7 ms·
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I w
by Buttons840 4y ago
I wonder what portion of jurors know what jury nullification is? I've always thought I could simply utter those words and get out of any jury duty. Not that I would, I would love to serve on a jury.
I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury?
- duxup 4y ago> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I served on a jury. Can’t imagine why any given HN user wouldn’t be allowed…
- j-bos 4y agoThere's stereotype that neither prosecuters nor defense attorneys(ies?) want critical thinkers on the jury. Limits their powers of influence.
- dbcurtis 4y agoBut in the end, they only get a fixed number of preemptory challenges. (Over their unlimited number of “excused for cause” because even the judge agrees. ) I served on a jury once because the prosecutor rolled the dice on his last preemptory, knowing he would be stuck with whatever clown was next in line. I was that clown.
- bbddg 4y agoHN readers should be perfect jury members then.
- ninkendo 4y agoHN readership is large enough that we’ve pretty much regressed to the mean with respect to critical thinking. I don’t think HN readers are statistically better than average here, there’s just too many of us for that to be possible.
- duxup 4y agoCan confirm, reads HN, been on jury, i am pretty dumb.
- duxup 4y agoWhat is interesting is I have sever lawyers in my family. Criminal, corporate, and otherwise. All do trial work. They all say no matter how many test juries (their clients sometimes actually pay for them to try out arguments on a group of people), or how much jury study they do…. it is hard to predict how a juror will act / be influenced based on demographics. My limited experience was similar, folks were not super predictable.
- kasey_junk 4y agoWhy in the world would HN readers not be eligible to serve on a jury. I was on a jury trial when a spouse of a prosecutor office employee was allowed on. People drastically overestimate what will get you moved out of the pool.
- Spooky23 4y agoDepends on the case. I served on a jury with a very surprised former deputy US Attorney. In general, they don’t like technical people on technical cases. My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked.
- nybble41 4y ago> My employer is known to pay for jury duty, so I always get picked. Wouldn't that unduly bias the jury selection? In effect the employer is being allowed to buy extra representation.
- mcv 4y agoYes, but so does everything else around jury selection.
- Zak 4y agoI imagine it being the side that isn't confident in its technical position that doesn't like technical people on juries. Usually, there's a limited number each side can dismiss without cause. To dismiss more than that, they have to convince the judge that the juror will not honestly decide the case according to the evidence and the law.
- Spooky23 4y agoIt’s more that they don’t want specialized knowledge spoiling the deliberation. If I’m an expert in cellular towers, you don’t want me contradicting the expert on cellular towers testimony on the basis of the magic knowledge that I claim to have.
- 4y ago
- SantalBlush 4y agoI served on a grand jury for three months. We listened to police testimony, the DA's office told us the charges, and we voted. Police testimony was all we had to work with when deciding whether or not to indict. It felt like a charade.
- brewdad 4y agoSure but that's only the indictment phase. Basically, is there any case here at all. The rest will come out in the trial phase.
- SantalBlush 4y agoI'm not sure why I'm getting multiple replies explaining the purpose of a grand jury when I just said I served on one for three months. I understand the purpose and process more than most here. Indictment alone is serious business. It is enough to ruin someone's life, and is not to be taken lightly. So when a grand jury is only given police testimony as evidence, that indicates a shortcoming in the system.
- netheril96 4y agoThe grand jury and the jury for trial are different things.
- mcv 4y agoI've never been on a jury and live in a country that doesn't have juries at all, as far as I'm aware, but if I lived in the US and served on a jury there, I would never convict solely on police testimony. The police are often not a neutral party. And especially with all the stories of police quotas, extremist groups infiltrating the police, rampant racism in some police departments, and even law enforcement experts telling people to never talk to the police without a lawyer, the US police doesn't come across to me as particularly trustworthy.
- lesuorac 4y agoGrand juries aren't a real trial. It's a procedural requirement before you federally try somebody for a felony. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- IncRnd 4y ago> I also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? Most of them.
- mindcrime 4y agoI also wonder how many HN readers would be allowed on a jury? I don't know, but I was selected for a jury once. That said, I did not make any particular effort to get out of serving. I answered the voir dire questions honestly, but didn't go out of my way to volunteer something just because I thought it might get me out of jury duty. For example, I didn't say "I'm a radical Libertarian who considers the State invalid in principle and strongly supports jury nullification." Had I been asked "are you a radical Libertarian who ..." I would have answered "yes", but it never came up. So I tried to be honest and neutral, and in the end they picked me. The moral of this story? I'm not sure. I will say this though: I learned a lot from the experience. Hopefully I'm never on trial for anything, but if I ever am, I believe my jury experience might actually be helpful to me.
- ch4s3 4y ago> but it never came up I laughed out loud at this.
- agotterer 4y agoI wasn’t trying to get out jury duty, but knowing my juror rights had me excused. When the lawyers went around the room asking questions, one of the questions was something along the lines of “will you uphold the law as the judge describes it”. 40 odd people leading up to me all said yes, and then I said “maybe”. I was asked to step outside to discuss my answer. I pretty much said “I know my rights as a juror and if a law is unjust it’s my duty to say so”. They said I could go home after that.
- LatteLazy 4y agoSurely this defeats the whole point of jury nullification? Yo should have said yes and then voted your conscience no?
- mcv 4y agoIs it perjury to lie in this case?
- LatteLazy 4y agoI guess we could argue back and forth about "will you uphold the law as the judge describes it". Are jurors usually sworn in in courts? But you're in a very difficult position morally when asked that question (assuming it's for the purpose of removing anyone who will engage in jury nullification). If you actually believe in jury nullification then morally you have to lie right? Otherwise you're allowing someone to override what you consider to be an important civil right. It's no different to someone standing outside a polling booth and refusing entry unless you promised to vote for his candidate: if you actually believe in democracy you need to lie... To be clear, I am not absolutely convinced by the whole Jury Nullification thing. Obviously it's practically possible but I am not convinced it is a good thing, let alone a civil right or a check on power etc. I am a limey brit and over here we don't "pick" or "disqualify" jurors for better or worse. So aside from knowing people involved in the case, you don't get asked questions like this...
- curiousgal 4y agoI don't understand what the big deal about perjury is. You have politicians lying under oath all the time and having 0 punishments despite the huge ramifications of those lies. Why should the "small time" liars be punished.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ALittleLight 4y agoI was on a jury when I was young, maybe eighteen, and haven't been on one again. I was disappointed not to get a whodunnit or some complex case. Instead ,I was on a DUI that resulted in a crash with some extra circumstances. The defense was entirely presented at closing and amounted to the claim that the defendant stopped his car right before the crash, let a hitchhiker take the wheel, the hitchhiker caused the crash, moved the defendant into the driver's seat and belted him in there so that the fire department arrived and photographed the defendant there, and then ran off. Even if the crazy hitchhiker story were true then the defendant was still admitting to DUI, and, in my mind, being responsible for the crash. It was basically a huge waste of time since all jurors instantly voted to convict.
- credit_guy 4y agoThat's quite a funny story. Was that self-defense? If not, is a lawyer ethically allowed to present such a defense?
- the_only_law 4y agoWouldn’t be the dumbest thing I’ve heard out of a lawyer.