11 ms·

Trial diary: A journalist sits on a Baltimore jury

82 points by danso 4y ago

alphabettsy 4y ago
Slightly unrelated, but don’t avoid jury service. It’s your civic duty.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  I consider the ease of getting out of jury duty one of the foremost parts of jury selection - Anyone who does not see it as their civic duty is worth dispensing with.
  - sircastor 4y ago
    A lot of people view it with the opposite effect: you’re being judged by a set of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I have been called to jury duty 3 times in my life and never been selected as a juror. I consider it an important part of citizenship and community engagement.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Fun fact: if you don’t register to vote you’ll very likely never be called, ever. Most cities/states use voter rolls for prospective jurors. I once got as close as the first alternate before I was bounced by one of the lawyers as a “free kick” - can’t even remember if it was defense or not.
    - wahern 4y ago
      > A lot of people view it with the opposite effect: you’re being judged by a set of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Having only recently served on a jury, I realize now that most people who hold this opinion probably have never been on a jury. I was never so cynical, but serving on a jury still raised my confidence in and respect for my fellow citizens. That said, my case was a relatively minor misdemeanor battery case and it become apparent to me that the right to a jury trial for such misdemeanors is a ridiculous waste of resources. It incentivizes piling on felony charges, or conversely failing to prosecute misdemeanor cases at all if the defendant pushes back. Some of the pathologies in our criminal justice system are much easier to understand and appreciate in light of how extensive is the right to a jury trial in practice. (All 12 of us on the jury agreed that the only reason the case was even being prosecuted despite the rigmarole of a jury trial was for political reasons, though we deliberated seriously nonetheless. It took us 2 days to agree to acquit, but I don't think anyone would have considered it unjust if it had been a bench trial and the judge convicted.) I had always dismissed criticisms of jury trials as unpersuasive, especially in the American context where we're so concerned with the risk of government oppression. But I always implicitly assumed that the right didn't apply to minor misdemeanors. Turns out that even though under Common Law and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent the right isn't provided for minor misdemeanors (definition varies but still includes risk of jail time), in practice most states guarantee a jury trial for all misdemeanors. Reasons vary--19th century constitutional reform, seemingly simple 20th century statutory changes, creeping judicial minimization of the definitions of "minor" or "petty"--but the end result has been the same. Though, reverting this would be easier in some states than others.
      - GauntletWizard 4y ago
        Your jury decided that the prosecution was because of politics, that you'd agree that the defendant was guilty, and voted to acquit, anyway? It sounds like you learned a lot of the arguments that our founding fathers had for why the right to jury trial is so important.
        hedora 4y ago
        Ah, yes, jury nullification. Knowing about it is your civic duty, but if you let on that you've heard of it, they'll kick you off the jury
        wahern 4y ago
        Our decision ultimately came down to the facts, not the politics. The choice by the D.A. to take this particular case to trial seemed clearly politically motivated, but our only concern (as far as I could tell) was balancing justice for the defendant and the victim as it related to the incident.
- bkfunk 4y ago
  People (understandably) often lament how hard it is to make an impact in the world. Being a juror can have far more impact than every vote you’ll ever cast.
  - tomcat27 4y ago
    The problem is magic doesn't happen when people put jury duty on their CV
- toma_caliente 4y ago
  I was selected for jury duty once and got out of it as quickly as I could. I was working a nothing minimum wage job to get by and they would've given me $15 dollars a day for jury duty. You want people to stop trying to get out of jury duty? Then make sure their job has to pay them while they are serving on a jury.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  in india, the judiciary is all advocates and judges only. every case is decided by a judge/2 judges/N judges. the reasoning is, a common person does not have the knowledge or skills to decide the case. the lawyers here have to convince a judge for their arguments and facts, not a jury... imo how can a common person decide a matter of facts or matter of law when they do not possess the skills ?
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    In the US the he jury is not tasked with interpreting what the requirements of the law are or tasked with producing/deciding allowed evidence on the case. In these matters the judge will run the court proceedings to produce allowed evidence + arguments and separately instruct the jury on matters of the law pertaining to the case. The role of the jury is just to weigh whether the evidence presented to them seems strong enough to meet the balance of probabilities or be beyond a reasonable doubt (depending on the type of case). I.e. the jury is tasked with answering questions like "based on the evidence presented is it reasonable to doubt the attack was committed by this person" but not tasked with answering/coming up with questions like "what laws would this attack break and how" or "is that question/evidence allowable in the case". Once the jury reaches a verdict it goes back to the judge to decide the sentencing. Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification do exist though, not by procedure but just because the rules can't prevent it, but it's more restricted than many realize and also extremely rare.
    - Gibbon1 4y ago
      It's also true that the Jury isn't flying blind. The judge provides instructions as to how the law applies. It's of note a lot of appeals center around the judges instructions. And fundamental a jury places a hard limit on the states power. Which is to say a judge can and sometimes does limit it even further. Jury can say guilty on charge 4. Judge can say not guilty on charge 4.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      Why bring in people with no experience to judge that sort of thing? Whether evidence is convincing is not so easy to decide. Invent a class of legally informed people who can be paid to think about such things and gather experience in it over time. Sure, make them separate from the judges so it's not all one guy deciding.
- smokey_circles 4y ago
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Actually, you're wrong there - Germany uses a similar system on the first levels of the justice system [1]. However, we have crucial differences to the US: - we don't have that ridiculous requirement of jurors having to lock themselves away for fear of getting a contaminated judgement [2] - while we do allow participants to contest the jurors, it's rare for such motions to succeed, except if there is substantial evidence for bias [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe_(ehrenamtlicher_Richter) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe_(ehrenamtlicher_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration
    - janeerie 4y ago
      Jury sequestration is pretty rare and only for super high profile cases.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Jury nullification isn't idiotic. It's the genius behind the system. It's the last bulwark of freedom against a tyrannical law. Read up on the Zenger trial for some history. And "real countries"? I don't know what that's supposed to mean but I don't know of any other nation that has a stronger claim to being "real." Japan perhaps.
  - adolph 4y ago
    > Jurors are idiots. None of em are legal experts ! expert != idiot expert != ! idiot The rigamarole of a jury keeps the day to day system of justice in touch with a relatively representative sample of local humanity. Without that I could see it turning bad fast. I was on a jury that did something close to nullification. Afterwards the prosecutor dropped by and chatted with us. It was helpful feedback for them about community standards (at least from the random sample we represented). In that situation we appreciated the role of vice cops in deterring lewd public behavior but considered a remote spot in the woods to not be public for that purpose no matter how much the prosecutor emphasized the location as a public park. Were we the idiots? Maybe so, maybe not.
FatalLogic 4y ago
It's remarkable that a local journalist covering urban crime didn't get bumped off the jury by one side or the other, but it means we get this very well written inside story
- wahern 4y ago
  For run-of-the-mill trials I think judges are less tolerant of games, and the attorneys less motivated--they're more likely to be repeat players who don't want a reputation as a**holes. The public (through media and punditry) has developed an opinion of juries as fickle, but having recently served on one it seems apparent this is mostly undeserved. And I'm sure judges understand this. (Second data point: I've also heard a trial judge explain that in all his years on the bench only once did he worry a jury might return a patently unjust verdict. He said he was prepared to reject the verdict in that case, but in the end the jury acquitted.)
  - FatalLogic 4y ago
    That's interesting, I wasn't aware. I had guessed the reason was that the lawyers looked at the journalist's background and writing, and both the defense and the prosecution concluded that he was more likely to be favorable to their own side, and that their arguments would not be harmed by having a persuasive domain expert on the jury. edit: and as you suggest, I'm sure my opinion is impacted by high-profile mistrials I've seen in the media
    - wahern 4y ago
      Both sides usually get a set number of unchallengeable juror rejections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge Beyond those a request to reject is effectively at the discretion of the judge as it's relatively rare for a juror to unequivocally meet the legal standards for mandatory disqualification. So attorneys have to be judicious and, especially when they're nearing the end of jury selection, will often accept a juror they might have preferred to reject. It's not just the judge with which attorneys want to maintain good will. Both defense and prosecution will often cooperate to winnow down the jury pool before voir dire.
refurb 4y ago
I sat on a jury for a violent crime and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the jurors. I expected a much less savvy and less logical group of people and found the opposite - they understood the process, how the law is applied, the nuances between different charges and most importantly the presumption of innocence. The lawyers were playing all the games you'd expect, but every juror saw through it 100%.
- usrn 4y ago
  The American public is underestimated way to often IMO.
- paulcole 4y ago
  > I expected a much less savvy and less logical group of people Why did you expect this?
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    Given a random selection of 12 people on the street, one might reasonably expect that their educational background may be... less than optimal. For Germany for example, a quarter of the population only has the utter basic level of education [1]. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197269/umfrage/allgemeiner-bildungsstand-der-bevoelkerung-in-deutschland-nach-dem-alter/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197269/umfrag...
    - refurb 4y ago
      Education =\= intelligence
  - op00to 4y ago
    #1. The people st jury duty either want to be there or are too stupid to get out of it. #2. I interact with the public from time to time. As a rule people can not understand compound sentences let alone be able to string enough facts together in their head to be effective on a jury.

82 points by danso 4y ago

alphabettsy 4y ago

Slightly unrelated, but don’t avoid jury service. It’s your civic duty.

GauntletWizard 4y ago
I consider the ease of getting out of jury duty one of the foremost parts of jury selection - Anyone who does not see it as their civic duty is worth dispensing with.
- sircastor 4y ago
  A lot of people view it with the opposite effect: you’re being judged by a set of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I have been called to jury duty 3 times in my life and never been selected as a juror. I consider it an important part of citizenship and community engagement.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Fun fact: if you don’t register to vote you’ll very likely never be called, ever. Most cities/states use voter rolls for prospective jurors. I once got as close as the first alternate before I was bounced by one of the lawyers as a “free kick” - can’t even remember if it was defense or not.
  - wahern 4y ago
    > A lot of people view it with the opposite effect: you’re being judged by a set of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Having only recently served on a jury, I realize now that most people who hold this opinion probably have never been on a jury. I was never so cynical, but serving on a jury still raised my confidence in and respect for my fellow citizens. That said, my case was a relatively minor misdemeanor battery case and it become apparent to me that the right to a jury trial for such misdemeanors is a ridiculous waste of resources. It incentivizes piling on felony charges, or conversely failing to prosecute misdemeanor cases at all if the defendant pushes back. Some of the pathologies in our criminal justice system are much easier to understand and appreciate in light of how extensive is the right to a jury trial in practice. (All 12 of us on the jury agreed that the only reason the case was even being prosecuted despite the rigmarole of a jury trial was for political reasons, though we deliberated seriously nonetheless. It took us 2 days to agree to acquit, but I don't think anyone would have considered it unjust if it had been a bench trial and the judge convicted.) I had always dismissed criticisms of jury trials as unpersuasive, especially in the American context where we're so concerned with the risk of government oppression. But I always implicitly assumed that the right didn't apply to minor misdemeanors. Turns out that even though under Common Law and under U.S. Supreme Court precedent the right isn't provided for minor misdemeanors (definition varies but still includes risk of jail time), in practice most states guarantee a jury trial for all misdemeanors. Reasons vary--19th century constitutional reform, seemingly simple 20th century statutory changes, creeping judicial minimization of the definitions of "minor" or "petty"--but the end result has been the same. Though, reverting this would be easier in some states than others.
    - GauntletWizard 4y ago
      Your jury decided that the prosecution was because of politics, that you'd agree that the defendant was guilty, and voted to acquit, anyway? It sounds like you learned a lot of the arguments that our founding fathers had for why the right to jury trial is so important.
      - hedora 4y ago
        Ah, yes, jury nullification. Knowing about it is your civic duty, but if you let on that you've heard of it, they'll kick you off the jury
      - wahern 4y ago
        Our decision ultimately came down to the facts, not the politics. The choice by the D.A. to take this particular case to trial seemed clearly politically motivated, but our only concern (as far as I could tell) was balancing justice for the defendant and the victim as it related to the incident.
bkfunk 4y ago
People (understandably) often lament how hard it is to make an impact in the world. Being a juror can have far more impact than every vote you’ll ever cast.
- tomcat27 4y ago
  The problem is magic doesn't happen when people put jury duty on their CV
toma_caliente 4y ago
I was selected for jury duty once and got out of it as quickly as I could. I was working a nothing minimum wage job to get by and they would've given me $15 dollars a day for jury duty. You want people to stop trying to get out of jury duty? Then make sure their job has to pay them while they are serving on a jury.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
in india, the judiciary is all advocates and judges only. every case is decided by a judge/2 judges/N judges. the reasoning is, a common person does not have the knowledge or skills to decide the case. the lawyers here have to convince a judge for their arguments and facts, not a jury... imo how can a common person decide a matter of facts or matter of law when they do not possess the skills ?
- zamadatix 4y ago
  In the US the he jury is not tasked with interpreting what the requirements of the law are or tasked with producing/deciding allowed evidence on the case. In these matters the judge will run the court proceedings to produce allowed evidence + arguments and separately instruct the jury on matters of the law pertaining to the case. The role of the jury is just to weigh whether the evidence presented to them seems strong enough to meet the balance of probabilities or be beyond a reasonable doubt (depending on the type of case). I.e. the jury is tasked with answering questions like "based on the evidence presented is it reasonable to doubt the attack was committed by this person" but not tasked with answering/coming up with questions like "what laws would this attack break and how" or "is that question/evidence allowable in the case". Once the jury reaches a verdict it goes back to the judge to decide the sentencing. Things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification do exist though, not by procedure but just because the rules can't prevent it, but it's more restricted than many realize and also extremely rare.
  - Gibbon1 4y ago
    It's also true that the Jury isn't flying blind. The judge provides instructions as to how the law applies. It's of note a lot of appeals center around the judges instructions. And fundamental a jury places a hard limit on the states power. Which is to say a judge can and sometimes does limit it even further. Jury can say guilty on charge 4. Judge can say not guilty on charge 4.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    Why bring in people with no experience to judge that sort of thing? Whether evidence is convincing is not so easy to decide. Invent a class of legally informed people who can be paid to think about such things and gather experience in it over time. Sure, make them separate from the judges so it's not all one guy deciding.
smokey_circles 4y ago
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Actually, you're wrong there - Germany uses a similar system on the first levels of the justice system [1]. However, we have crucial differences to the US: - we don't have that ridiculous requirement of jurors having to lock themselves away for fear of getting a contaminated judgement [2] - while we do allow participants to contest the jurors, it's rare for such motions to succeed, except if there is substantial evidence for bias [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe_(ehrenamtlicher_Richter) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6ffe_(ehrenamtlicher_R... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_sequestration
  - janeerie 4y ago
    Jury sequestration is pretty rare and only for super high profile cases.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Jury nullification isn't idiotic. It's the genius behind the system. It's the last bulwark of freedom against a tyrannical law. Read up on the Zenger trial for some history. And "real countries"? I don't know what that's supposed to mean but I don't know of any other nation that has a stronger claim to being "real." Japan perhaps.
- adolph 4y ago
  > Jurors are idiots. None of em are legal experts ! expert != idiot expert != ! idiot The rigamarole of a jury keeps the day to day system of justice in touch with a relatively representative sample of local humanity. Without that I could see it turning bad fast. I was on a jury that did something close to nullification. Afterwards the prosecutor dropped by and chatted with us. It was helpful feedback for them about community standards (at least from the random sample we represented). In that situation we appreciated the role of vice cops in deterring lewd public behavior but considered a remote spot in the woods to not be public for that purpose no matter how much the prosecutor emphasized the location as a public park. Were we the idiots? Maybe so, maybe not.

FatalLogic 4y ago

It's remarkable that a local journalist covering urban crime didn't get bumped off the jury by one side or the other, but it means we get this very well written inside story

wahern 4y ago
For run-of-the-mill trials I think judges are less tolerant of games, and the attorneys less motivated--they're more likely to be repeat players who don't want a reputation as a**holes. The public (through media and punditry) has developed an opinion of juries as fickle, but having recently served on one it seems apparent this is mostly undeserved. And I'm sure judges understand this. (Second data point: I've also heard a trial judge explain that in all his years on the bench only once did he worry a jury might return a patently unjust verdict. He said he was prepared to reject the verdict in that case, but in the end the jury acquitted.)
- FatalLogic 4y ago
  That's interesting, I wasn't aware. I had guessed the reason was that the lawyers looked at the journalist's background and writing, and both the defense and the prosecution concluded that he was more likely to be favorable to their own side, and that their arguments would not be harmed by having a persuasive domain expert on the jury. edit: and as you suggest, I'm sure my opinion is impacted by high-profile mistrials I've seen in the media
  - wahern 4y ago
    Both sides usually get a set number of unchallengeable juror rejections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peremptory_challenge Beyond those a request to reject is effectively at the discretion of the judge as it's relatively rare for a juror to unequivocally meet the legal standards for mandatory disqualification. So attorneys have to be judicious and, especially when they're nearing the end of jury selection, will often accept a juror they might have preferred to reject. It's not just the judge with which attorneys want to maintain good will. Both defense and prosecution will often cooperate to winnow down the jury pool before voir dire.

refurb 4y ago

I sat on a jury for a violent crime and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the jurors. I expected a much less savvy and less logical group of people and found the opposite - they understood the process, how the law is applied, the nuances between different charges and most importantly the presumption of innocence. The lawyers were playing all the games you'd expect, but every juror saw through it 100%.

usrn 4y ago
The American public is underestimated way to often IMO.
paulcole 4y ago
> I expected a much less savvy and less logical group of people Why did you expect this?
- mschuster91 4y ago
  Given a random selection of 12 people on the street, one might reasonably expect that their educational background may be... less than optimal. For Germany for example, a quarter of the population only has the utter basic level of education [1]. [1] https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197269/umfrage/allgemeiner-bildungsstand-der-bevoelkerung-in-deutschland-nach-dem-alter/ https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/197269/umfrag...
  - refurb 4y ago
    Education =\= intelligence
- op00to 4y ago
  #1. The people st jury duty either want to be there or are too stupid to get out of it. #2. I interact with the public from time to time. As a rule people can not understand compound sentences let alone be able to string enough facts together in their head to be effective on a jury.