On 24 Sep 1998, Anonymous wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

...

At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:

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.

Yeah, right. I *never* blew off class to go to the beach. I never go to "meetings" on the golf course, either. Glad to hear the only people with important places to be are doctors, executives, and college students.

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.

It is a trade-off. If you aren't willing to put in your time, you can't complain when somebody else lets OJ off the hook. You can't whine if you are convicted by a bunch of people who were to stupid to get out of jury duty.

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.

"They" refers to both sides. We have an adversarial system. Usualy one side or the other is willing to keep jurors who are interested in the facts. (OK, launch the court-appointed-public-defender rant here) One of my employees, a white/male/degreed/job holding/computer programmer was kicked out by the defense, not the prosecutor.

"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?

Very few juries are sequestered. In cases where this is likely, jurors are often permitted to be excused if a lengthy trial is expected. This is a bullshit excuse for ducking jury duty. The longest anyone who works with or for me has been absent due to jury duty was three days. Oh, and I need

to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no.

The company I work for pays our salary while we are on jury duty. We have to turn over the $3 a day stipend.

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.

Most defendants are guilty. That doesn't mean the one in front of you is. Take traffic court as an example. How many defandants are there because they are innocent, and the cop was mistaken, didn't calibrate his radar, needed to fill his quota, etc.? A few. How many are there because they want a couple points knocked off the penalty, even theough they were speeding? Most of them. A guilty defendant is entitled to a fair trial. So is an innocent one. You don't help the process by ducking jury duty (or are you one of the stupid people?).

"Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the microchip fabrication process works?"

The technobable seemed to work in favor of the defense, in the OJ case. People have come to understand and accept fingerprinting (although it was not accpeted initially). Many seem to be unwilling to trust DNA evidence, though.

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?

One can always request a judge to hear the case. It isn't a perfect system, but what do you propose as an alternative? Should Tim May judge us all? Should we revert to anarchy, with whomever is left standing is considered innocent, and the dead are the guilty? -r.w.

An Anonymous College Student wants to be able to stay off jury duty, and also complains that the system ties you up all day in court even if you're not picked. I've been called for jury duty in three or four different counties, which had different approaches to the jury selection and different levels of disrespect for the time of potential jury pool members. In Santa Clara County CA, you're required to telephone into a badly organized recording every day for a week to see if your number is up, and if it does come up you need to go in, but otherwise not. In Monmouth County NJ, you're called for a week, though they'll let you go on Thursday afternoon if you haven't been picked for a trial. I played a lot of bridge that week.... In Middlesex County NJ, you and the lawyers all have to show up on Monday, and if they don't need you, you're done. If you really want to both serve the public and get out of jury duty, take a bunch of literature from the Fully Informed Jury Association and start handing it out in the jury pool, explaining to people that under the common law, juries have both the power and the moral obligation to find people innocent if the law they're accused of is a bad law or if the punishments are far out of proportion to the crime - such as the fugitive slave laws of the 1800s or the alcohol and drug prohibitions of the 1900s, or hanging forgers in the 1800s or three strikes* for non-violent felons in the 1900s. [*I'm not saying that three strikes for violent felons isn't appropriate, but California's law goes far beyond that in practice. And we've had FIJA fights here before, and don't need them again. For the purpose of this discussion, the important FIJA issue is which door you'll be thrown out of, which body parts you'll land on, and how many times you'll bounce on your way out. :-) ]

Actually, the last time that I was called, the largest proportion of potential jurors were people who work for the government in one form or another. City park workers, school teachers, post office workers, clerical workers who work at city hall, etc. Retirees were the next largest group. Between the two, they accounted for 80+ of the jury pool.

Yup. Jury participation is critical for preserving a free society, but you can't preserve freedom by forcing people to participate in things. Unfortunately, to the extent that jury systems do allow people who have better things to do with their time (like running businesses) out of jury time, they tend to filter in favor of people who'll cooperate with what the government wants - like retired schoolteachers. Also, jury selection processes tend to filter out people who don't appear likely to do what the prosecution and/or defense tell them; it's an interesting thing to watch. And the prosecution and sometimes the other jurors often get grouchy when some jurors aren't cooperative - an engineering supervisor I once worked with was one of two jurors who hung their jury be refusing to accept the contention that a Hispanic man should be guilty of carrying drugs and drug paraphrenalia because the airplane glue he'd bought at the hardware store was in a plastic bag which he *obviously* intended to use for sniffing it with. (And this was in New Jersey, where's it's not even illegal to be Hispanic....) Of course, they did get much less abuse than the friend of mine who refused to convict someone for drug possession because the drug war is bogus... he got yelled at a lot afterwards, but being a New Yorker he viewed that as entertainment and returned fire in kind. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639