4 ms·

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

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.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      I've been called for jury duty twice and been rejected for service twice by defense. I guess I'm too mean looking? I appreciated your explanation as it encapsulated my experience as well. I had very nice, even-keeled judge as well (for the jurors, not for the accused in particular) Much of our first day was spent with introductory speeches by defense and the prosecutor describing how "the courtroom isn't like TV"©.
      - bradknowles 4y ago
        I went in for jury duty on two separate occasions, in Austin, TX. In the first occasion, we were told by the judge that the case we had been assembled for was settled out of court that morning, so we were going to be used for a different case, involving potential parole for a person who had been convicted, and therefore any police officers in uniform were automatically excused. We were then told that the two sides had agreed to the terms, so it was basically going to be a formality in front of the jury, and so the first twelve people plus the alternates were to stay, since there wouldn't even be any interviews of the jurors to see if either side objected to anyone. I wasn't in the first set of people, so I and twenty or thirty other people just left. In the second occasion, we had a smaller group and only eight jurors were to be picked. The first thing the judge did was ask where a certain person was, and thanked him for his service as the chair of the law school for UT Austin, and noted that his term had coincidentally ended just that morning. He also excused the chairman emeritus. Serving military personnel were also thanked for their service and excused, due to the nature of the case. Then the lawyers started talking about the basics of the case. This was a personal injury case, and there were multiple parties being sued, who of course each had their own lawyers. All of the defendant lawyers seemed quite capable and very professional. However, the plaintiff lawyer was, to be kind, clearly an ambulance chaser. He kept saying stuff during the intro that he shouldn't be saying and some things were literally illegal to say, and the other lawyers and the judge kept calling him on that. After the intros were done, the judge asked if there was anyone in the room who still needed to be excused, and if so they would need to come up and explain it to him. I held up my hand, and was directed to approach the bench, along with the all of the lawyers. The judge asked me what was wrong, and since the guy was literally standing right next to me, I said "I'm sorry sir, but I have already taken a very intense disliking to one of the lawyers, and I'm afraid that I may not be able to be impartial with regards to anything they might say or do, to the detriment of their clients." The judge seemed quite surprised, and the lawyer for the plaintiff asked me if I could say who it was. Since he was standing right beside me, while looking straight at the judge, I said to him "with all due respect sir, I really don't think you want me to answer that question." The judge excused me, and I think I saw some light smiles on the faces of the other lawyers. As I walked out, I desperately wanted to tell the actual plaintiffs that they needed to get a better lawyer, but I kept my mouth shut. So far, that's been it.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  As a young lawyer long ago, I was "picked" for the jury (that is, I wasn't struck) for a two-week capital murder trial. Also "picked" was one somewhat-older lawyer, who ended up as foreman. Each prospective juror was interviewed individually by the lawyers and judge, with no one else in the courtroom. From their questioning, I had the distinct impression that both the prosecutors and the defense counsel were OK with having a couple of lawyers on the jury, to help make sure that the non-lawyer jurors followed the judge's instructions about the burden of proof, etc. And that's how it turned out: A couple of times during deliberations, a juror would say, "Well, I think what happened was X," and either the foreman or I would gently ask, "um, do we have any evidence of that?" Another time, a juror said, "But we heard so-and-so testify that Y happened," and the other lawyer and I had to remind everyone that the judge had instructed us to disregard that testimony. (I was very pleased to see that after just a few times, we two lawyers didn't have to provide such reminders, because other jurors would do so first.)
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    Do lawyers ever "play dirty" with the idea that a jury can't just disregard something? It is ineffectual recourse for bad evidence being introduced to ask people to pretend they didn't hear it.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      They sometimes deliberately do so, yes. But the problem is that the jury may realize what the lawyer is doing, and it may bias the jury against that lawyer's side of the case. If one side is playing it straight, and you can tell the other is trying to manipulate you, that makes it easier for you to agree with the side that's playing it straight.
belter 4y ago
Even judges and lawyers can be randomly selected for jury duty.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Yep. All the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/john-roberts-jury-duty-supreme-court-justice/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/john-roberts-jury-du...

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.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    I've been called for jury duty twice and been rejected for service twice by defense. I guess I'm too mean looking? I appreciated your explanation as it encapsulated my experience as well. I had very nice, even-keeled judge as well (for the jurors, not for the accused in particular) Much of our first day was spent with introductory speeches by defense and the prosecutor describing how "the courtroom isn't like TV"©.
    - bradknowles 4y ago
      I went in for jury duty on two separate occasions, in Austin, TX. In the first occasion, we were told by the judge that the case we had been assembled for was settled out of court that morning, so we were going to be used for a different case, involving potential parole for a person who had been convicted, and therefore any police officers in uniform were automatically excused. We were then told that the two sides had agreed to the terms, so it was basically going to be a formality in front of the jury, and so the first twelve people plus the alternates were to stay, since there wouldn't even be any interviews of the jurors to see if either side objected to anyone. I wasn't in the first set of people, so I and twenty or thirty other people just left. In the second occasion, we had a smaller group and only eight jurors were to be picked. The first thing the judge did was ask where a certain person was, and thanked him for his service as the chair of the law school for UT Austin, and noted that his term had coincidentally ended just that morning. He also excused the chairman emeritus. Serving military personnel were also thanked for their service and excused, due to the nature of the case. Then the lawyers started talking about the basics of the case. This was a personal injury case, and there were multiple parties being sued, who of course each had their own lawyers. All of the defendant lawyers seemed quite capable and very professional. However, the plaintiff lawyer was, to be kind, clearly an ambulance chaser. He kept saying stuff during the intro that he shouldn't be saying and some things were literally illegal to say, and the other lawyers and the judge kept calling him on that. After the intros were done, the judge asked if there was anyone in the room who still needed to be excused, and if so they would need to come up and explain it to him. I held up my hand, and was directed to approach the bench, along with the all of the lawyers. The judge asked me what was wrong, and since the guy was literally standing right next to me, I said "I'm sorry sir, but I have already taken a very intense disliking to one of the lawyers, and I'm afraid that I may not be able to be impartial with regards to anything they might say or do, to the detriment of their clients." The judge seemed quite surprised, and the lawyer for the plaintiff asked me if I could say who it was. Since he was standing right beside me, while looking straight at the judge, I said to him "with all due respect sir, I really don't think you want me to answer that question." The judge excused me, and I think I saw some light smiles on the faces of the other lawyers. As I walked out, I desperately wanted to tell the actual plaintiffs that they needed to get a better lawyer, but I kept my mouth shut. So far, that's been it.
dctoedt 4y ago
As a young lawyer long ago, I was "picked" for the jury (that is, I wasn't struck) for a two-week capital murder trial. Also "picked" was one somewhat-older lawyer, who ended up as foreman. Each prospective juror was interviewed individually by the lawyers and judge, with no one else in the courtroom. From their questioning, I had the distinct impression that both the prosecutors and the defense counsel were OK with having a couple of lawyers on the jury, to help make sure that the non-lawyer jurors followed the judge's instructions about the burden of proof, etc. And that's how it turned out: A couple of times during deliberations, a juror would say, "Well, I think what happened was X," and either the foreman or I would gently ask, "um, do we have any evidence of that?" Another time, a juror said, "But we heard so-and-so testify that Y happened," and the other lawyer and I had to remind everyone that the judge had instructed us to disregard that testimony. (I was very pleased to see that after just a few times, we two lawyers didn't have to provide such reminders, because other jurors would do so first.)
- ericmcer 4y ago
  Do lawyers ever "play dirty" with the idea that a jury can't just disregard something? It is ineffectual recourse for bad evidence being introduced to ask people to pretend they didn't hear it.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    They sometimes deliberately do so, yes. But the problem is that the jury may realize what the lawyer is doing, and it may bias the jury against that lawyer's side of the case. If one side is playing it straight, and you can tell the other is trying to manipulate you, that makes it easier for you to agree with the side that's playing it straight.

belter 4y ago

Even judges and lawyers can be randomly selected for jury duty.

bell-cot 4y ago
Yep. All the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/john-roberts-jury-duty-supreme-court-justice/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/john-roberts-jury-du...