On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
Yeah. The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases, the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying in cases when I don't know the facts as well. Of course, getting somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals.
I last served on a jury in 1973, 25 years ago, no doubt before many readers of Cypherpunks were born.
And I've only received a single _possible_ summons since, in the 25 years since that one jury appearance.
Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human?
Jury nullifying minds want to know.
That is almost enough to make the more paranoid among us think that maybe they have a "do not summon" list. They basically have this anyway with the prosecution vetoing possible jurors. If you're on it, you just aren't summoned. People on that list would be people of libertarian mindsets, politically outspoken people, Cypherpunks, professional people, etc. If they do have a list, I'd kind of like to be on it. I'm a college student, and I _can't_ serve on a jury for more than a day or so. The same goes for doctors, corporate executives, and others. There is an inherent flaw in the jury system. You get summoned and are legally required to blow the entire day down at the courthouse. If you're a student you miss classes, and if you have a job you miss that too. You have to pay for transportation, parking, food, and whatever else you need. In return, you get paid something like $3, which often isn't even enough to cover the parking and get told every five minutes that this or that will get you, as a juror or potential juror, thrown in jail. Meanwhile, if you're a doctor, scientist, college student, lawyer, or hold any other professional position you're thrown off most of the time. If you have a decent job or if you're in school, forget about it, because if you're tied up for more than a day or so you _just can't do it_. They don't want people who know that juries are capable of nullification. They don't want people who can determine that the evidence of one side or the other is suspect. They don't want people who will actually look at the facts rather than the emotion of the opening and closing arguments. The prosecution sure as hell doesn't want anybody who will look at whether a law should exist in the first place. "Hey, Doctor! Um, I have to serve on a jury. Can you take all my patients for the next six months while I'm locked in a hotel room? Oh, and I need to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no. So you basically wind up with juries which are stacked with welfare recipients, stupid people, and retirees. A jury of retirees may work, but the others surely don't. When the trial actually starts, the average juror, regardless of what council may tell them about due process, is usually biased in favor of the prosecution, especially if the government is claiming that the defendant is an evil child molestor. If it's a case involving technology, you get a bunch of bogus "experts" up there which say what council wants to be said, because real "experts" refuse to dumb down their testimony to a kindergarden level. "Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the microchip fabrication process works?" "Well, we start with..." "I'm sorry to stop you, sir. Can you please explain to the jury -- in layman's terms -- what a transistor is?" "Well, in this context it often acts as a switch for an electronic circuit, but it can also--" "Would you please explain in layman's terms what a circuit is?" Argh. Can you imagine trying to be a defense expert in a cryptography case with a bunch of jurors who can barely read, are unemployed, hate "nerds," and beat the "geeks" up in high school, while the prosecution is constantly screaming that the defendant is a kiddy porn trader and you're expected to dumb your expert testimony down to kindergarden level?