age or social standing or job description. Obviously it would be hard to get 12 astronauts (hell, pilots) on a jury. How then, can 12 high school dropout, unemployed, dregs of society get picked to judge this man? They have no idea of the education, trials, tribulations, work, etc, that goes into making him/her into this life. Or does "the law" think that any adult should be able to understand and fairly apply laws to any adult?

[Eurodriver]

If I can go off-topic for a minute, what do you think about the whole "jury of your peers" thing, in this context? Mainly, it seems that the jury is full of people unable to get out of jury duty.

Has anyone successfully pulled something like "these aren't my peers" and had a jury completely changed? Or is that phrase not something that's even real?

To explain my ... reasoning ... behind my curiousity: Let's say an astronaut is on trial. well, "peers" by definition would be someone of the same age or social standing or job description. Obviously it would be hard to get 12 astronauts (hell, pilots) on a jury. How then, can 12 high school dropout, unemployed, dregs of society get picked to judge this man? They have no idea of the education, trials, tribulations, work, etc, that goes into making him/her into this life. Or does "the law" think that any adult should be able to understand and fairly apply laws to any adult?

I, too, am curious about this. But I think that would only depend if the astronaut committed a crime while acting as an astronaut, relating to astonautical stuff. If an astronaut kills his wife because she was having an affair, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to sit on that jury. On the other hand, if the astronaut pushed a button he shouldn't have and it blew off a $2,000,000 piece of equipment from the ISS...how would a jury of nobodies ever understand the complexity of the ISS?

I know that if I were to be on trial for some journal entries I made as a CPA, I sure as hell wouldn't want some dropouts trying to figure out what GAAP is through a few days of testimony by lawyers.

[jmoney]

If I can go off-topic for a minute, what do you think about the whole "jury of your peers" thing, in this context? Mainly, it seems that the jury is full of people unable to get out of jury duty.

Has anyone successfully pulled something like "these aren't my peers" and had a jury completely changed? Or is that phrase not something that's even real?

To explain my ... reasoning ... behind my curiousity: Let's say an astronaut is on trial. well, "peers" by definition would be someone of the same age or social standing or job description. Obviously it would be hard to get 12 astronauts (hell, pilots) on a jury. How then, can 12 high school dropout, unemployed, dregs of society get picked to judge this man? They have no idea of the education, trials, tribulations, work, etc, that goes into making him/her into this life. Or does "the law" think that any adult should be able to understand and fairly apply laws to any adult?

Its a little early so forgive me if my thoughts ramble a bit, but let me give you a little insight on how "I" view the system as it currently stands. So far I have worked in 2 different states. The first, you never really knew what you were going to get for a jury panel, which I think is the way it is supposed to be. The purpose of voir dire is to take that pool of potential jurors, and learn a little bit about them in order to exercise your preemptory strikes in a manner that shapes the jury panel into one that you believe will be favorable to your case. There are almost always some "crazies", someone sleeping, and of course many who just flat out don't want to be there. I would be a little nervous if a panel of people all excited to be there showed up to be honest.

So in your example, it may or may not be prudent to strike that person from the dregs of society. Jury of peers, is meant to be a representation of your surroundings. The people you live around are your peers, not so much as the same field. If the guy is an astronaut, many people might respect the hell out of him just for that. Or, there could be the crazies that for some reason have something against him, it is impossible to really know. In the county I currently work, there is an incredible amount of engineers, if an engineer were to be charged with a crime, I would expect there to be at least 2 or three engineers on the panel. That, is rare.

"these aren't my peers" isn't really an argument. If the persons on the panel do not reside in the county of the case...then those jurors would be excluded from participating. Like I said, don't think of "peers" as people who are at the same intellectual level/economic status as you, it is solely meant to be those whom reside in the same community for good reasons.

Now in some events a cause of action can be removed from a certain venue if a court determines the high improbability of a party to get a fair trial. This is especially so for extremely public murders/bombings, etc etc. But, essentially the jury is still composed of americans, who are all your "peers"

Case law and legislation has elevated jury practices now to the point where almost no one is excluded (except felons, etc.)

Now, at the present time, I am fortunate enough to be working in a county where almost every person that shows up has at least finished high school and that does make things better, but it can also be a curse. The area is heavily populated with engineers who tend to get hung up on facts that really don't matter in the case and other things of that nature. However, the community is predominately white with few pockets of pretty nasty areas, which are predominately minority. It does sometimes make me wonder if this is really a collection of that persons peers when I rarely see any minorities on the panel, but I still stand by my original thought that the system is meant to represent the community as a whole where the offense occurred. In this case, the community is very predominately Caucasian, and the jury panel reflects that. Additionally, most of the time here the jury really does reach the proper decision. Where I started my first internship it was quite the opposite.

A lot of people ask me how to get out of jury duty, I never tell them. As I said before, I find such actions to be repugnant. In the first state I interned in, once pulled from the jury panel and seated for void dire, it was almost impossible for one to be struck for cause. The judges would really make you feel like an idiot for attempts to get out of duty. Here, they will cause people off with relative ease, but not for the reasons you would think. It mostly has to do with clear bias/prejudice, or unwillingness to follow the law. One thing that does appear nearly universal though is that if someone demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to follow the law, you are gone. I try and break things down into as few words as possible when I explain things and use a checklist as I go through the trial. That seems to help most people, but some are just so stupid there really is no saving them.