3 ms·

As my good fortune would have it, I'm called to jury duty two weeks from now. I doubt I'll be sat though. Should I be, I'll keep the above in mind.

linuxftw 2y ago
If it's a criminal case, be sure to checkout the innocence project to inform yourself on some of the junk science police and prosecutors like to use.
SpaceNoodled 2y ago
They tend to specifically choose against people with critical thinking skills.
- Spivak 2y ago
  Everyone says this but when people say "critical thinking skills" it really means "is obvious they will willfully disobey the instructions given to them by the judge and hold their own moral/ethical code above the law." You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty. I might agree with you that the law is bullshit but by right you and I should be dismissed.
  - feoren 2y ago
    > hold their own moral/ethical code above the law ... I might agree with you that the law is bullshit This is the entire reason that we have trial by jury and not trial by judge. I'm not sure how this got lost over the centuries. If 12 of your peers think you did it but the law is bullshit and you shouldn't have your life destroyed because of some stupid technicality in a bullshit law, then you should walk free! I'm aware this has been used to horrible ends in the past (e.g. 12 white jurors nullifying a lynching) but that's a problem with jury selection (and those so-called peers), not with nullification. > You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty Yes, that is the only time nullification is relevant. If a judge can lead the jury to one verdict or another via his instructions, then it's not a trial by jury at all. It's a trial by judge. The founders understood that -- they didn't want a trial by judge. The jury is a check on the judge's power!
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      Jury is peer, not subordinate of judge, and they should keep each other in check. Some tyrannical judges don't understand this. Sometimes the judge has to be reminded he is wrong in a way he can't prove he's been reminded, however.
okwhateverdude 2y ago
If you don't want to be sat, just mention Jury Nullification. Courts really hate that sanity check on the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
- feoren 2y ago
  I once got called into jury duty and sat through jury selection. On that day, protesters were outside the courthouse calling awareness to jury nullification, so the judge brought it up. He said something like: "jury nullification is a constitutional right, but you waive those rights when you take the oath of a juror. It is not an option to you." I really wanted to say "but that constitutional right is not my right, it's the defendant's right. How can I waive the defendant's constitutional right to a trial where jury nullification is a possible outcome?" However, it was a rape trial, where nullification would be an awful outcome (basically saying: yeah, he raped her, but that shouldn't be illegal in this case ... yuck), so I kept my mouth shut. But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant.
  - aftbit 2y ago
    I had a very similar situation when I was called. The trial subject was systematic elder abuse and neglect by a person in a position of power at a hospital. I was very glad to not be chosen. I would not have nullified and I did not want to spend weeks hearing about how this woman basically tortured helpless people.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    > But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant. Around here, people are clamoring for a judge to be recalled because she is on top of rights for defendants. A recent one I watched on Zoom was a prosecution motion to revoke bail: Prosecutor: "Because blah blah blah, and in addition the defendant shows no signs of taking responsibility for his actions, we..." Judge, cutting her off: "I'm going to stop you there. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and as of this moment has not been found guilty at trial. In the eyes of the court, he has precisely zero obligation to take responsibility for alleged actions at this point in time." Prosecutor was not happy.

linuxftw 2y ago

If it's a criminal case, be sure to checkout the innocence project to inform yourself on some of the junk science police and prosecutors like to use.

SpaceNoodled 2y ago

They tend to specifically choose against people with critical thinking skills.

Spivak 2y ago
Everyone says this but when people say "critical thinking skills" it really means "is obvious they will willfully disobey the instructions given to them by the judge and hold their own moral/ethical code above the law." You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty. I might agree with you that the law is bullshit but by right you and I should be dismissed.
- feoren 2y ago
  > hold their own moral/ethical code above the law ... I might agree with you that the law is bullshit This is the entire reason that we have trial by jury and not trial by judge. I'm not sure how this got lost over the centuries. If 12 of your peers think you did it but the law is bullshit and you shouldn't have your life destroyed because of some stupid technicality in a bullshit law, then you should walk free! I'm aware this has been used to horrible ends in the past (e.g. 12 white jurors nullifying a lynching) but that's a problem with jury selection (and those so-called peers), not with nullification. > You're literally describing jury nullification in a situation where by the hypothetical judge's instructions they're obviously guilty Yes, that is the only time nullification is relevant. If a judge can lead the jury to one verdict or another via his instructions, then it's not a trial by jury at all. It's a trial by judge. The founders understood that -- they didn't want a trial by judge. The jury is a check on the judge's power!
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Jury is peer, not subordinate of judge, and they should keep each other in check. Some tyrannical judges don't understand this. Sometimes the judge has to be reminded he is wrong in a way he can't prove he's been reminded, however.

okwhateverdude 2y ago

If you don't want to be sat, just mention Jury Nullification. Courts really hate that sanity check on the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

feoren 2y ago
I once got called into jury duty and sat through jury selection. On that day, protesters were outside the courthouse calling awareness to jury nullification, so the judge brought it up. He said something like: "jury nullification is a constitutional right, but you waive those rights when you take the oath of a juror. It is not an option to you." I really wanted to say "but that constitutional right is not my right, it's the defendant's right. How can I waive the defendant's constitutional right to a trial where jury nullification is a possible outcome?" However, it was a rape trial, where nullification would be an awful outcome (basically saying: yeah, he raped her, but that shouldn't be illegal in this case ... yuck), so I kept my mouth shut. But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant.
- aftbit 2y ago
  I had a very similar situation when I was called. The trial subject was systematic elder abuse and neglect by a person in a position of power at a hospital. I was very glad to not be chosen. I would not have nullified and I did not want to spend weeks hearing about how this woman basically tortured helpless people.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > But it still bothers me that the judge was so glib about "waiving" the constitutional rights of the defendant. Around here, people are clamoring for a judge to be recalled because she is on top of rights for defendants. A recent one I watched on Zoom was a prosecution motion to revoke bail: Prosecutor: "Because blah blah blah, and in addition the defendant shows no signs of taking responsibility for his actions, we..." Judge, cutting her off: "I'm going to stop you there. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and as of this moment has not been found guilty at trial. In the eyes of the court, he has precisely zero obligation to take responsibility for alleged actions at this point in time." Prosecutor was not happy.