I was dismissed as a juror in Federal Court today for being too liberal.

[al_liberal]

The case is an individual suing his insurance company for the total loss of his house due to fire. The insurance company says he torched it himself due to his economic situation as it was in 2009. Obviously, he maintains otherwise. The question posed by the insurance company representation was: "does there exist an economic situation that would cause one to behave in a manner that, minus that situation, they would not otherwise behave". I posited that in the age old question of whether it was acceptable to steal a loaf of bread to feed one's family if no other alternatives existed the answer is... yes.

[RagAss]

1. Let me be the first to congratulate you !

[angstlessk]

28. However..that means the only folks on the jury are those who think

stealing a loaf of bread to feed family is a crime...GRR!

[bluestate10]

46. Exactly. nt

[Cid_B]

58. It is a crime...

... Hey, I guess I could be on the jury.

[niyad]

2. good for you!!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. I think it's unfortunate that they dismissed you...

However, I am not surprised.

The lawyers look for anything, anything at all, that they think will prejudice your thinking against their client.

[lilyin]

4. I always get dismissed

from jury duty because I ALWAYS answer the question that I would want the defendant to testify - or else s/he is perceived as guilty. The defense NEVER picks me and I am dismissed. Once, the judge asked if I would be able to take direction from the judge that a defendant not testifying doesn't mean guilty - I said I didn't know. Never get picked.

[blondeatlast]

7. Nor should you. With all due respect, if you cant' follow the judge's orders,

you have no business being on a jury and guilty or innocent, it is almost always a very bad idea for a defendant to testify.

[grasswire]

22. question: where do you stand on jury nullification?

Hmm?

[blondeatlast]

48. Don't like it. Period. nt

[sabrina 1]

54. Why would you not like it? The FFs specifically wanted

the people to be able to nullify laws that they knew would be passed for nefarious reasons sometimes.

Without the jury having the ability to judge the law itself, many people have spent time in jail because of bad laws, not bad acts.

Here's an example. The Feds went after a pot farmer who, in his state, was abiding by the law. The jury was not told that the sentence, if they found him guilty under the Fed law, would be 30 years in jail.

After they realized what they had done, several of them said if they had known the consequences and known they did not have to find him guilty if they felt the law itself was wrong, which they did, they would not have done so.

If even one of them had known about jury nullification, that miscarriage of justice would have been avoided.

It is a way to end bad laws. If I were ever on a MJ jury, I would definitely go for jury nullification.

[brooklynite]

76. "Bad Law" is in the eye of the beholder...

Would it be okay for a conservative jury to nullify a conviction as well? For example, a rape charge brought by one of those women who "ask for it" by dressing "provocatively"?

[sabrina 1]

81. Like the FFs I have faith in the jury system.

I believe that when juries are given the responsibility of deciding someone's fate, they do take it seriously, regardless of political affiliations. And even if sometimes they get it wrong, as we have seen many times, I don't believe that has been deliberate on their part.

I would hope that in the voir dire process, rabid political partisans would be weeded out. And that may explain why Jury Nullification has not played a big role in drug trials, prosecutors most likely do weed out those who disagree with the laws.

But it is a tool that, when a law itself is revealed throughout the trial process to be unfair, can be used and the very fact that it is used so rarely, demonstrates that juries for the most part, do respect the laws and render their decisions based on the laws.

[drmeow]

90. You and me both! n/t

[grasswire]

65. that's what I figured.

Authoritarians rarely do accept the Constitutionally allowed right of the citizen to judge the law as well as the facts of the case -- the last defense against tyranny.

[MindPilot]

32. You mean orders like to ignore certain pieces of evidence?

or orders to accept certain things as factual when you know they aren't?

I won't do those things, will you?

[krabigirl]

44. wow....

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. I never get picked either...

Not for criminal cases.

Only civil cases will pick me.

Once a defense lawyer told me I knew how to look at things, and that was why they dismissed me. They want the most ignorant, blank slate types they can get to be jurors.

Anybody who might know something gets the boot.

It's been my experience, anyway.

[Initech]

23. I got picked as an alternate this time around but the case got thrown out.

It really sucks why - one of the defense attorneys had to leave town due to family issues but it was an interesting case - the guy was on trial was wanted for assault and robbery and they got through two days of testimony before calling it off a week, then when we got back the judge wound up declaring a mistrial because of that.

[eridani]

63. Even worse if you say you are a scientist or an engineer

The side with the weakest case will not want you. Nice to know this extrapolates to any kind of knowledge. :sarcasm:

[al_liberal]

88. I am a scientist/engineer.

I have a masters degree in computer science and my official job title is "principal software engineer".

[seaglass]

79. Well your experience is limited then. Unless you think John Kerry who performed jury duty in 2005

is an "ignorant blank slate" type.

Your comment is offensive. So let me widen your perspective. There are citizens of this country who believe that jury duty is actually a duty of citizenship and while they are just as smart as those who make up excuses to get out of jury duty they take their responsibility seriously. You may not know any of these people but I do and they sit on juries all over the country.

[SoCalDem]

94. I've never even gotten to the point where my panel got selected

I just get the part where I sit there all day and then get sent home..

I think I might not be selected though since I have been robbed at gunpoint, and most of the cases around here involve violence..

Several years back my husband was chosen & when questioned he was excused because it was the murder trial of the asshole who shot & killed our friend's son..

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Are you proud of your stance? Or perhaps thinking that you are really clever for using

that answer to get out of doing your civic duty?

Either way, your contributions to 'due process' and the 'rule of law' are less than, shall we say, stellar.

[villager]

25. surely, you mean, because jury nullification, used against the insurance company,

would have been even more preferable?

[coalition_unwilling]

72. Um, I was responding to post #4, not to the OP. The OP, imho, should

not have been dismissed.

[MindPilot]

29. Remember, if you are ever in court,

your fate will be decided by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

[sharp_stick]

5. I was once dismissed

because I was a scientist. I don't even think there would have been any DNA evidence it was an embezzlement case IIRC.

[DainBramaged]

6. Let me be the first (of the doubter wave) to disbelieve you (they will come)

:sarcasm:

[sfwriter]

9. I was tossed off of one for similar reasons...

[Patiod]

10. I've been tossed off for being a Quaker

It was a capital case. In SE PA, prosecutors know not to seat Quakers on a death penalty case.

Interesting ethical dilemma you faced - speak up and be honest, or get the chance to contribute to a sort of jury nullification. Tough call there.

[sufrommich]

20. Are they allowed to ask your religion? nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. We get a questionnaire in the mail here and it asks about your religion

[sufrommich]

36. Wow, I had no idea. Our Michigan questionnaire is the bare

minimum.

http://courts.michigan.gov/scao/courtforms/general/mc321a.pdf

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. Ours is 5 or 6 pages

My hubby just got one.

[1monster]

61. I recently got a US Federal Court jury questionnaire. It was very brief. Asked

about criminal status, legal resident, citizenship, and stuff like that. It also asked if there there was any medical/mental reason why the potential juror shouldn't/couldn't sit on a jury. I answered truthfully. I'm deaf in one ear and have been having hearing fluctuations in the other. Sometimes I hear reasonably well; other times, I have reqeust several repeats and/or misunderstand what I have heard. I don't have hearing aides and I don't do sign language.

I haven't heard back from them yet.

[MindPilot]

37. Yes. I think there is nothing they can't ask.

There are no anti-discrimination rules at all; they can toss you or keep you for any and all reasons. And of course they don't have to tell you why: "Excused without cause. You are dismissed. Thank you for your service."

[sufrommich]

40. I've served on a jury. It seemed to me that mostly they wanted

jurors who had never sued anybody. Maybe the questions have to do with the nature of the case.

[Bake]

60. See Batson v. Kentucky, US Sup Ct.

Peremptory strikes cannot be for racial reasons, if I recall correctly.

Bake

[provis99]

68. thats nice, but impossible to prove.

They could simply dismiss all the black jurors for other concoted reasons.

[Bake]

78. Per Batson, the burden is on the one striking the juror

to prove that the strike is NOT racial only. The presumption is that it IS racial, as I recall from law school.

Bake

[Patiod]

74. Actually they asked "any problem with the death penalty?"

I was starting a new job the week of the trial, and was relieved to be able to say, "Well, I'm a Quaker...." and the moment the word was out of my mouth, the prosecutor jumped up and said "Move to..." and before he could finish, the judge (who had just spent 15 minutes arguing that I didn't need to take the new job, and should maybe move home with my family) said "Ms Patiod, you are dismissed".

So in my case, the religion wouldn't have come up except it was a capital case.

[defendandprotect]

11. One of the first things my grandmother taught me ... "Of course, you would always steal bread to

feed your children!" --

:)

[gratuitous]

12. 30 years as a legal secretary

NOBODY wants me on their jury. But thanks for showing up!

[jberryhill]

16. You'd be surprised

Last time I was called, I was sure that nobody wanted a lawyer on the jury. Both sides wanted me. It was a miserable three days of a ridiculous claim that should have been dismissed on motions. I asked the judge afterwards why it wasn't and he said, "Nobody filed one."

Arrggghhhh....

[gratuitous]

21. I did make it to voir dire once

And after I made it plain that I wasn't likely to convict unless the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt like the judge said (it was a penny ante criminal case), I think the assistant district attorney decided he'd rather take his chances with a panel that wasn't quite so literal in its understanding of the court's instructions.

[Hepburn]

69. Retired lawyer with a criminal defense background....

...called, but never chosen. At least you got a thank you! :hi:

[Maat]

14. No one wants me on a jury because ...

(1) I am a retired social worker;

(2) I have a law degree (I'm non-practicing).

I was told that I would have a tendency to analyze the defendant's psychosocial background and be sympathetic (maybe). I was also told that I would critique the behavior of the attorneys (no doubt). They could have none of that.

Hubby is always kicked off because -

(1) he is an engineer (and is far too logical and analytical); &

(2) he has a law degree.

So, we go there and waste a day until they figure this out.

[Spinny Liberal]

15. Ahhh been there done that.

"The defense thanks and excuses the bleeding heart liberal."

[Initech]

17. I've never been asked my political leanings in jury duty.

Although if I did, I wouldn't hesitate to let 'em know which side I'm on! :evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

18. Kudos to you for your honesty

:hi:

[Modern_Matthew]

19. Lol, no surprise. The "justice" system is one big charade in need of major reform. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

24. I would think that if they could provide he torched it then he would be in jail for arson

but hey, I am just another crazy liberal. What do I know?

[MindPilot]

33. That was my first thought too

If the guy wasn't charged with arson, then on what grounds did the insurance company have to deny the claim?

[aquart]

26. You know what means, don't you? GRAND JURY duty.

If lawyers won't select you for their panels, the grand jury will take you no questions asked. At least, that's how it worked for me. You're breathing? Speak English? Sit down and take this oath.

[MindPilot]

27. I've been on seven jury panels...not a single jury.

They really don't like engineers and technicians. The judges and lawyers want compliant authoritarian personality types who will simply sit there and do what they are told. I watched a guy tossed off a jury panel (the defendant was charged with DUI) because he had a degree in chemistry and understood exactly how the breathalyzer works.

You are in good company.

[JoeyT]

75. Yep. That's what got me a dismissal from a DUI trial.

They didn't want someone there that could explain exactly how breathalyzers work. They apparently preferred a bunch of people that thought it worked by witchcraft or divine intervention.

"Do you understand how a breathalyzer works?"
"Yes, when the little imps in the box smell alcohol they make lights come on."
"We'll take him."

[texshelters]

30. I don't cheer

for this person needs you on the jury.

Too bad you didn't remain on it. I don't know if it's because you are too liberal, but you showed you cared. Insurance companies can have caring members of society on their jury.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[renegade000]

31. what a bizarre question

I probably would be dismissed for pointing out what a ridiculous question that was. I mean an economic situation is a pretty broad set of circumstances. Might as well ask, "Does there exist a situation that would cause one to behave in a manner that, minus the situation, they would not otherwise behave," which is trivially true. People aren't rocks... we react to external stimuli :P.

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I was dismissed from a trial where 2 millionaires were suing each other

They said it would be a two week trial and we may have read about the case because these two men had sued each other before. So when I was questioned, I said I was a teacher and I asked if I was supposed to believe that spending two weeks listening to two men with too much money argue was really more important than teaching my students.

The lawyer loked over at the judge and the judge thanked me and told me to go back to school.

[MrsBrady]

66. love that n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

38. Voir Dire is french for "No liberals wanted."

[NavyDem]

39. I had to re-read the question several times.

If I were sitting a jury panel and asked that question, I also would have answered "yes". When the choice comes down to it, taking care of my family would certainly outweigh whether or not my actions were considered criminal.

[jp11]

41. If you want to be on a jury check out online questionaires

your state might have one OR check out:

http://fija.org/

for some of the guides to getting on a jury.

Simply put if we were all honest about our thoughts and opinions MANY of us wouldn't ever be on a jury.

[IMATB]

53. I served 4 times

1 criminal
2 civil
6 month grand jury

All I was asked was my name, did I work, did I have children at home, could I serve.

The grand jury happened with my name being pulled from a basket.

[Gabi Hayes]

43. don't want to serve? try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MFebZlUJ7E

[bluestate10]

45. Oh well. You gave up a chance to get on a jury and set a milestone.

The movie where an anti-gun activists got himself on a jury and changed the result. Your "principles" drove you to let the insurance company off the hook without nary a fight. I hope other liberals were crafty enough to give the answers that the bastards wanted in hopes of getting on the jury to kick their asses.

[Stevenmarc]

47. Good if you wanted out of jury duty, bad if you wanted to stick it to an insurance company

[TlalocW]

49. I was dismissed for

Asking the judge why the hell he was still in his robe at 3 in the afternoon.

Not really.

TlalocW

[sarge43]

50. My husband was dismissed as a juror for being retired military.

I imagine because of the perception that all military personnel are of the reactionary mind set. Stereotypes cut both way.

[Curmudgeoness]

51. They never dismiss me. Then again,

they never ask any questions like that. The best questions I get is "are you related to a law enforcement officer" or "would you have a problem being objective about the evidence presented".

Your answer was perfect.

[quaker bill]

52. One should speak the truth

and allow the process to work. For the most part, both sides want people without well formed opinions going into the case. Each side has a limited number of pre-emptive juror challenges, the insurance company apparently decided to spend one on you. This is not a bad thing. It leaves them one less to spend. They might have ended up with someone else they would have otherwise challenged, but for you.

I was challenged off a criminal case because I knew of the work of the innocence project. I saw a guy disqualified from a child molestation case because he said if the guy was proven guilty he would vote to hang him by his yutz. As far as I could tell, this was his honest answer.

I have sat jury on 3 cases, two plead out before the trial finished. One actually went to deliberations. It was fascinating because as different as we were both politically and in background, getting to a decision was easy as everyone was on the same page almost immediately.

[IMATB]

55. Speak the truth

Yes, we were told to bring opinions, our prejudices, our life experiences. We were told that by the D.A.

[quaker bill]

96. The truth is that everyone has opinions

and you might get challenged off a jury panel because of them, it is the way the system works. Both sides are limited in their challenges. Several people who were concerned politically about jury awards of damages being excessive were challenged off the panel I sat on, so, it works both ways.

[saras]

56. You gotta look ahead

And give 'em the answer they want to hear, even if they don't know it.

"does there exist an economic situation that would cause one to behave in a manner that, minus that situation, they would not otherwise behave?"

Response: Yep. I get a job that pays me money, and I work hard and am conscientious. If they quit paying me, I quit working.

[1monster]

62. I would have answered that question with a quizzical "Would you repeat that ,

please, in plain grammatically correct English?"

[Odin2005]

57. Trial by jury is a fucking joke nowadays, only idiots are allowed to sit on juries now.

[Dawson Leery]

59. Too many prosecutors want compliant sheep who will do as they are instructed.

At the same time, a defense attorney is not allowed to seek out those would be sympathetic to their clients defense.

[LooseWilly]

73. The defense is as able to dismiss potential jurors as the prosecution...

and they do dismiss potential jurors all the time in pursuit of jurors who will... be whatever they're hoping they will be.

In my experience the dismissal of potential jurors alternates between prosecution and defense... some number, like 3 each... then new potential jurors from the pool are picked to sit in the chairs and answer questions... then more are dismissed... then more called from the pool to replace those dismissed, and asked questions... I think there were about 4 rounds of that, with potential jurors who made it through one round sometimes then dismissed if none of the newer batch was worth using a dismissal on... before a jury is finally settled upon.

And trust me... on the case that the prosecutor didn't think to dismiss me, the defense stumbled across someone sympathetic to his clients' defense.

The question in any particular case is really one of which potentially easily persuaded jurors did one or the other lawyer overlook... and will that/those juror(s) be persuasive enough to change minds rather than persuadable enough to have their minds changed. ... which should, ideally, depend on the evidence.

[badtoworse]

64. You are clearly biased

You did not belong on the jury. The trial was about whether the homeowner committed the arson; not whether the arson was justified. Deliberate destruction of property you have insure and then filing a claim is fraud - period. You're statement indicated you were willing to excuse such an act and clearly biased in favor of the defendant.

[Hissyspit]

71. Hunh?

"The trial was about whether the homeowner committed the arson; not whether the arson was justified."

"You're statement indicated you were willing to excuse such an act."

If the trial was not about justified arson, then why would a willingness to excuse it matter?

If the judge and D.A. were worried about jury nullification, then your first statement is false.

[BroccoliTowel]

67. yeah...

yeah...
I'm with the last guy
that's not OK to commit insurance fraud. It's illegal, it's theft, and it should be prosecuted.

The thing that's ass here is that it sounds like the insurance company is trying to make the case just based on the fact that the guy's poor, they're trying to instate anti-poor discrimination. That's a pretty dick move.

[Silver Swan]

70. I was only called for jury duty once in Cook County Illinois.

My panel included a judge. When we were called to a court room, we had to walk through the lobby of the court house where a few lawyers said hello the judge on our panel.

In the courtroom nothing happened because there was a plea bargain made, so they didn't need a trial. We were all dismissed.

[ieoeja]

86. Got my 4th summons last Friday. California and 26th this time.

The others were at the Daley Center.

Sat in the waiting room til noon the first time. Then was dismissed.

Picked for a jury the second time. Broke for lunch immediately after jury selection. Came back and learned they had settled over lunch (sort of like your experience).

Third went to trial and the jury room. Defense admitted guilt, but claimed the plaintiff showed no external signs of injury. However, they did not provide a single piece of medical evidence supporting their assertion. All the medical evidence was provided by the plaintiff. So with 100% of the evidence supporting the plaintiff, the jury ultimitely ruled in favor of the defense.

The judge and lawyers, even those for the defense, expressed their disgust with our jury. They questioned us afterwards on how we could have possibly come up with such a horrible ruling. While everybody squirmed, I cheerfully explained. "The original vote was 9 white people against the Hispanic plaintiff, 2 Black women and me in favor of the plaintiff. Draw your own conclusions."

My fellow jurors found their voices then. In the jury room nobody said anything racial. But during the debate, they were clearly looking for a reason, any reason, to vote for the defense. Why?

I actually swung a few of them the right way initially when I pointed out the 100% evidence fact. But after the ones willing to ignore all evidence got tired of arguing with me, they asked the two Black women their reasons.

"The plaintiff would have never gone to trial if he weren't telling the truth."
"The plaintiff was probably talked into this by the lawyers, and I don't want him to get stuck with the legal bills."

After that any attempt to bring them back to the 100% evidence point was met with immediate attacks on the above stupid arguments. If the vote had initially gone 11-1, I think I could have won the day. But the others on my "side" gave them the opening they needed to trash our side.


Not looking forward to criminal court next week. But what the hey.

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

77. Hey, I have Jury Duty this week too.

Likely will have to go in tomorrow...

Only been selected to be on a Jury once. Have been "Thanked and excused" twice and sat around while others were called a few times.

[CoffeeCat]

80. I had the same thing happen to me...

If you ever want to be excused from jury duty--and avoid being picked--just tell them
how you really feel.

It's my understanding that the prosecution and the defense have the right to pick
and dismiss potential jury members--based on who they feel would be best/worst for
their cases.

The case, in which I was a potential juror, involved a man suing the government because
they took his land and did not reimburse him the fair-market value for it. I was asked
about my political beliefs. I said liberal. I was asked, specifically, if I had ever
blogged or protested about liberal issues. I said yes.

I went home about a half hour later!

[lpbk2713]

82. They have been withholding payment for two years?

Cheap bastids would probably prefer to pay more for lawyers that to reimburse the policy holder for their loss.

Insurance companies -- the "new" organized crime.




Ed: WTG for sticking to your principles. :thumbsup:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. I usually get dismissed when I tell them I'm an Anarchist.

I was surprised when I actually had to be a juror despite my "radicalism".

[lpbk2713]

84. I was blackballed as a juror about twenty years ago.

The other jurors made me the foreman. When it was time to deliver our verdict,
the judge wanted to know how I felt about the case personally.

I honored his request. :eyes:

I've always had the suspicion that the case was thrown out after that.
Whatever, I haven't had a notice to appear for jury duty since then.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

85. Take It As A Compliment

I have a fair bit of experience in picking juries, and I can tell you that conventional wisdom is that you don't want jurors who are "too educated," unless the facts of the case call for it (because if you've got a very technical case, and only one juror fully understands the ins and outs of it, that juror will dominate the jury room once deliberations start, and the other jurors will likely bow to his/her experience/education). By dismissing you because you're "too liberal," the attorney was essentially telling you that you were too smart. So congratulations!

I'm also guessing it was the insurance company lawyer who challenged you. Because being liberal means you won't just bend over and allow an insurance company to "toss your salad" the way most other people will.

[abelenkpe]

87. Nice!

I'd consider that a compliment. :)

[badgerpup]

89. I got the ax during voir dire...

...on a drunk driving case.

Asked the attorney too many questions about mass, amount of alcohol ingested over how much time, what else had been consumed and metabolic rate...and I wasn't trying to get kicked off either!

:shrug:

[Cass]

91. Ok, so reading this thread it seems that chumps get picked for juries.

Members of my family have been picked as jurors, I have been, my neighbor was, and a couple of my co-workers were. I guess that means we are uneducated simpletons. Good to know.

:eyes:

[sufrommich]

92. Ignore the idiots spouting drivel. Anybody who's ever been

on a jury knows the cross section of jurors is very diverse.

[al_liberal]

95. It wasn't because you guys are simpletons...

but more because none of you said or did anything that was viewed as objectionable by either party. I wasn't the only masters degreed engineer there but I was the only one that spoke up. The other guy was seated on the jury.

[Ohio Joe]

93. Speaking as someone that lost everything in a fire

You would never... NEVER want to burn down your home for insurance money. What you lose can not be replaced.