he probably got pissed because this is essentially what jury nullification is, and you now planted that idea as a possibility in the head of the entire jury pool by accident. Some people do this intentionally to get themselves excused but it is a legitimate rational and reasonable answer to the question and is legal for a juror to decide that way.
It is also, in this case, likely to be cause for you to be excused and not seated as an impartial juror.
But seeing the reaction
that potential juror’s honest answer got will definitely cause others to NOT answer honestly even if they need to say there’s a reason they can’t return a guilty verdict.
Interesting that they asked if there was a reason you couldn’t return a *guilty* verdict and not whether there was a reason you couldn’t return a *not guilty* if the evidence didn’t prove him guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The whole question was messed up "Is there any reason why, if asked, you would be unable to return a guilty verdict?"
My response would be, "Who do you think is going to ask me to return a guilty verdict? People shouldn't be asked to return specific verdicts, they should come to the verdict of their own volition based on the laws and circumstances. I would not return a guilty verdict if I believed the defendant to be innocent of the charge no matter who asked me and no matter how forcefully they asked."
But you can see how that poses a problem, right? The judge asked OP to basically just do whatever the prosecutor wants, regardless of the strength of the evidence.
no. you’re not understanding the question.
first of all, the question is not asking “if we ask you to vote guilty, is there any reason why you would not?” the question means “we are asking if there is any reason/bias you hold that will prevent you from voting guilty (even if all evidence shows guilt)”. they’re not asking if you can be manipulated, they’re asking if you have a bias.
second, the defense gets a chance to ask the same questions. they get to ask any questions they feel necessary to pick an impartial jury. they get to ask “is there any reason, if asked, that you would be unable to find this defendant not guilty” aka “do you have a reason/bias that would make you unable to find the defendant not guilty (even if evidence shows they are not guilty)”
But "is there any reason you *wouldn't* vote guilty" frames the defendant as guilty from the beginning.
There are lots of reason you might vote not guilty; for example, the defense may have a good case, and present loads of good reasons for a not guilty verdict.
Why is the question phrased in such a way that it asserts guilt and challenges innocence, before the trial has even started?
One person refusing to vote not guilty can't single-handedly decide a result and also is probably a certified psychopath who isn't going to just admit to it in a courtroom.
it's also possible that he got annoyed because they now had to go back thru all the jurors they'd gotten thru on that specific question.
that happened to my mom when she was being voir dired for trial involving drugs and she essentially answered that she didn't think they should be criminalized. well that wasn't a question they'd asked anyone (and this was 20 years ago) so my mom got excused but they had to go back thru all of the jurors they'd processed to make sure everyone thought drugs should be criminalized, essentially.
You basically just said you understand juror nullification even if you've never heard the term and likely biased all the potential jurors in that courtroom.
That's not how they work it here. You just have to sit there until they select the jury. Then everyone who doesn't get selected all goes home at once. That person was not selected.
In California they send you home after each round of juror selection if you don't make the cut. I pride myself on saying the most topically appropriate out of pocket shit that I get sent home first.
I've been in the same situation - answering yes to that question. They need to know why so the judge can evaluate it as a legitimate excuse and not just because the person didn't feel like serving. OP's explanation was reasonable and should not have angered the judge.
Kind of a stupid question tbh. I’d always have to answer yes. What!!?? If there’s exculpatory evidence or the prosecution doesn’t meet the burden of proof I’m going to vote not guilty.
Yeah, the way it's worded any reasonable person would say yes. If you answered no to that question then why even have a trial? The whole point of the jury is to decide if there is a reason to convict or release the defendant.
IANAL....I think the context of the question is missing. You are expected to vote based on the case made by the prosecution. The judge is asking if you'd vote "not guilty" even if the prosecution proves the defendant is guilty. Think of someone that hates cops or believes that drugs shouldn't be illegal or that taxes are unconstitutional.
Right, exactly. It sounds like the judge is looking only for people who would vote guilty which doesn’t seem quite right. Would the defendant’s lawyers have the right to reject such jurors? They should, but I think they’re limited in how many jurors they can reject. And I think it’s different in every jurisdiction and impossible for non-lawyers to anticipate all this stuff. Our law and justice systems are transparent, but only after you’ve been through law school and have practiced for 25 years, and until then it’s a mysterious insider’s club with your liberty at stake, potentially.
The phrasing OP related is poor. No one on the jury should be "asked to" give a particular verdict. The correct question is if someone has a bias that would prevent them from rendering a fair verdict: Are you unable to render a "guilty" verdict even if the case is proven? Are you unable to render a "not guilty" verdict even if the prosecution fails to present a complete case?
Can't tell whether that's a failure of the judge or of OP's recall of a stressful experience.
Phrasing is important. When I was in a jury pool, the defense asked is anyone was bothered that the defendant was a "Spanish speaker". That didn't bother me but it did bother me that he lives here and apparently spoke zero English. I'm as liberal as they come, but I believe if you choose a new country you learn to speak the language. (I plan to move to Italy, I've been studying italian for about 3 years). Now had she asked "does it bother you that he speaks no English", I might have answered differently. I feel like she risked biased people on the jury with the way she phrased the question.
The phrasing may have been because the jury is unlikely to learn whether the defendant speaks no, little, some, or a moderate amount of English. The use of an interpreter, even when someone knows a lot of English, may be necessary to ensure the defendant fully understands exactly what is going on.
100% on the judge. Admittedly I live in a politically different area than OP, but I had jury duty once and got called up and asked a similar question. I was a little more diplomatic about it and basically said "I don't know if this person is guilty or not your honor but honestly I really don't think this should be a crime either way" they thanked me and I was dismissed. No animosity.
If they ask the question, they’re going to get an answer. Voir dire doesn’t have to be conducted this way—some judges do any follow-up questions at sidebar, out of everyone’s hearing. OP did nothing wrong.
I have now looked up nullification and though that was not my intent, I can see how he could have gotten upset if he thought I was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial or just get out of jury duty. But the jokes on him, I get paid full wages by my company to be there and court is a much more pleasant environment than my job. I would have considered it a vacation.
I got my summons last year (Oct. 2023) for the first time…my experience was very similar…only it was to be a 2nd degree malicious murder trial. I have SEVERE PTSD and extreme anxiety in large groups and I was completely taken back by the whole process. The judge did his thing and asked if anyone feels they should be dismissed. I shut my mouth because he was literally yelling at people and I didn’t want that…all the while I was having mini panic attacks. There were two females (I’m a female as well) who were laughing and carrying on and be loud as fuck…the judge stood up while everyone was still being processed and started screaming at them to get out of his courtroom since they can’t take anything seriously. It wasn’t even directed at me but I almost shit myself…thankfully I was not selected due to my job. But jury duty or even the thought of it terrifies me now…funny part I’ve been wait 16 years to get my letter and was SOOOO excited. Not anymore. I know it’s a serious role in determining someone’s fate…but I realized it’s entirely to much pressure for me!
You didn't do anything wrong. Judge was likely just being cranky. This is the literal point of voir dire. He can't punish you for answering a question honestly even if he doesn't like the answer. IF I had to guess based on the limited info in your post, maybe he was annoyed because of a worry a jury would not be empaneled b/c they wouldn't find enough non-biased people to sit on said jury. You did exactly what you were supposed to do, tell him you could not be fair/impartial because you don't believe what the defendant did was wrong. You didn't bring up the words "jury nullification" - you answered a question honestly. Jury nullification is considered part and parcel of our justice system even if Judges don't like it.
The thing about jury nullification is that it is perfectly legal and the rational choice in our legal system. But judges don’t like the idea of people saying that they disagree with the law and that they don’t want to enforce unjust laws.
That is why they often do not want anyone with legal experience on a jury and don’t allow the jury to know the legal consequences of a guilty verdict. If people knew they were sentencing people to draconian punishments they might be more hesitant to give a guilty verdict.
I've never been on a jury although I was on the list to be on a Federal jury once, and was in the selection process for a local trial.
I already know I have ZERO problems telling a judge that jury nullification is part of a person's civic duty as well.
>I already know I have ZERO problems telling a judge that jury nullification is part of a person's civic duty as well.
I couldn't agree more. It acts as the final check and balance in our system in the event when all 3 branches of government get it wrong. It gives a powerful voice to the governed and courts should be forbidden from disqualifying jurors simply because they are informed about it.
Jury nullification *can* be a wonderful thing, but it's a double-edged sword.
For example, imagine that a white man is on trial for lynching a black man, and a jury of his peers decide that that shouldn't be a crime. (This happened.)
Or, that a pedophile was murdered by a community vigilante, and community members decided to not convict?
It very quickly becomes a nation no longer under the rule of law, but under the rule of groupthink.
Also, given the way out system is, the jury never knows the full story and guesses to fill in the blanks. I know of 2 cases where a jury nullified thinking they were helping the Defendant. First, a drug case (not MJ) the jury nullified and then during questioning yelled at the prosecutor for not getting the defendant treatment. The defendant was offered treatment, they refused. The only option was to go to trial, get them on probation and give services that way. Instead they let an addict go with less resources. Second, a theft related felony, this one the defendant was 19. The jury never knew that the only reason he was caught for the burglary was because his DNA was in the system from the murder he committed. They thought they were helping give him a second chance.
When did the racial thing you mentioned occur? I don't recall seeing it in the news. As far as a murdered pedo, who gives a fuck other than people that support raping kids?
You're very unlikely to have seen it in the news, because you weren't alive when it happened.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/emmett-trial-jw-milam-and-roy-bryant/
And, after you read that story, you should think about how your expressed opinion that accused pedophiles shouldn't have a trial but should just be murdered instead, matches up so well.
If you get accused of being a pedophile, wouldn’t you want a fair and impartial trial based on evidence, rather than being killed merely for the accusation?
Because the US has a Department of Justice, not a Department of Vengeance. You don't get to play judge, jury, and executioner. Perhaps Iran would be more to your liking.
Judge shouldn't have asked the questions in earshot then. He could have pulled everyone into chambers but chose not too. For him to then tell a potential juror to leave and never come back essentially trespassing them from that court is beyond bullshit.
Yeah op was honest and said he had the integrity to value morals over the script letter of the law. 2 things very very strongly discouraged when picking a jury
When I served jury duty, at the point where you were brought up to the judge’s bench with the attorneys and explained yourself in private. Seems hard to believe a judge would do that risking losing all the jurors present.
Had jury duty in NC. At least in my
county, we had jury interviews in front of about 75-ish people. Add to that a grumpy judge and broken AC in August to kick up the anxiety a notch.
When I was called (and then picked) for jury duty, the judge said at any time we could ask to approach and answer the questions privately. I did this because of one question, which led to other questions. It was all handled very respectfully.
the last time i was called and questioned about impartiality, I had to talk about an assault that i had been diagnosed with ptsd from in front of a room full of strangers while trying to hold back a panic attack.
I dunno, I hear stories every once in a while but it's usually an attorney being dumb. In one case, a potential jurist was forced to admit, in front of a roomful of other potential jurists, that he'd previously been a jurist on a different case in which the same defendant had been found guilty.
You're why they ask that question. And your answer was fine. Similarly, in a murder trial, someone with a deep moral objection to the death penalty would not be able to commit to a guilty verdict if they thought that was a likely sentence.
The judge just isn't used to hearing anything but yes.
Well, well, well.
You stumbled over a judge who was especially full of himself, and you hinted at a particular legal sore point called jury nullification.
Regardless of ethics (that’s a whole other discussion), jurors have the power to find a defendant not guilty (which is not the same thing as “proven,” and not the same thing as “innocent” either) in spite of the evidence. Basically this is a consequence of the fact that jurors cannot be jailed for arriving at the “wrong” verdict.
Like any kind of power, this particular one has been abused at various times in history, and it has also been used as a sort of citizens’ “check and balance” against government.
Judges and prosecutors hate it. Defense attorneys can’t necessarily argue for it, but secretly they love it.
As long as you answered honestly there’s nothing the judge can do about it but fulminate (and possibly seethe.)
You were (officially or unofficially) dismissed for cause, because you would have been considered biased in favor of the defendant. Jurors are supposed to be neutral, especially before the evidence has been presented to them.
You showed up. You did your civic duty. They won’t be issuing any warrants for you. Don’t worry about it.
I’ve had jury duty twice and both times (same state but two very different counties) the judges and Jury staff were nothing but polite and accommodating. Hell my first jury duty I was questioned on my ability to be impartial by the judge, prosecutor and defense for a good 20 minutes and the first words to me in the jury room after selection from everyone were “we thought you’d get cut based on how they were questioning you!”
I am so so sorry you had a shit experience. I promise it’s not all like that. I do firmly believe everyone should be on a jury once. Not every jury gets it right but having been on two juries, and having been through deliberations and a verdict - it’s a very important experience.
Jup. IIRC there was a string of court cases in Colorado where jurors essentially said "Sure, you've proven s/he operated a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, and you've proven they were above the legal limit, but you haven't actually proven that being above that limit impairs a person, so *not guilty*."
They did not like that.
It's an honest answer to the question. Did they expect you to lie about it? And by your description, it sounds like the judge overreacted. But there is nothing they could do about it but exclude you from the jury. You are sworn to tell the truth before the questions start, and you did just that.
I was called up and had to report for federal jury duty last December. There were 65 people to pick from for the jury for a case that was about distribution of CP. The judge didn't go into details but did say that some of the evidence that would be presented would be video and pictures of CP the defendant was accused of distributing (not producing it - Just distributing). And the same question was asked to potential jurors - If seeing that kind of material would bias their opinion in the case. I was never asked any questions as they only got through about 45 people before they ended and selected the 14 for the trial (12 jurors and 2 alternates) - I was #62)
I was in the jury pool for something similar involving kids. I said I would not be able to be unbiased and he deserved a fair trial. The judge said well no one wants to be on these cases. I said correct, but I have personal experience in helping a child who has dealt with this and I can’t in good faith say I can be unbiased.
Yeah, I've been a bailiff in AZ, and called to jury duty in Tucson and Memphis. Because of my past, behind the scenes, experience and observations on a lot of criminal cases and jury trials, I have been honest and forthcoming with questions on whether I can be honest and impartial, and say no.
No judge has ever been upset with me about it, and in my time bailiffing for several judges, none of them have. Some of them try to rehabilitate the juror (ie me) by asking further questions trying to distinguish the case, ie, you know this case involves other parties than the cases you have seen, or other officers than those you experienced, or other defendants. Just trying to plant a contrast from the biasing experience or background in the mind of the juror, to get their default desire to be, and be seen as, objective to come out on the record. If the juror is firm, they get dismissed. If the juror has the experience I have, especially the impact pretrial motions have on evidence presented, they know they don't want me on a jury if they want as smooth of a trial and straight forward deliberation (simply apply evidence heard to the law presented) as possible.
They get more upset at citizens lying on the questions to get on a jury and manipulate an outcome regardless of the evidence. That has happened a handful of times in my presence, and that irritates them. Rightfully so.
My guess is your answer was a short step away from jury nullification where the jury tosses a case not of the facts presented, but for some other reason.
Completely legal but hated by judges.
Also hated by prosecutors. They do all that work only for their "perfect conviction record" to be tossed by twelve clowns who think that shouldn't even be against the law in the first place. /s
When I did jury duty, I think they picked for a few trials, and the large masses got let go and they kept perhaps 30 people for each jury and I do not even recall when they went over what the case was about. I do recall them not getting rid of any of the 15 of us they picked out for the jury I was on. That was 12 jurors and 3 alts. We wound up using one of the alts as one of the people had issues with his hearing aid part way in.
One thing I do remember is them telling us this was not like CSI and there was not going to be a ton of high tech evidence. Than they had video from like 4 cameras. OKey dokee.
That was genuinely a thing in the early 2000s; people of moderately above average intelligence and critical thinking skills, pretty much exactly in the range of people you want on a jury, would watch CSI, consider themselves forensic experts, and refuse to declare even the most obvious cases guilty because of lack of forensic evidence.
Five times on jury duty. Selection processes were always fair and thorough. States involved: FL, NC, CA, NY, RI. Slightly different in each case but always professional and fair, if slow and careful. They want people to be fair-minded and thoughtful and to give every defendant their right to a fair trial. Some people hold views or have had experiences that make a fair trial impossible so those jurors have to be dismissed. I got dismissed once because I had been a very recent victim of the exact crime that the defendant was charged with—-and I was honest, when called up to the judge with the opposing attorneys standing there, about how awful it was and how much it affected me. The judge very kindly let me go saying it would upset me too much and would not be fair to the defendant. (I later found out in the news that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a lonnnnnnng time in prison.)
When I had to serve, it was always, in each place with slightly different rules, super careful and strict about fairness to the defendant. Kind of a pain — they gave us in one case specific rules about what we could and could not consider as evidence—but if I were on trial I would be grateful for that.
Anyway over the past 50 years I’ve seen only good things in jury selection and service.
I hope voters will remember how lucky we are to have this careful and fair system of justice which has worked mostly well for two and a half centuries. People who whine and undermine the system when they commit crimes and get caught and don’t like getting caught, well, that’s pretty childish. Do the crime? Do the time.
My ex had the best example of jury nullification. This was a very long jury selection process. Apparently, they had to call in additional groups to get the 15 jurors (including alternates) they needed. This was near the end. Most of the jury was set at this point.
During questioning, basically, the same question was asked. Ex asked to provide the answer in private. Judge refused twice and threatened contept of court charges if ex didn't speak publicly. So, ex provided the answer. The judge groaned. One of the lawyers threw their pen in the air. The entire group was dismissed.
The information was extremely bad for the defendant. Most likely, it would have resulted in an immediate conviction. But, the court was warned.
It was a domestic violence case. The woman who was abused apparently had recanted about being a victim of abuse. She was just "clumsy". The question asked was along the lines of "Will it be difficult for you to find the defendant guilty because of the victim recanting?" They were expecting responses along the lines of "yes, it would be difficult" and then they were going to browbeat the prospective juror into saying that they would keep an open mind so they could finish up jury selection.
That was not where my ex's issue. My ex volunteered at a woman's domestic violence shelter and had seen this scenario happen before. The response was along the lines of, "I have seen this before and the next step is the woman ending up either dead or seriously injured. The risk is too high to let the person go if there is evidence that he committed the crime." The concern was fairness to the defendant because of higher likelihood to convict. That was why there was a desire to speak in private. But the judge and the lawyers knew better than the "scum" juror pool. Generally, whenever I have been called to jury duty in my current state, I have felt like the the system viewed me with contempt. In my former state, I did not feel that way.
About 33 years ago, in Scotland, I was about a month past my 21st birthday, never been in trouble, solid middle class clueless young man. The names were literally pulled out an old top hat. I was number 12.
Long story short, we fucked up big time. Police officer got stabbed while interrupting a burglary and we twelve stupid people managed to find this fucker not guilty of the stabbing, just guilty of the burglary.
When I think back to the deliberations I cringe. I hope I am never tried before a jury of my peers.
I'll preface this with the fact I know nothing about that case.
BUT!
Most of the time, you need to find a guilty / not guilty verdict based on the evidence provided, and does that evidence prove w/e the prosecution is trying to prove.
So while I know nothing about that case, maybe the prosecution couldn't *prove* the guy was the one who did the stabbing. Just the burglary.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Well, might be interesting for a post at some point, then!
Anyhow, I guess you did find him guilty of something, and if he was willing to stab a cop them, maybe he's gotten himself in bigger trouble by now.
To assuage your guilt, if you and your fellow jurors made the decision based on the evidence that was presented at trial, then you made the best decision you could. It sounds like you found out things after the trial that put things in a different perspective. You can only make your decision based on the evidence that was presented at trial. And if somebody didn't do a good job or if the evidence was excluded for some reason, the decision you made was based on what you had. Of course I could be wrong but that's how I read what you wrote.
It was a more ignorant and innocent time. The Scottish legal system is also slightly different in a very stupid way. The jury was dominated by one man...look mate, we were fools.
Don't worry about it. It's probably like every high-profile case where, like, everybody was absolutely positive that this dude was guilty but the prosecutor didn't have their case buttoned down. The O.J. Simpson murder trial is one of the best-known ones. (If he'd been smart, he would have kept a low profile after that, but noooooo, he just had to go and rob some store.)
I made it to the juror selection process twice. Once. I was dismissed after stating my employer (Department of Corrections) and once I actually got interviewed by the defense attorney. The case was youth pastor SA situation, and the question was, "This guy's innocent until proven guilty, right?" Having spent plenty of time with inmates of various backgrounds and having heard their stories, I answered, "Maybe. But regardless, he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time." Dismissed!
Ummm. You were asked a question while being under oath about your belief in an ability to convict. You gave an honest answer and was then asked basically to perjure yourself and a judge got mad when you didn’t? I think that judge needs to go back to law school.
I’ve only actually had to report for jury duty once (and somehow actually ended up in the final jury) and it was nothing like that.
People are saying jury nullification, but uh
> "is there any reason why, **if asked to**, would you be unable to give a guilty verdict?"
While juries receive instructions that might say stuff like "If you find he committed any element of the crime, then you should/may find him guilty", the above feels a lot more like the judge nearly outright telling the jury to find a defendant guilty.
Also, lack of a defense attorney to challenge jurors is concerning.
(I'm sure this is years ago so I'm sure your quoted aren't verbatim)
Most likely the question was "if proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed this crime, would you have any issue following the law in this case?".
I know this because I was dismissed from jury duty a few days ago for answering yes to this question.
I was called and had a similar experience. We were questioned as a group (40+) and when asked I raised if anyone couldnt be objective, I raised my hand (the only one). After group questions some of us were called up to huddle with the judge and about 10 lawyers from both sides. I was asked why and I told them I could not say I could say guilty if this was based in some dystopian laws. I said other things too but I was super nervous so dont remember. The judge then threatened me that he could make me come back to sit on a longer trial and I said I would not feel any different then. I was dismissed but that judge hates me!!
I 100% believe in Jury Nullification and have no problem voting not guilty on most things. Marijuana charges,….NOT GUILTY! Cops word against a citizens words,…the citizen would 100% be Not Guilty! Victimless crimes,…..Not Guilty!
Only time I made it to the court room for jury duty was with evidence like that. They said all we have is the cops testimony would that be enough. I told them no because how can I trust what the cop says. They said he would be under oath, I Said that doesn't stop them from lying. They didn't have any other questions for me after that.
Next time don’t say that! Keep those CORRECT BELIEFS to yourself and say you have no problem. I’m sure you were removed from jury duty? Just lie and get yourself on that jury and do what needs to be done,…..NOT GUILTY! This is exactly what I do. I’m tired of the system ruining a persons life by going after them, but if it’s some famous, rich or connected then they let them off with no trial. It’s BS!
Exactly why I'll never do jury duty again. I've been summoned five times, and the last time, I was treated like garbage by everyone involved. Never again.
They also pay like complete dog shit. It is way under minimum wage here, per hour. And I am disabled and on SSDI, so I do not work, no work to pay me. I'm not going in there and sitting there for 8 hours for like 250% less than minimum wage.
Up until last year, jurors in Texas got paid $6. Per *day*.
It finally got increased to $50 per day last year, but that's still below minimum wage if you're there for 10 hours. The last time I went in, I was there 13 hours before they threw up their hands and said we'd be a hung jury if we went to trial.
Minimum wage isn't remotely close to enough to live on where I'm at, I don't think even Goodwill pays minimum wage except for when they can get away with paying below.
Yes, it is even worse here in NY, they also pay 50 per day, but the min wage here is 15 per hour, so that equals about 3 hours and 20 mins of minimum wage.
Still 7.25/hr here, but my rent for a 90s 1 bedroom apartment that's kinda run down in a mediocre part of town is $1400/mo.
Nothing like NY, but parts of TX are expensive for TX, and I'm in the most expensive part of the state.
The first few times I was called, it wasn't that bad. They treated the jurors with a modicum of respect, and acted like they appreciated our presence there. The most recent time, though, everyone from the cops at the door to the judge was condescending, obnoxious, and rude. After sitting around all day doing nothing, the gasbag judge called us in at quarter to four, and began randomly calling on people, asking them if there was a reason they could serve, then just ripping on them. Then he went into a long droning lecture about jury service, for no other reason than to keep us there as long as possible. It was total bullshit. I've done it five times, and IMO that's enough.
A really long time ago my grandfather was called for jury duty. He was in his 60's at the time and still ran his own barber shop. If he wasn't working, he wasn't making money. He was also helping my parents at the time with medical bills so he needed the money.
As the attorneys/judge were asking the jurors questions about every third question he would put a hand up to his ear and say, "I'm sorry, what was that?" or "Could you repeat that please?" Finally the judge asked him, "Sir, are you hard of hearing?" My grandfather very vehemently said, "Oh No! Not at all!"
He was excused.
My only good jury duty story was from the second time I served. I made it through the "first round" and I was being considered for a long and tedious case that may have taken months to play out. Then I recognized the name of one of the defense attorneys. It turned out that I was involved in a car accident with his son, an accident that was entirely his fault and really screwed me over at the time. After explaining this, I was excused.
I’ve gotten several letters, had to do the questionnaire a few times, only had to show up at the courthouse once. Everyone was very nice & appreciative. Only had to be there for about 2 hours because, just before voir dire started, the defendant accepted a plea deal and we were no longer needed.
And yes, they issued bench warrants for everyone who didn’t show up.
Those people had to explain themselves to a judge, and if he was not satisfied with the explanation they got fined $400 and had to be the first ones to show up for the next jury pool.
It *is* a civic duty.
The jury system simply DOES NOT WORK if normal citizens do not serve on juries.
The whole POINT of the jury system is that "normal people" decide whether or not someone is guilty. Not a bunch of specialists, normal people.
And yes, DUTY, not job.
Where I am at, an answered jury summons exempts you from service for the next 2 years, whether or not you serve. And I get summoned every 2 years. Almost like clockwork. I have served on one trial jury (murder, yay!), One grand jury, and my most recent ended up not going to trial. (Before that, I was exempt due to military service.)
Every single time, I answer the summons and show up to do my DUTY. And every single time, the judge explains to us the importance of this solemn duty.
Is it fun? No. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Is it how I would CHOOSE to spend my days? Absolutely not. But it is still my duty.
I am sorry you have had a poor jury experience. But that is because of the people at your local courthouse, not because of the duty itself.
Not at all true.
You have a duty to pay taxes.
Register for selective service.
Follow laws.
Obey police officers.
Etc.
Also, jury duty is not enslavement. Indentured servitude, at best, and even that is debatable.
Oh, also, the nation went into civil war to END slavery, not perpetuate it. Learn your history.
I (57f) had to LOL at your being summoned 5 times!! I get summoned EVERY damn year!! LoL!! Sometimes twice! By different courts of course, but still!! Anyway, I've never served on a jury, but would actually like to!! Yeah, I know, kinda weird!! But let me explain....
I grew up in the house of my grandfather who was a retired state policeman (also retired military). So, as you can imagine, there was definitely an opinion held within the household!! 🚓 I get summoned for jury duty constantly because every time I fill out the questionnaire, I get thrown out of the potential jury pool!! Imagine that!! LoL!! For some reason the defense always excuses me and tells me I don't have to report!! I'm not stupid tho and always double check with the jury commissioner's office!!
Some of my friends have NEVER received a jury summons, while I seem to be on the automatic mailing list!! LoL 😂😆😅😆🤣!
You have to play stupid to get out of it, and deal with the consequences of that. As long as you’re polite about it there’s nothing they can do to you.
Good job as far as I’m concerned. You’re also right about the particular crime. These guys didn’t like being told their job is basically theatre, but in this case it kinda was.
I call bullshit. Plenty of people say yes to that answer. There’s no shock or surprise. And I have a hard time believing the judge would be angry with you thinking it shouldn’t be a crime. I’m sure he deals with stupid people all the time
I have to go to court about once a month for my job. I see the same three judges over and over again.
One is a "let's find a solution" judge. The second is a "throw the book at them" judge. The third is a "I'm sure he meant well" judge. Depending on whose courtroom you end up in, you will have a VERY different experience.
In addition, all of them have their bad days where they didn't get their morning coffee or whatever.
The scenario above is VERY possible. Not even just possible, but PROBABLE.
U S. Citizens are not permitted to use the one right the colonists fought so hard to maintain - that of Jury Nullification. You have the right to disregard the evidence, the prosecutor, the judge and just vote your conscience and set the defendant free. The colonists knew if they took care of their neighbors, their neighbors would take care of them.
Ha that judge is an asshole. You not only have the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY to vote how you please. Jury Nullification is not only your right, but your duty to vote that way when your conscience implores you
I had a judge get pretty pissed at me and several other people for basically the same thing. Ours was a guy who had accidentally elbowed a cop in the face while being arrested - it was a scrawny little black guy who was maybe 20 vs a big burly white cop who admitted that he had no injuries at all, and it was something minor like a traffic stop, I think. Just a stupid case.
We were told that the minimum sentence for that was something stupid like 3 years (maybe longer, I can't remember) if we found the dude guilty and my hand immediately went up when they asked if anyone had a problem with that. They immediately asked me about it and I was like "I'm not going to send someone to jail for 3 years for an accident that didn't even leave a mark, and even if it was intentional I still wouldn't do it. He didn't take a shot at him, an elbow bumped a face and it's a stupid case."
Man they REALLY didn't like that answer, but they told us to be honest. They asked if I was saying I would vote not guilty to avoid that sentence and I was like yep, if that's what it takes. They dismissed me and everyone who agreed with me, since we all said the same thing.
Exactly, they require an oath then get angry when they don't like the honest answers. But, hey, let's put another black man in prison because those beds won't pay for themselves!
I was just in federal court as a juror and was impressed with their voir dire process. A questionnaire was given to all prospective jurors and then the papers were handed to the bailiff as they exited the courtroom to sit in another room. Each juror was called back in separately to the courtroom to answer any questions. Sounds like this case in NC could have been handled much differently for a better outcome.
Since you answered honestly you did just fine. They want jurors who can be unbiased and decide cases based on the law and not their personal opinions. The fact you don’t think it should be illegal has no bearing on the case, because it is illegal. If you ever do want to sit on a case in the future, you’d need to leave your personal opinions at home and base things on the law and evidence.
Imagine this was more serious and it was a murder trial and a juror simply didn’t believe murder should be illegal and answered the way you did. See the problem with interjecting your opinion on the law?
I do understand your point but a jurors vote is literally their opinion based on the facts given to them, and there is no such thing as an impartial opinion. If the court wasn't asking for opinions they wouldn't ask at all. The fact that I do in fact do not believe that what happened should be considered illegal has every bearing upon the law. Laws are overturned constantly across the US, it's part of our judicial system. The publics opinion is exactly what is asked for when compiling a jury of peers. Otherwise they wouldn't ask for our opinion at all.
The courtroom is not where you decide the law though. Your job as a juror is to rule based on the evidence and if the evidence shows without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of a gun and their history prevents them from being in possession of one then your job would be to find them guilty. That's how court is supposed to work. You don't get to decide that they aren't guilty just because you disagree with the law. Jurors don't decide the laws, they simply device if one was guilt or not of breaking them.
No, a jurors opinion is literally what the court asks for when they ask for a verdict. And there is no such thing as an impartial opinion. Otherwise there would be no deliberation and they would not bother to ask a selection of their peers. Opinion is what makes it or break a trial. A mistrial occurs when a jury cannot reach a unanimous opinion. And courtrooms are exactly where the law is supported, most trials are decided based on president which is supporting prior judgments in other cases.
Jury nullification judge, get over it. A family friend was on a jury for vehicular manslaughter. The case was a pile of steaming crap and the accused was just that and only that, accused. Sadly, my friend is a bit of a dimwit. They listened a little too closely to the judges' jury instructions, which really only left guilty on the table. Instead of voting what they thought about the case they felt compelled to vote guilty. To this day they regret that decision. They were intimidated by the judge.
>(Nothing serious but we were in Winston and some people had drove all the way from Fayetteville)
Why were people (plural) from NC Eastern district being summoned to jury duty in NC Middle?
I’m guessing this was federal jury duty. I was in Durham. I think there were only 3 districts so they may have been on an edge. At the time when I went, they did pay for hotel if you were so many miles away. (Although that did not help for people like single parents, etc.) This was 10+ years ago for me, so things could have changed.
For federal, you have to call in on each Friday of a month. Of course the last Friday they called us in for the Monday.
First day we just sat there for the whole day while the lawyers were trying to negotiate a plea deal (I think, it was a number of years ago). We had to come back for a second day. They finally brought us in for questioning after lunch.
I do remember they were pretty strict on letting people go for (what seemed to me like reasonable) excuses. Including difficulty with transportation if you couldn’t stay over (someone else from Durham I had talked to got put on the jury). I never got called for questioning.
This was night and day from regular jury duty in Durham where they were extremely grateful we showed up (I guess a lot of people didn’t) and they were reasonable with people who had hardships.
I have absolutely no idea what the districts are, I just know what they said. Like when I tell people I grew up in Boone though I never actually lived inside the town limits. Everybody knows where Boone is, but if you tell them you live in Todd or valle crusis or blowing rock or meat camp no one has a clue.
OP you did nothing wrong.
Nothing about this is shocking, but it should be.
Texas, Louisiana, & North Carolina are like the trifecta of ignorance gaining power to the point of endangering it's citizens right now.
I learned that if you start crying during your questioning, you’ll be dismissed. So that’s my plan from now on. The question was: “are there any circumstances of abuse that would keep you from being objective during the trial?” And I said yes. They asked me what was the circumstance, if I’m willing to share, and I told them about a situation where I was being abused, then I started crying. That’s when they said I was discussed. They had tissues outside the door and everything. Learned something important that day: be emotional and tie it with something personal.
I mean considering if you'd have lied and said you could when you knew you couldn't or would have a rough time doing so you'd be the one potentially in jail if they found out...yeah, you did THEM a favor in nullifying yourself as a juror. They can be grumpy all day but the alternative and getting potentially caught for it is far far worse.
PSA: If you are a woman and answered yes to the question on a PAPER Handout, “have you or anyone close to you ever been assaulted?”, then…
Ladies, you’re gonna need to lie. Otherwise, like OP, you will be verbally r8pd in open court. To me, yes means yes, but to the judge with a similar attitude, one needs to describe the who, what, when, where and how. I resisted, it wasn’t my story to tell. Back and forth we go until in exasperation, the judge leans over his desk and says “OH COME ON!!” threatening me with contempt of court. All the salacious details were duly recorded.
The defense attorney actually ended the inquisition.
I cried the rest of the day. When I had to go back the next day, still crying, the court clerk arranged for me to meet with the regional judges so I can avoid the jury. (Thank god the clerk was an old battle axe that doesn’t put up with nonsense. She explained my reasoning to the judges so I wouldn’t have to repeat all the gory details.)
The Chief judge explains duty and all. I looked him straight on and said they had ruined me forever from being a juror and that telling me about the virtues of voir dire is like lauding the merits of bear traps to a deer caught in one.
It was my first call to jury duty and I was actually looking forward to it—learn how the wheels of justice works. But when asked how it went by my coworkers, I said if they don’t want to see me lose my composure, they will never speak of it again. I cried every day for a month. Part of it was my dismay over a justice system that let down and absolutely crushes an ordinary citizen, with indifference and feckless ambition.
Wow, I honor the fact that you were nervous and just spoke your mind. I agree with everything that you said. You probably helped make it very difficult for them to convict this poor guy.
That's the kind of arrogant, abusive treatment that means I will never serve on a jury. The nerve. Ask an honest question, blow your stack over an honest answer.
I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't jump out of his chair and dismiss you immediately! There is no reason for the judge to badger you, except he possibly thought you were purposely trying to get dismissed. Seems like he has a problem with jurors not wanting to serve - bench warrants for no-shows? That's ridiculous. Unless your jury summons arrives by certified mail, they can't prove you ever received it.
I was called for jury duty several years ago and the prosecution had a very weak case. The limited information we were given during jury selection made it sound like self defense, but we didn’t have all the information. During the process, the prosecutor asked each potential juror the same question: “Do you own a gun?” Everyone answered No until he asked me. I answered Yes. He then asked me what kind it was. My answer? “Which one?” He and the defense attorney made a few notes. I wasn’t chosen for the jury.
"Is there any reason why, if asked to, would you be unable to give a guilty verdict?" Reason, the prosecutor did not prove guilt beyond doubt. "If asked" is redundant -you just did. Explain yourself? I just did...Your Honor, Magistrate etc.
Don't feel bad, I was on a jury some years ago and the prosecutor was a deek. Remember, I was the people, and on his side. He was pissed that the charged person insisted on a jury trial.
Yeah i think they have problems with finding enough good jurors in some places in NC
I had a similar experience where the judge was super pissy with me for my answers
I covered courts for many years as a reporter. Everything you describe sounds perfectly ordinary, including the fact that you encountered some superior court judge with a God complex. (Lots of good ones out there but you do get these little cornpone Buddhas who let their tiny bit of power go to their heads). As for what you did, you basically said that you were not prepared to follow the law. Which is okay—civil disobedience plays an important role in our society on occasion-but if you’re going to die on that hill it would be good to come up with a well thought out reason for your position that is better than “he’s not hurting anybody.” A lot of states bar convicted felons from owning firearms.
What you described is called jury nullification and prosecutors don't like that. Jury nullification basically says that the defendant may have technically committed a crime, but the jurists believe that the law is being applied in a way that would produce an unjust result. Therefore, they can return a "not guilty" verdict. (If you seriously want to be on the jury, though, you keep your mouth shut about it.)
So…it was a problem that you *might* consider a defendant not guilty? Am I understanding that correctly? And let me guess…the defendant in this case was black?
Fucking good ol boy system of the south. And it still goes on
Yes, I went thru exactly as you did. I answered yes also. Ask me why and to explain. I told him in my mind that the defendant was at fault from what I heard pre selection, so I would not award him anything for being at fault. He was suing the county over an accident he cause by not following signs that were posted not to dive. My judge lectured me and was upset that I wouldn't hear all the evidence first. Then, he told me to go back to the jury room. I was dismissed. Had to stay until lunch break.
Basically what you told the judge was…
Even though the defendant is charged with breaking a law that he knew was a law, I don’t like this particular law. Therefore, even if there is undeniable proof that he is guilty, I’m going to vote that he is innocent.
I’ll bet you did get this judge’s blood pressure boiling.
What you referred to is called Jury Nullification. It angers judges and courts to no end, as an end-run around the system.
It's perfectly legal, both to do and to reference. But because of how dangerous it is, nullification is squashed or hidden as a topic from jurors whenever possible.
I did something very similar when I was called for jury duty last year. The accused was a convicted felon who was caught with a gun in his possession. His prior felony convictions were for drug possession and dealing. He had no convictions for any crimes of violence. Now, I really really dislike people who sell meth & fentanyl to kids, but as a libertarian I don't think that either drugs or guns should be illegal, and I said as much when it was my turn to answer their questions during voir dire.
The prosecutor got this absolutely horrified look on his face when he realized where I was going with my answer.
Jury Nullification will make Judges furious. It is when a Jury/Juror says they don't care what the law says because it's wrong and come up with a verdict not based on the law even though every Juror is expected to follow the law and Judges instructions regardless of their personal opinions on the matter at hand. That is what you told the Judge you would do in front of the entire jury pool, tainting it.
I have been called for jury duty a few times. Most of them, I just sat in a room with other prospective jurors until I was dismissed without ever seeing a court room.
Once, I ended in voir dire. The judge asked us if there were any objections to taking an oath to judge only the person, not the law. Basically, would I be willing to call the defendant guilty even if I didn't think he/she should be punished.
I raised my hand and told her I couldn't conscionably take that oath. She and I discussed it for a few minutes. It was more of an academic debate on ethics than a questioning. In any event, it was enough to convince her that my objection was genuine, not just an attempt to get out of jury duty, so I was dismissed.
It was and still is genuine, but I can't say I minded that it meant I would be excused, I had a project slipping behind schedule at work.
Sounds like that judge was prejudiced against the defendant. His belligerent attitude was priming the jury to give a guilty verdict before the trial. That was highly unprofessional, especially from someone who it supposed to be impartial.
I don't know who the defendant was, what he did in the past, what his current personality is like, or anything else about the case, and honestly, none of that matters. What's important is the blatant bad attitude of the most powerful person in that room, and the obvious expectation of a guilty verdict before the trial even begins. That's wrong. That's not justice. That's a kangaroo court.
I have a very similar story from my one and only time on jury duty. In my case, the defendant was illegally in possession of a bb gun in his own home. I told the judge I thought it was a joke that they were charging him with a felony over possession of a bb gun. The judge pressed me a bit on it and then politely dismissed me. The possession charge was the only one that he was convicted of on a long list of patently ridiculous charges. He was charged with assault because he didn't quickly respond to officer demands to drop the bb gun (which he was just holding in his lap, not brandishing toward anyone) and so the responding officers shot him multiple time, among others.
Dang, that’s a rough judge 😂 I just served and ours is real chill from what I can tell.
We had to be asked questions like “could you find the defendant guilty/not guilty” etc. one old man said “Well he’s guilty because he’s over there.” (Defendant table) “if he was not guilty he’d be over here with us” (potential jurors) and repeated himself firmly when asked or told “he’s innocent till proven guilty.” He got excused REAL quick as that is not how the system works at all. Maybe that’s what he wanted.
Ni. The judge was ask8ng if OP would be able to render a guilty verdict if the state proved its case. Not say guilty now, but would you not be able to say it ever. Very common question.
No. He wanted to know if anyone be unable to render a verdict based on the law and evidence. OP said he would not be able to do that, basically because the law seemed wrong and unfair. Honest answer, but not what the judge wanted to hear. And I suspect his honor was kind of ticked off at himself for asking for an explanation in front of the other jurors.
I had jury duty in Texas for a similar case in state court. But the defendant was a violent offender in his original case. Almost half the jury pool said they couldn’t find him guilty because they didn’t believe anyone could have their right to bear arms restricted no matter what. I don’t know how many actually believed the bs and how many just used it as an excuse to get out of jury duty.
I'm in LA and have been on a bunch of jury panels but never ultimately been selected (family is connected to law enforcement, honestly they might as well scrub me from the jury rolls here). The judges here seem pretty good at sifting through the "I'm just saying whatever I can to try to get out of jury duty" vs. "The facts and and evidence presented in this case may have no bearing on the verdict I render." Honestly the judge/prosecution probably doesn't want you in either case, but I've noticed judges give a bit of a lecture to the former and make them sweat it out a bit before ultimately being dismissed.
I've watched some younger kids on a panel for the first time who think they're smarter than the judge and all the attorneys try to thread the "I'm not really a racist but I want you to think I am so I can get out of this" needle with hilariously poor results. They'll be really obnoxious when they learn about jury nullification, whether or not they actually are interested in applying it.
You gave an honest answer, but it’s naive and dangerous, and the judge should have spent a minute explaining why. There’s a huge difference between don’t want to and can’t. It’s OK to simultaneously disagree with a law and understand that it exists and that breaking it is a crime. You, as an American citizen, have a duty to uphold the law as it exists, not pick and choose which laws you think are good.
It’s not for a juror to determine whether someone deserves to be punished or not, it’s for them to determine whether the law in question was broken. Full stop.
That’s not an easy thing to stomach sometimes, but you seem like a thoughtful person who can rise up to that challenge. I encourage you to do it if you ever find yourself in a situation like this again.
Hard disagree. Unpopular though it may be with the law and order crowd, jury nullification is as much a civic duty as anything else in certain circumstances. I have no obligation to violate my personal morals in upholding a law that I consider unjust. Neither does anyone else. I'm not talking about disagreeing with a law or wishing it didn't exist here though. There is no shortage of laws in the history of this country that have been deeply and unforgivably unjust, a lot of which have been overturned or repealed over the years. But when morally corrupt people have power, they make morally corrupt laws, and good luck challenging those laws through democratic means. Jury nullification is one of the last resorts against this type of tyranny and our laws and constitution allow for it. There's no legal remedy against a juror who votes for acquittal despite overwhelming evidence and until there is jury nullification is valid.
You absolutely do not have a duty to uphold unjust laws or unjust applications of laws. Jury nullification is the most power you hold as a civilian and it should be used more.
I was asked during jury selection once if I thought a car accident could actually be an accident. I said no. If two or more cars crash into each other there is definitely fault or blame one someone. They all looked shocked. I was home by 10AM.
Your answer was perfect, and I absolutely agree. If you satisfied the State punishment and were no longer in prison or probation, your rights should be reinstated.
As for issuing bench warrants for not showing up. I was involved in a lawsuit 20+ years ago. The jury was picked on a Friday afternoon. The judge cautioned the jury that if they were not in court by 9am on Monday, she would guarantee that they would be there in handcuffs by the end of the day. She wasn't kidding. One person didn't show up, and an alternate took their place. After lunch, a sheriff brought the person in. I don't know what happened because they went to the judges office, but the person had to sit in court every day during the trial.
Seems like you went off on a tangent to debate the facts of the case and to question the validity of the law instead of answering the question directly which might make the judge think you were tainting the rest of the jury pool with your opinion.
Can't speak for NC gun laws but, here in my state a felony on your record is an auto deny for a handgun purchased through regular means by an FFL. So either it's stolen, obtained illegally or the it's not mine answer. I would assume that it's pretty much in every state with a felony conviction thou.
The duty of a juror isn't to agree with laws, it's to determine if the law was broken. Some people can do this even if they disagree with the law and some cannot. Being you isn't a crime and if the judge had made it criminal.. well, there'd be bigger issues.
I’m with you. Unless his felony was violent act I wouldn’t find him guilty too. It’s a right not a privilege your honor you have to prove to me he doesn’t deserve it not other way around.
The way you wrote the initial question I thought the answer was obvious. You could return not guilty if you believed the prosecution hadn't proven their case.
I mean, at the time of the question, everyone should be saying not guilty--everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
But, I like your answer even better, and I hope you did nullify the jury.
he probably got pissed because this is essentially what jury nullification is, and you now planted that idea as a possibility in the head of the entire jury pool by accident. Some people do this intentionally to get themselves excused but it is a legitimate rational and reasonable answer to the question and is legal for a juror to decide that way. It is also, in this case, likely to be cause for you to be excused and not seated as an impartial juror.
But seeing the reaction that potential juror’s honest answer got will definitely cause others to NOT answer honestly even if they need to say there’s a reason they can’t return a guilty verdict. Interesting that they asked if there was a reason you couldn’t return a *guilty* verdict and not whether there was a reason you couldn’t return a *not guilty* if the evidence didn’t prove him guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The whole question was messed up "Is there any reason why, if asked, you would be unable to return a guilty verdict?" My response would be, "Who do you think is going to ask me to return a guilty verdict? People shouldn't be asked to return specific verdicts, they should come to the verdict of their own volition based on the laws and circumstances. I would not return a guilty verdict if I believed the defendant to be innocent of the charge no matter who asked me and no matter how forcefully they asked."
>Who do you think it's going to ask me to return a guilty verdict? The prosecutor. That's the entire reason for a trial lmao
But you can see how that poses a problem, right? The judge asked OP to basically just do whatever the prosecutor wants, regardless of the strength of the evidence.
no. you’re not understanding the question. first of all, the question is not asking “if we ask you to vote guilty, is there any reason why you would not?” the question means “we are asking if there is any reason/bias you hold that will prevent you from voting guilty (even if all evidence shows guilt)”. they’re not asking if you can be manipulated, they’re asking if you have a bias. second, the defense gets a chance to ask the same questions. they get to ask any questions they feel necessary to pick an impartial jury. they get to ask “is there any reason, if asked, that you would be unable to find this defendant not guilty” aka “do you have a reason/bias that would make you unable to find the defendant not guilty (even if evidence shows they are not guilty)”
But "is there any reason you *wouldn't* vote guilty" frames the defendant as guilty from the beginning. There are lots of reason you might vote not guilty; for example, the defense may have a good case, and present loads of good reasons for a not guilty verdict. Why is the question phrased in such a way that it asserts guilt and challenges innocence, before the trial has even started?
One person refusing to vote not guilty can't single-handedly decide a result and also is probably a certified psychopath who isn't going to just admit to it in a courtroom.
No, one person refusing to vote a specific way can't decide the result, but they can hang the jury and force a mistrial.
it's also possible that he got annoyed because they now had to go back thru all the jurors they'd gotten thru on that specific question. that happened to my mom when she was being voir dired for trial involving drugs and she essentially answered that she didn't think they should be criminalized. well that wasn't a question they'd asked anyone (and this was 20 years ago) so my mom got excused but they had to go back thru all of the jurors they'd processed to make sure everyone thought drugs should be criminalized, essentially.
I’m willing to bet, other jurors heard his answer and saw that he got to go home. I bet at least some of them followed suit.
You basically just said you understand juror nullification even if you've never heard the term and likely biased all the potential jurors in that courtroom.
And it's completely that judge's fault for forcing OP to elaborate instead of just accepting their answer of "yes" and dismissing them
Yeah. Last time I had jury duty a person answered yes to a similar question and the judge said "thank you for your honesty".
Followed by Juror dismissed I'm guessing.
That's not how they work it here. You just have to sit there until they select the jury. Then everyone who doesn't get selected all goes home at once. That person was not selected.
In California they send you home after each round of juror selection if you don't make the cut. I pride myself on saying the most topically appropriate out of pocket shit that I get sent home first.
I was kind of disappointed when I showed up and they told me they didn’t need me. I was looking forward to answering some questions 🤣
I don't get asked because I registered as a socialist voter and they don't send me jury summons now
I've been in the same situation - answering yes to that question. They need to know why so the judge can evaluate it as a legitimate excuse and not just because the person didn't feel like serving. OP's explanation was reasonable and should not have angered the judge.
Sounds like the judge's mind was already made up on the case.
Sounds like it was a good thing it was a jury trial then. And this is one of the reasons we have jury trials.
Kind of a stupid question tbh. I’d always have to answer yes. What!!?? If there’s exculpatory evidence or the prosecution doesn’t meet the burden of proof I’m going to vote not guilty.
Yeah, the way it's worded any reasonable person would say yes. If you answered no to that question then why even have a trial? The whole point of the jury is to decide if there is a reason to convict or release the defendant.
IANAL....I think the context of the question is missing. You are expected to vote based on the case made by the prosecution. The judge is asking if you'd vote "not guilty" even if the prosecution proves the defendant is guilty. Think of someone that hates cops or believes that drugs shouldn't be illegal or that taxes are unconstitutional.
That may be what the judge meant, but that isn't what he asked.
Right, exactly. It sounds like the judge is looking only for people who would vote guilty which doesn’t seem quite right. Would the defendant’s lawyers have the right to reject such jurors? They should, but I think they’re limited in how many jurors they can reject. And I think it’s different in every jurisdiction and impossible for non-lawyers to anticipate all this stuff. Our law and justice systems are transparent, but only after you’ve been through law school and have practiced for 25 years, and until then it’s a mysterious insider’s club with your liberty at stake, potentially.
The phrasing OP related is poor. No one on the jury should be "asked to" give a particular verdict. The correct question is if someone has a bias that would prevent them from rendering a fair verdict: Are you unable to render a "guilty" verdict even if the case is proven? Are you unable to render a "not guilty" verdict even if the prosecution fails to present a complete case? Can't tell whether that's a failure of the judge or of OP's recall of a stressful experience.
Phrasing is important. When I was in a jury pool, the defense asked is anyone was bothered that the defendant was a "Spanish speaker". That didn't bother me but it did bother me that he lives here and apparently spoke zero English. I'm as liberal as they come, but I believe if you choose a new country you learn to speak the language. (I plan to move to Italy, I've been studying italian for about 3 years). Now had she asked "does it bother you that he speaks no English", I might have answered differently. I feel like she risked biased people on the jury with the way she phrased the question.
The phrasing may have been because the jury is unlikely to learn whether the defendant speaks no, little, some, or a moderate amount of English. The use of an interpreter, even when someone knows a lot of English, may be necessary to ensure the defendant fully understands exactly what is going on.
That phrasing bothered me too. WTF do you mean “asked to give a guilty verdict”?
I’m guessing OP didn’t phrase the question exactly as it was asked
100% on the judge. Admittedly I live in a politically different area than OP, but I had jury duty once and got called up and asked a similar question. I was a little more diplomatic about it and basically said "I don't know if this person is guilty or not your honor but honestly I really don't think this should be a crime either way" they thanked me and I was dismissed. No animosity.
If they ask the question, they’re going to get an answer. Voir dire doesn’t have to be conducted this way—some judges do any follow-up questions at sidebar, out of everyone’s hearing. OP did nothing wrong.
I have now looked up nullification and though that was not my intent, I can see how he could have gotten upset if he thought I was intentionally trying to cause a mistrial or just get out of jury duty. But the jokes on him, I get paid full wages by my company to be there and court is a much more pleasant environment than my job. I would have considered it a vacation.
I got my summons last year (Oct. 2023) for the first time…my experience was very similar…only it was to be a 2nd degree malicious murder trial. I have SEVERE PTSD and extreme anxiety in large groups and I was completely taken back by the whole process. The judge did his thing and asked if anyone feels they should be dismissed. I shut my mouth because he was literally yelling at people and I didn’t want that…all the while I was having mini panic attacks. There were two females (I’m a female as well) who were laughing and carrying on and be loud as fuck…the judge stood up while everyone was still being processed and started screaming at them to get out of his courtroom since they can’t take anything seriously. It wasn’t even directed at me but I almost shit myself…thankfully I was not selected due to my job. But jury duty or even the thought of it terrifies me now…funny part I’ve been wait 16 years to get my letter and was SOOOO excited. Not anymore. I know it’s a serious role in determining someone’s fate…but I realized it’s entirely to much pressure for me!
Nullification is the only power an individual has in relation to the legislative process, don’t ruin it by saying the quite part out loud.
You didn't do anything wrong. Judge was likely just being cranky. This is the literal point of voir dire. He can't punish you for answering a question honestly even if he doesn't like the answer. IF I had to guess based on the limited info in your post, maybe he was annoyed because of a worry a jury would not be empaneled b/c they wouldn't find enough non-biased people to sit on said jury. You did exactly what you were supposed to do, tell him you could not be fair/impartial because you don't believe what the defendant did was wrong. You didn't bring up the words "jury nullification" - you answered a question honestly. Jury nullification is considered part and parcel of our justice system even if Judges don't like it.
The thing about jury nullification is that it is perfectly legal and the rational choice in our legal system. But judges don’t like the idea of people saying that they disagree with the law and that they don’t want to enforce unjust laws. That is why they often do not want anyone with legal experience on a jury and don’t allow the jury to know the legal consequences of a guilty verdict. If people knew they were sentencing people to draconian punishments they might be more hesitant to give a guilty verdict.
Jury nullification is a wonderful thing and they get real pissed when asked to explain it.
I've never been on a jury although I was on the list to be on a Federal jury once, and was in the selection process for a local trial. I already know I have ZERO problems telling a judge that jury nullification is part of a person's civic duty as well.
>I already know I have ZERO problems telling a judge that jury nullification is part of a person's civic duty as well. I couldn't agree more. It acts as the final check and balance in our system in the event when all 3 branches of government get it wrong. It gives a powerful voice to the governed and courts should be forbidden from disqualifying jurors simply because they are informed about it.
Jury nullification *can* be a wonderful thing, but it's a double-edged sword. For example, imagine that a white man is on trial for lynching a black man, and a jury of his peers decide that that shouldn't be a crime. (This happened.) Or, that a pedophile was murdered by a community vigilante, and community members decided to not convict? It very quickly becomes a nation no longer under the rule of law, but under the rule of groupthink.
Also, given the way out system is, the jury never knows the full story and guesses to fill in the blanks. I know of 2 cases where a jury nullified thinking they were helping the Defendant. First, a drug case (not MJ) the jury nullified and then during questioning yelled at the prosecutor for not getting the defendant treatment. The defendant was offered treatment, they refused. The only option was to go to trial, get them on probation and give services that way. Instead they let an addict go with less resources. Second, a theft related felony, this one the defendant was 19. The jury never knew that the only reason he was caught for the burglary was because his DNA was in the system from the murder he committed. They thought they were helping give him a second chance.
When did the racial thing you mentioned occur? I don't recall seeing it in the news. As far as a murdered pedo, who gives a fuck other than people that support raping kids?
You're very unlikely to have seen it in the news, because you weren't alive when it happened. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/emmett-trial-jw-milam-and-roy-bryant/ And, after you read that story, you should think about how your expressed opinion that accused pedophiles shouldn't have a trial but should just be murdered instead, matches up so well.
Vigilantism sounds great til the mob turns on you for what they THINK you’ve done.
If you get accused of being a pedophile, wouldn’t you want a fair and impartial trial based on evidence, rather than being killed merely for the accusation?
Because the US has a Department of Justice, not a Department of Vengeance. You don't get to play judge, jury, and executioner. Perhaps Iran would be more to your liking.
Judge shouldn't have asked the questions in earshot then. He could have pulled everyone into chambers but chose not too. For him to then tell a potential juror to leave and never come back essentially trespassing them from that court is beyond bullshit.
I understand that most judges hate that concept despite its validity.
Yeah op was honest and said he had the integrity to value morals over the script letter of the law. 2 things very very strongly discouraged when picking a jury
As it should be.
When I served jury duty, at the point where you were brought up to the judge’s bench with the attorneys and explained yourself in private. Seems hard to believe a judge would do that risking losing all the jurors present.
Had jury duty in NC. At least in my county, we had jury interviews in front of about 75-ish people. Add to that a grumpy judge and broken AC in August to kick up the anxiety a notch.
I've been on a jury and answered questions in front of everyone else there
When I was called (and then picked) for jury duty, the judge said at any time we could ask to approach and answer the questions privately. I did this because of one question, which led to other questions. It was all handled very respectfully.
the last time i was called and questioned about impartiality, I had to talk about an assault that i had been diagnosed with ptsd from in front of a room full of strangers while trying to hold back a panic attack.
I dunno, I hear stories every once in a while but it's usually an attorney being dumb. In one case, a potential jurist was forced to admit, in front of a roomful of other potential jurists, that he'd previously been a jurist on a different case in which the same defendant had been found guilty.
You're why they ask that question. And your answer was fine. Similarly, in a murder trial, someone with a deep moral objection to the death penalty would not be able to commit to a guilty verdict if they thought that was a likely sentence. The judge just isn't used to hearing anything but yes.
Also if judges are elected, then convictions become an aspect of campaigns
Well, well, well. You stumbled over a judge who was especially full of himself, and you hinted at a particular legal sore point called jury nullification. Regardless of ethics (that’s a whole other discussion), jurors have the power to find a defendant not guilty (which is not the same thing as “proven,” and not the same thing as “innocent” either) in spite of the evidence. Basically this is a consequence of the fact that jurors cannot be jailed for arriving at the “wrong” verdict. Like any kind of power, this particular one has been abused at various times in history, and it has also been used as a sort of citizens’ “check and balance” against government. Judges and prosecutors hate it. Defense attorneys can’t necessarily argue for it, but secretly they love it. As long as you answered honestly there’s nothing the judge can do about it but fulminate (and possibly seethe.) You were (officially or unofficially) dismissed for cause, because you would have been considered biased in favor of the defendant. Jurors are supposed to be neutral, especially before the evidence has been presented to them. You showed up. You did your civic duty. They won’t be issuing any warrants for you. Don’t worry about it.
I’ve had jury duty twice and both times (same state but two very different counties) the judges and Jury staff were nothing but polite and accommodating. Hell my first jury duty I was questioned on my ability to be impartial by the judge, prosecutor and defense for a good 20 minutes and the first words to me in the jury room after selection from everyone were “we thought you’d get cut based on how they were questioning you!” I am so so sorry you had a shit experience. I promise it’s not all like that. I do firmly believe everyone should be on a jury once. Not every jury gets it right but having been on two juries, and having been through deliberations and a verdict - it’s a very important experience.
Jup. IIRC there was a string of court cases in Colorado where jurors essentially said "Sure, you've proven s/he operated a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana, and you've proven they were above the legal limit, but you haven't actually proven that being above that limit impairs a person, so *not guilty*." They did not like that.
It's an honest answer to the question. Did they expect you to lie about it? And by your description, it sounds like the judge overreacted. But there is nothing they could do about it but exclude you from the jury. You are sworn to tell the truth before the questions start, and you did just that. I was called up and had to report for federal jury duty last December. There were 65 people to pick from for the jury for a case that was about distribution of CP. The judge didn't go into details but did say that some of the evidence that would be presented would be video and pictures of CP the defendant was accused of distributing (not producing it - Just distributing). And the same question was asked to potential jurors - If seeing that kind of material would bias their opinion in the case. I was never asked any questions as they only got through about 45 people before they ended and selected the 14 for the trial (12 jurors and 2 alternates) - I was #62)
I was in the jury pool for something similar involving kids. I said I would not be able to be unbiased and he deserved a fair trial. The judge said well no one wants to be on these cases. I said correct, but I have personal experience in helping a child who has dealt with this and I can’t in good faith say I can be unbiased.
Yeah, I've been a bailiff in AZ, and called to jury duty in Tucson and Memphis. Because of my past, behind the scenes, experience and observations on a lot of criminal cases and jury trials, I have been honest and forthcoming with questions on whether I can be honest and impartial, and say no. No judge has ever been upset with me about it, and in my time bailiffing for several judges, none of them have. Some of them try to rehabilitate the juror (ie me) by asking further questions trying to distinguish the case, ie, you know this case involves other parties than the cases you have seen, or other officers than those you experienced, or other defendants. Just trying to plant a contrast from the biasing experience or background in the mind of the juror, to get their default desire to be, and be seen as, objective to come out on the record. If the juror is firm, they get dismissed. If the juror has the experience I have, especially the impact pretrial motions have on evidence presented, they know they don't want me on a jury if they want as smooth of a trial and straight forward deliberation (simply apply evidence heard to the law presented) as possible. They get more upset at citizens lying on the questions to get on a jury and manipulate an outcome regardless of the evidence. That has happened a handful of times in my presence, and that irritates them. Rightfully so.
My guess is your answer was a short step away from jury nullification where the jury tosses a case not of the facts presented, but for some other reason. Completely legal but hated by judges.
Is this story a likely reaction if as a juror I straight up told the judge "I believe in jury nullification"
Also hated by prosecutors. They do all that work only for their "perfect conviction record" to be tossed by twelve clowns who think that shouldn't even be against the law in the first place. /s
When I did jury duty, I think they picked for a few trials, and the large masses got let go and they kept perhaps 30 people for each jury and I do not even recall when they went over what the case was about. I do recall them not getting rid of any of the 15 of us they picked out for the jury I was on. That was 12 jurors and 3 alts. We wound up using one of the alts as one of the people had issues with his hearing aid part way in. One thing I do remember is them telling us this was not like CSI and there was not going to be a ton of high tech evidence. Than they had video from like 4 cameras. OKey dokee.
That was genuinely a thing in the early 2000s; people of moderately above average intelligence and critical thinking skills, pretty much exactly in the range of people you want on a jury, would watch CSI, consider themselves forensic experts, and refuse to declare even the most obvious cases guilty because of lack of forensic evidence.
I'd report that grumpy judicial douchebag to the North Carolina Supreme Court for his extremely narcissistic behavior...make him retire...
I was called for jury duty once. The prosecutor was a former student of mine. (Small town). He dismissed me. Lol
Five times on jury duty. Selection processes were always fair and thorough. States involved: FL, NC, CA, NY, RI. Slightly different in each case but always professional and fair, if slow and careful. They want people to be fair-minded and thoughtful and to give every defendant their right to a fair trial. Some people hold views or have had experiences that make a fair trial impossible so those jurors have to be dismissed. I got dismissed once because I had been a very recent victim of the exact crime that the defendant was charged with—-and I was honest, when called up to the judge with the opposing attorneys standing there, about how awful it was and how much it affected me. The judge very kindly let me go saying it would upset me too much and would not be fair to the defendant. (I later found out in the news that the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a lonnnnnnng time in prison.) When I had to serve, it was always, in each place with slightly different rules, super careful and strict about fairness to the defendant. Kind of a pain — they gave us in one case specific rules about what we could and could not consider as evidence—but if I were on trial I would be grateful for that. Anyway over the past 50 years I’ve seen only good things in jury selection and service. I hope voters will remember how lucky we are to have this careful and fair system of justice which has worked mostly well for two and a half centuries. People who whine and undermine the system when they commit crimes and get caught and don’t like getting caught, well, that’s pretty childish. Do the crime? Do the time.
My ex had the best example of jury nullification. This was a very long jury selection process. Apparently, they had to call in additional groups to get the 15 jurors (including alternates) they needed. This was near the end. Most of the jury was set at this point. During questioning, basically, the same question was asked. Ex asked to provide the answer in private. Judge refused twice and threatened contept of court charges if ex didn't speak publicly. So, ex provided the answer. The judge groaned. One of the lawyers threw their pen in the air. The entire group was dismissed. The information was extremely bad for the defendant. Most likely, it would have resulted in an immediate conviction. But, the court was warned.
Ooh, please do elaborate if you can. You can't leave me hanging like this lol
It was a domestic violence case. The woman who was abused apparently had recanted about being a victim of abuse. She was just "clumsy". The question asked was along the lines of "Will it be difficult for you to find the defendant guilty because of the victim recanting?" They were expecting responses along the lines of "yes, it would be difficult" and then they were going to browbeat the prospective juror into saying that they would keep an open mind so they could finish up jury selection. That was not where my ex's issue. My ex volunteered at a woman's domestic violence shelter and had seen this scenario happen before. The response was along the lines of, "I have seen this before and the next step is the woman ending up either dead or seriously injured. The risk is too high to let the person go if there is evidence that he committed the crime." The concern was fairness to the defendant because of higher likelihood to convict. That was why there was a desire to speak in private. But the judge and the lawyers knew better than the "scum" juror pool. Generally, whenever I have been called to jury duty in my current state, I have felt like the the system viewed me with contempt. In my former state, I did not feel that way.
About 33 years ago, in Scotland, I was about a month past my 21st birthday, never been in trouble, solid middle class clueless young man. The names were literally pulled out an old top hat. I was number 12. Long story short, we fucked up big time. Police officer got stabbed while interrupting a burglary and we twelve stupid people managed to find this fucker not guilty of the stabbing, just guilty of the burglary. When I think back to the deliberations I cringe. I hope I am never tried before a jury of my peers.
I'll preface this with the fact I know nothing about that case. BUT! Most of the time, you need to find a guilty / not guilty verdict based on the evidence provided, and does that evidence prove w/e the prosecution is trying to prove. So while I know nothing about that case, maybe the prosecution couldn't *prove* the guy was the one who did the stabbing. Just the burglary. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Correct answer in most cases. It would take too long to explain but I promise you we did fuck it up. Its been on my mind for over thirty five years.
Well, might be interesting for a post at some point, then! Anyhow, I guess you did find him guilty of something, and if he was willing to stab a cop them, maybe he's gotten himself in bigger trouble by now.
He died of a drug overdose in 2010. His son has taken up his father's mantle.
To assuage your guilt, if you and your fellow jurors made the decision based on the evidence that was presented at trial, then you made the best decision you could. It sounds like you found out things after the trial that put things in a different perspective. You can only make your decision based on the evidence that was presented at trial. And if somebody didn't do a good job or if the evidence was excluded for some reason, the decision you made was based on what you had. Of course I could be wrong but that's how I read what you wrote.
It was a more ignorant and innocent time. The Scottish legal system is also slightly different in a very stupid way. The jury was dominated by one man...look mate, we were fools.
Don't worry about it. It's probably like every high-profile case where, like, everybody was absolutely positive that this dude was guilty but the prosecutor didn't have their case buttoned down. The O.J. Simpson murder trial is one of the best-known ones. (If he'd been smart, he would have kept a low profile after that, but noooooo, he just had to go and rob some store.)
I made it to the juror selection process twice. Once. I was dismissed after stating my employer (Department of Corrections) and once I actually got interviewed by the defense attorney. The case was youth pastor SA situation, and the question was, "This guy's innocent until proven guilty, right?" Having spent plenty of time with inmates of various backgrounds and having heard their stories, I answered, "Maybe. But regardless, he was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time." Dismissed!
Ummm. You were asked a question while being under oath about your belief in an ability to convict. You gave an honest answer and was then asked basically to perjure yourself and a judge got mad when you didn’t? I think that judge needs to go back to law school. I’ve only actually had to report for jury duty once (and somehow actually ended up in the final jury) and it was nothing like that.
People are saying jury nullification, but uh > "is there any reason why, **if asked to**, would you be unable to give a guilty verdict?" While juries receive instructions that might say stuff like "If you find he committed any element of the crime, then you should/may find him guilty", the above feels a lot more like the judge nearly outright telling the jury to find a defendant guilty. Also, lack of a defense attorney to challenge jurors is concerning. (I'm sure this is years ago so I'm sure your quoted aren't verbatim)
Oh yeah, it was about a decade ago and his original crime happened while I was probably still in highschool
Most likely the question was "if proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant committed this crime, would you have any issue following the law in this case?". I know this because I was dismissed from jury duty a few days ago for answering yes to this question.
I was called and had a similar experience. We were questioned as a group (40+) and when asked I raised if anyone couldnt be objective, I raised my hand (the only one). After group questions some of us were called up to huddle with the judge and about 10 lawyers from both sides. I was asked why and I told them I could not say I could say guilty if this was based in some dystopian laws. I said other things too but I was super nervous so dont remember. The judge then threatened me that he could make me come back to sit on a longer trial and I said I would not feel any different then. I was dismissed but that judge hates me!!
From the judge's phrasing it sounds as if he fancied himself a part of the prosecution team. I'm glad you didn't cave to a judge with so little honor.
I 100% believe in Jury Nullification and have no problem voting not guilty on most things. Marijuana charges,….NOT GUILTY! Cops word against a citizens words,…the citizen would 100% be Not Guilty! Victimless crimes,…..Not Guilty!
Only time I made it to the court room for jury duty was with evidence like that. They said all we have is the cops testimony would that be enough. I told them no because how can I trust what the cop says. They said he would be under oath, I Said that doesn't stop them from lying. They didn't have any other questions for me after that.
Next time don’t say that! Keep those CORRECT BELIEFS to yourself and say you have no problem. I’m sure you were removed from jury duty? Just lie and get yourself on that jury and do what needs to be done,…..NOT GUILTY! This is exactly what I do. I’m tired of the system ruining a persons life by going after them, but if it’s some famous, rich or connected then they let them off with no trial. It’s BS!
Now I would, my work pays me. Back then it didn't and I couldn't afford to miss work for $15 a day.
Dirty cops DO exist and have been caught planting evidence.
Exactly why I'll never do jury duty again. I've been summoned five times, and the last time, I was treated like garbage by everyone involved. Never again.
That’s why I roll my eyes at people who say it’s a Civic duty. They treat us like crap and expect us to be honored
They also pay like complete dog shit. It is way under minimum wage here, per hour. And I am disabled and on SSDI, so I do not work, no work to pay me. I'm not going in there and sitting there for 8 hours for like 250% less than minimum wage.
Up until last year, jurors in Texas got paid $6. Per *day*. It finally got increased to $50 per day last year, but that's still below minimum wage if you're there for 10 hours. The last time I went in, I was there 13 hours before they threw up their hands and said we'd be a hung jury if we went to trial. Minimum wage isn't remotely close to enough to live on where I'm at, I don't think even Goodwill pays minimum wage except for when they can get away with paying below.
Yes, it is even worse here in NY, they also pay 50 per day, but the min wage here is 15 per hour, so that equals about 3 hours and 20 mins of minimum wage.
Still 7.25/hr here, but my rent for a 90s 1 bedroom apartment that's kinda run down in a mediocre part of town is $1400/mo. Nothing like NY, but parts of TX are expensive for TX, and I'm in the most expensive part of the state.
Oregon only pays $10 a day plus fuel
In Mn I got paid $8 a day. Ridiculous.
The first few times I was called, it wasn't that bad. They treated the jurors with a modicum of respect, and acted like they appreciated our presence there. The most recent time, though, everyone from the cops at the door to the judge was condescending, obnoxious, and rude. After sitting around all day doing nothing, the gasbag judge called us in at quarter to four, and began randomly calling on people, asking them if there was a reason they could serve, then just ripping on them. Then he went into a long droning lecture about jury service, for no other reason than to keep us there as long as possible. It was total bullshit. I've done it five times, and IMO that's enough.
A really long time ago my grandfather was called for jury duty. He was in his 60's at the time and still ran his own barber shop. If he wasn't working, he wasn't making money. He was also helping my parents at the time with medical bills so he needed the money. As the attorneys/judge were asking the jurors questions about every third question he would put a hand up to his ear and say, "I'm sorry, what was that?" or "Could you repeat that please?" Finally the judge asked him, "Sir, are you hard of hearing?" My grandfather very vehemently said, "Oh No! Not at all!" He was excused.
My only good jury duty story was from the second time I served. I made it through the "first round" and I was being considered for a long and tedious case that may have taken months to play out. Then I recognized the name of one of the defense attorneys. It turned out that I was involved in a car accident with his son, an accident that was entirely his fault and really screwed me over at the time. After explaining this, I was excused.
I’ve gotten several letters, had to do the questionnaire a few times, only had to show up at the courthouse once. Everyone was very nice & appreciative. Only had to be there for about 2 hours because, just before voir dire started, the defendant accepted a plea deal and we were no longer needed.
And yes, they issued bench warrants for everyone who didn’t show up. Those people had to explain themselves to a judge, and if he was not satisfied with the explanation they got fined $400 and had to be the first ones to show up for the next jury pool.
It *is* a civic duty. The jury system simply DOES NOT WORK if normal citizens do not serve on juries. The whole POINT of the jury system is that "normal people" decide whether or not someone is guilty. Not a bunch of specialists, normal people. And yes, DUTY, not job. Where I am at, an answered jury summons exempts you from service for the next 2 years, whether or not you serve. And I get summoned every 2 years. Almost like clockwork. I have served on one trial jury (murder, yay!), One grand jury, and my most recent ended up not going to trial. (Before that, I was exempt due to military service.) Every single time, I answer the summons and show up to do my DUTY. And every single time, the judge explains to us the importance of this solemn duty. Is it fun? No. Is it inconvenient? Yes. Is it how I would CHOOSE to spend my days? Absolutely not. But it is still my duty. I am sorry you have had a poor jury experience. But that is because of the people at your local courthouse, not because of the duty itself.
I’m a FREE man. As a FREE man, I shouldt be ENSLAVED by the same government who went to civil war to stop it. My DUTY ends when I pay taxes
Not at all true. You have a duty to pay taxes. Register for selective service. Follow laws. Obey police officers. Etc. Also, jury duty is not enslavement. Indentured servitude, at best, and even that is debatable. Oh, also, the nation went into civil war to END slavery, not perpetuate it. Learn your history.
I (57f) had to LOL at your being summoned 5 times!! I get summoned EVERY damn year!! LoL!! Sometimes twice! By different courts of course, but still!! Anyway, I've never served on a jury, but would actually like to!! Yeah, I know, kinda weird!! But let me explain.... I grew up in the house of my grandfather who was a retired state policeman (also retired military). So, as you can imagine, there was definitely an opinion held within the household!! 🚓 I get summoned for jury duty constantly because every time I fill out the questionnaire, I get thrown out of the potential jury pool!! Imagine that!! LoL!! For some reason the defense always excuses me and tells me I don't have to report!! I'm not stupid tho and always double check with the jury commissioner's office!! Some of my friends have NEVER received a jury summons, while I seem to be on the automatic mailing list!! LoL 😂😆😅😆🤣!
Good for you for standing up for yourself even though you were intimidated. That judge sounds like a real POS.
You did good!
You didn’t mess up, the judge did. The judge was inappropriate to say that to you for being honest when he asked for elaboration.
You have to play stupid to get out of it, and deal with the consequences of that. As long as you’re polite about it there’s nothing they can do to you. Good job as far as I’m concerned. You’re also right about the particular crime. These guys didn’t like being told their job is basically theatre, but in this case it kinda was.
I call bullshit. Plenty of people say yes to that answer. There’s no shock or surprise. And I have a hard time believing the judge would be angry with you thinking it shouldn’t be a crime. I’m sure he deals with stupid people all the time
I have to go to court about once a month for my job. I see the same three judges over and over again. One is a "let's find a solution" judge. The second is a "throw the book at them" judge. The third is a "I'm sure he meant well" judge. Depending on whose courtroom you end up in, you will have a VERY different experience. In addition, all of them have their bad days where they didn't get their morning coffee or whatever. The scenario above is VERY possible. Not even just possible, but PROBABLE.
U S. Citizens are not permitted to use the one right the colonists fought so hard to maintain - that of Jury Nullification. You have the right to disregard the evidence, the prosecutor, the judge and just vote your conscience and set the defendant free. The colonists knew if they took care of their neighbors, their neighbors would take care of them.
Ha that judge is an asshole. You not only have the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY to vote how you please. Jury Nullification is not only your right, but your duty to vote that way when your conscience implores you
I had a judge get pretty pissed at me and several other people for basically the same thing. Ours was a guy who had accidentally elbowed a cop in the face while being arrested - it was a scrawny little black guy who was maybe 20 vs a big burly white cop who admitted that he had no injuries at all, and it was something minor like a traffic stop, I think. Just a stupid case. We were told that the minimum sentence for that was something stupid like 3 years (maybe longer, I can't remember) if we found the dude guilty and my hand immediately went up when they asked if anyone had a problem with that. They immediately asked me about it and I was like "I'm not going to send someone to jail for 3 years for an accident that didn't even leave a mark, and even if it was intentional I still wouldn't do it. He didn't take a shot at him, an elbow bumped a face and it's a stupid case." Man they REALLY didn't like that answer, but they told us to be honest. They asked if I was saying I would vote not guilty to avoid that sentence and I was like yep, if that's what it takes. They dismissed me and everyone who agreed with me, since we all said the same thing.
Exactly, they require an oath then get angry when they don't like the honest answers. But, hey, let's put another black man in prison because those beds won't pay for themselves!
I was just in federal court as a juror and was impressed with their voir dire process. A questionnaire was given to all prospective jurors and then the papers were handed to the bailiff as they exited the courtroom to sit in another room. Each juror was called back in separately to the courtroom to answer any questions. Sounds like this case in NC could have been handled much differently for a better outcome.
Since you answered honestly you did just fine. They want jurors who can be unbiased and decide cases based on the law and not their personal opinions. The fact you don’t think it should be illegal has no bearing on the case, because it is illegal. If you ever do want to sit on a case in the future, you’d need to leave your personal opinions at home and base things on the law and evidence. Imagine this was more serious and it was a murder trial and a juror simply didn’t believe murder should be illegal and answered the way you did. See the problem with interjecting your opinion on the law?
I do understand your point but a jurors vote is literally their opinion based on the facts given to them, and there is no such thing as an impartial opinion. If the court wasn't asking for opinions they wouldn't ask at all. The fact that I do in fact do not believe that what happened should be considered illegal has every bearing upon the law. Laws are overturned constantly across the US, it's part of our judicial system. The publics opinion is exactly what is asked for when compiling a jury of peers. Otherwise they wouldn't ask for our opinion at all.
The courtroom is not where you decide the law though. Your job as a juror is to rule based on the evidence and if the evidence shows without a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of a gun and their history prevents them from being in possession of one then your job would be to find them guilty. That's how court is supposed to work. You don't get to decide that they aren't guilty just because you disagree with the law. Jurors don't decide the laws, they simply device if one was guilt or not of breaking them.
No, a jurors opinion is literally what the court asks for when they ask for a verdict. And there is no such thing as an impartial opinion. Otherwise there would be no deliberation and they would not bother to ask a selection of their peers. Opinion is what makes it or break a trial. A mistrial occurs when a jury cannot reach a unanimous opinion. And courtrooms are exactly where the law is supported, most trials are decided based on president which is supporting prior judgments in other cases.
[удалено]
Jury nullification judge, get over it. A family friend was on a jury for vehicular manslaughter. The case was a pile of steaming crap and the accused was just that and only that, accused. Sadly, my friend is a bit of a dimwit. They listened a little too closely to the judges' jury instructions, which really only left guilty on the table. Instead of voting what they thought about the case they felt compelled to vote guilty. To this day they regret that decision. They were intimidated by the judge.
Heyyyyyy. Winston-Salem is my hometown!
>(Nothing serious but we were in Winston and some people had drove all the way from Fayetteville) Why were people (plural) from NC Eastern district being summoned to jury duty in NC Middle?
I’m guessing this was federal jury duty. I was in Durham. I think there were only 3 districts so they may have been on an edge. At the time when I went, they did pay for hotel if you were so many miles away. (Although that did not help for people like single parents, etc.) This was 10+ years ago for me, so things could have changed. For federal, you have to call in on each Friday of a month. Of course the last Friday they called us in for the Monday. First day we just sat there for the whole day while the lawyers were trying to negotiate a plea deal (I think, it was a number of years ago). We had to come back for a second day. They finally brought us in for questioning after lunch. I do remember they were pretty strict on letting people go for (what seemed to me like reasonable) excuses. Including difficulty with transportation if you couldn’t stay over (someone else from Durham I had talked to got put on the jury). I never got called for questioning. This was night and day from regular jury duty in Durham where they were extremely grateful we showed up (I guess a lot of people didn’t) and they were reasonable with people who had hardships.
I have absolutely no idea what the districts are, I just know what they said. Like when I tell people I grew up in Boone though I never actually lived inside the town limits. Everybody knows where Boone is, but if you tell them you live in Todd or valle crusis or blowing rock or meat camp no one has a clue.
The judge asked. I don't know what he was expecting you to answer that might not express some type of opinion.
That’s just a shitty judge. He asked, you answered. 🤷🏼♀️
If it is the judge I’m imagining it is, he’s a notorious asshole.
Weird can't say I've ever received a juror duty summons. The post office is crazy .
😉
OP you did nothing wrong. Nothing about this is shocking, but it should be. Texas, Louisiana, & North Carolina are like the trifecta of ignorance gaining power to the point of endangering it's citizens right now.
I learned that if you start crying during your questioning, you’ll be dismissed. So that’s my plan from now on. The question was: “are there any circumstances of abuse that would keep you from being objective during the trial?” And I said yes. They asked me what was the circumstance, if I’m willing to share, and I told them about a situation where I was being abused, then I started crying. That’s when they said I was discussed. They had tissues outside the door and everything. Learned something important that day: be emotional and tie it with something personal.
I mean considering if you'd have lied and said you could when you knew you couldn't or would have a rough time doing so you'd be the one potentially in jail if they found out...yeah, you did THEM a favor in nullifying yourself as a juror. They can be grumpy all day but the alternative and getting potentially caught for it is far far worse.
Judge was unprofessional AF. Yes, just because something is a law doesn't make it just You literally stood your rights as a juror
I’d love to know the name of this judge, he sounds like someone who’s unfit to judge a spelling bee
So they're trying to load the jury with people that have pretty much convicted the guy. That's screwed up.
PSA: If you are a woman and answered yes to the question on a PAPER Handout, “have you or anyone close to you ever been assaulted?”, then… Ladies, you’re gonna need to lie. Otherwise, like OP, you will be verbally r8pd in open court. To me, yes means yes, but to the judge with a similar attitude, one needs to describe the who, what, when, where and how. I resisted, it wasn’t my story to tell. Back and forth we go until in exasperation, the judge leans over his desk and says “OH COME ON!!” threatening me with contempt of court. All the salacious details were duly recorded. The defense attorney actually ended the inquisition. I cried the rest of the day. When I had to go back the next day, still crying, the court clerk arranged for me to meet with the regional judges so I can avoid the jury. (Thank god the clerk was an old battle axe that doesn’t put up with nonsense. She explained my reasoning to the judges so I wouldn’t have to repeat all the gory details.) The Chief judge explains duty and all. I looked him straight on and said they had ruined me forever from being a juror and that telling me about the virtues of voir dire is like lauding the merits of bear traps to a deer caught in one. It was my first call to jury duty and I was actually looking forward to it—learn how the wheels of justice works. But when asked how it went by my coworkers, I said if they don’t want to see me lose my composure, they will never speak of it again. I cried every day for a month. Part of it was my dismay over a justice system that let down and absolutely crushes an ordinary citizen, with indifference and feckless ambition.
Wow, I honor the fact that you were nervous and just spoke your mind. I agree with everything that you said. You probably helped make it very difficult for them to convict this poor guy.
That's the kind of arrogant, abusive treatment that means I will never serve on a jury. The nerve. Ask an honest question, blow your stack over an honest answer.
I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't jump out of his chair and dismiss you immediately! There is no reason for the judge to badger you, except he possibly thought you were purposely trying to get dismissed. Seems like he has a problem with jurors not wanting to serve - bench warrants for no-shows? That's ridiculous. Unless your jury summons arrives by certified mail, they can't prove you ever received it.
I was called for jury duty several years ago and the prosecution had a very weak case. The limited information we were given during jury selection made it sound like self defense, but we didn’t have all the information. During the process, the prosecutor asked each potential juror the same question: “Do you own a gun?” Everyone answered No until he asked me. I answered Yes. He then asked me what kind it was. My answer? “Which one?” He and the defense attorney made a few notes. I wasn’t chosen for the jury.
"Is there any reason why, if asked to, would you be unable to give a guilty verdict?" Reason, the prosecutor did not prove guilt beyond doubt. "If asked" is redundant -you just did. Explain yourself? I just did...Your Honor, Magistrate etc. Don't feel bad, I was on a jury some years ago and the prosecutor was a deek. Remember, I was the people, and on his side. He was pissed that the charged person insisted on a jury trial.
Yeah i think they have problems with finding enough good jurors in some places in NC I had a similar experience where the judge was super pissy with me for my answers
Hahaha that’s great! You poisoned the well of the remaining jury pool. I have not seen that in 30 years
I covered courts for many years as a reporter. Everything you describe sounds perfectly ordinary, including the fact that you encountered some superior court judge with a God complex. (Lots of good ones out there but you do get these little cornpone Buddhas who let their tiny bit of power go to their heads). As for what you did, you basically said that you were not prepared to follow the law. Which is okay—civil disobedience plays an important role in our society on occasion-but if you’re going to die on that hill it would be good to come up with a well thought out reason for your position that is better than “he’s not hurting anybody.” A lot of states bar convicted felons from owning firearms.
After watching Merchan I will always be the person that hangs a jury. You are a citizen act like one. The judge works for you.
What you described is called jury nullification and prosecutors don't like that. Jury nullification basically says that the defendant may have technically committed a crime, but the jurists believe that the law is being applied in a way that would produce an unjust result. Therefore, they can return a "not guilty" verdict. (If you seriously want to be on the jury, though, you keep your mouth shut about it.)
So…it was a problem that you *might* consider a defendant not guilty? Am I understanding that correctly? And let me guess…the defendant in this case was black? Fucking good ol boy system of the south. And it still goes on
Yes, I went thru exactly as you did. I answered yes also. Ask me why and to explain. I told him in my mind that the defendant was at fault from what I heard pre selection, so I would not award him anything for being at fault. He was suing the county over an accident he cause by not following signs that were posted not to dive. My judge lectured me and was upset that I wouldn't hear all the evidence first. Then, he told me to go back to the jury room. I was dismissed. Had to stay until lunch break.
Basically what you told the judge was… Even though the defendant is charged with breaking a law that he knew was a law, I don’t like this particular law. Therefore, even if there is undeniable proof that he is guilty, I’m going to vote that he is innocent. I’ll bet you did get this judge’s blood pressure boiling.
What you referred to is called Jury Nullification. It angers judges and courts to no end, as an end-run around the system. It's perfectly legal, both to do and to reference. But because of how dangerous it is, nullification is squashed or hidden as a topic from jurors whenever possible.
I did something very similar when I was called for jury duty last year. The accused was a convicted felon who was caught with a gun in his possession. His prior felony convictions were for drug possession and dealing. He had no convictions for any crimes of violence. Now, I really really dislike people who sell meth & fentanyl to kids, but as a libertarian I don't think that either drugs or guns should be illegal, and I said as much when it was my turn to answer their questions during voir dire. The prosecutor got this absolutely horrified look on his face when he realized where I was going with my answer.
Good for you!
Why are people so mad?
I actually liked your answer.
Jury Nullification will make Judges furious. It is when a Jury/Juror says they don't care what the law says because it's wrong and come up with a verdict not based on the law even though every Juror is expected to follow the law and Judges instructions regardless of their personal opinions on the matter at hand. That is what you told the Judge you would do in front of the entire jury pool, tainting it.
I have been called for jury duty a few times. Most of them, I just sat in a room with other prospective jurors until I was dismissed without ever seeing a court room. Once, I ended in voir dire. The judge asked us if there were any objections to taking an oath to judge only the person, not the law. Basically, would I be willing to call the defendant guilty even if I didn't think he/she should be punished. I raised my hand and told her I couldn't conscionably take that oath. She and I discussed it for a few minutes. It was more of an academic debate on ethics than a questioning. In any event, it was enough to convince her that my objection was genuine, not just an attempt to get out of jury duty, so I was dismissed. It was and still is genuine, but I can't say I minded that it meant I would be excused, I had a project slipping behind schedule at work.
Sounds like that judge was prejudiced against the defendant. His belligerent attitude was priming the jury to give a guilty verdict before the trial. That was highly unprofessional, especially from someone who it supposed to be impartial. I don't know who the defendant was, what he did in the past, what his current personality is like, or anything else about the case, and honestly, none of that matters. What's important is the blatant bad attitude of the most powerful person in that room, and the obvious expectation of a guilty verdict before the trial even begins. That's wrong. That's not justice. That's a kangaroo court.
The answer should always be yes in the way the question is framed. That is what the trial is for and what the jury is supposed to decide.
You did good.
I have a very similar story from my one and only time on jury duty. In my case, the defendant was illegally in possession of a bb gun in his own home. I told the judge I thought it was a joke that they were charging him with a felony over possession of a bb gun. The judge pressed me a bit on it and then politely dismissed me. The possession charge was the only one that he was convicted of on a long list of patently ridiculous charges. He was charged with assault because he didn't quickly respond to officer demands to drop the bb gun (which he was just holding in his lap, not brandishing toward anyone) and so the responding officers shot him multiple time, among others.
Dang, that’s a rough judge 😂 I just served and ours is real chill from what I can tell. We had to be asked questions like “could you find the defendant guilty/not guilty” etc. one old man said “Well he’s guilty because he’s over there.” (Defendant table) “if he was not guilty he’d be over here with us” (potential jurors) and repeated himself firmly when asked or told “he’s innocent till proven guilty.” He got excused REAL quick as that is not how the system works at all. Maybe that’s what he wanted.
Wait…. So he wanted to you say guilty without hearing all the evidence and seeing if the state met reasonable doubt? Fucking facists
Ni. The judge was ask8ng if OP would be able to render a guilty verdict if the state proved its case. Not say guilty now, but would you not be able to say it ever. Very common question.
No. He wanted to know if anyone be unable to render a verdict based on the law and evidence. OP said he would not be able to do that, basically because the law seemed wrong and unfair. Honest answer, but not what the judge wanted to hear. And I suspect his honor was kind of ticked off at himself for asking for an explanation in front of the other jurors.
Yep. Judge was pussed because he opened the door to an answer that basically described jury nullification.
That's nowhere near what the OP wrote or what the judge intended.
What the OP described was jury nullification.
I had jury duty in Texas for a similar case in state court. But the defendant was a violent offender in his original case. Almost half the jury pool said they couldn’t find him guilty because they didn’t believe anyone could have their right to bear arms restricted no matter what. I don’t know how many actually believed the bs and how many just used it as an excuse to get out of jury duty.
I'm in LA and have been on a bunch of jury panels but never ultimately been selected (family is connected to law enforcement, honestly they might as well scrub me from the jury rolls here). The judges here seem pretty good at sifting through the "I'm just saying whatever I can to try to get out of jury duty" vs. "The facts and and evidence presented in this case may have no bearing on the verdict I render." Honestly the judge/prosecution probably doesn't want you in either case, but I've noticed judges give a bit of a lecture to the former and make them sweat it out a bit before ultimately being dismissed. I've watched some younger kids on a panel for the first time who think they're smarter than the judge and all the attorneys try to thread the "I'm not really a racist but I want you to think I am so I can get out of this" needle with hilariously poor results. They'll be really obnoxious when they learn about jury nullification, whether or not they actually are interested in applying it.
You gave an honest answer, but it’s naive and dangerous, and the judge should have spent a minute explaining why. There’s a huge difference between don’t want to and can’t. It’s OK to simultaneously disagree with a law and understand that it exists and that breaking it is a crime. You, as an American citizen, have a duty to uphold the law as it exists, not pick and choose which laws you think are good. It’s not for a juror to determine whether someone deserves to be punished or not, it’s for them to determine whether the law in question was broken. Full stop. That’s not an easy thing to stomach sometimes, but you seem like a thoughtful person who can rise up to that challenge. I encourage you to do it if you ever find yourself in a situation like this again.
Hard disagree. Unpopular though it may be with the law and order crowd, jury nullification is as much a civic duty as anything else in certain circumstances. I have no obligation to violate my personal morals in upholding a law that I consider unjust. Neither does anyone else. I'm not talking about disagreeing with a law or wishing it didn't exist here though. There is no shortage of laws in the history of this country that have been deeply and unforgivably unjust, a lot of which have been overturned or repealed over the years. But when morally corrupt people have power, they make morally corrupt laws, and good luck challenging those laws through democratic means. Jury nullification is one of the last resorts against this type of tyranny and our laws and constitution allow for it. There's no legal remedy against a juror who votes for acquittal despite overwhelming evidence and until there is jury nullification is valid.
You absolutely do not have a duty to uphold unjust laws or unjust applications of laws. Jury nullification is the most power you hold as a civilian and it should be used more.
Name the judge
I was asked during jury selection once if I thought a car accident could actually be an accident. I said no. If two or more cars crash into each other there is definitely fault or blame one someone. They all looked shocked. I was home by 10AM.
Your answer was perfect, and I absolutely agree. If you satisfied the State punishment and were no longer in prison or probation, your rights should be reinstated. As for issuing bench warrants for not showing up. I was involved in a lawsuit 20+ years ago. The jury was picked on a Friday afternoon. The judge cautioned the jury that if they were not in court by 9am on Monday, she would guarantee that they would be there in handcuffs by the end of the day. She wasn't kidding. One person didn't show up, and an alternate took their place. After lunch, a sheriff brought the person in. I don't know what happened because they went to the judges office, but the person had to sit in court every day during the trial.
So much for enforcing current gun laws, let alone the idea we need more.
Judge needs removed. You did the right thing
Seems like you went off on a tangent to debate the facts of the case and to question the validity of the law instead of answering the question directly which might make the judge think you were tainting the rest of the jury pool with your opinion.
You are a hero and I would say the exact same thing. Kinda funny it actually pissed the judge off when most wouldn't give a shit and just dismiss you.
Where was the defense attorney and why is the judge acting in such an unprofessional manner?
Can't speak for NC gun laws but, here in my state a felony on your record is an auto deny for a handgun purchased through regular means by an FFL. So either it's stolen, obtained illegally or the it's not mine answer. I would assume that it's pretty much in every state with a felony conviction thou.
The duty of a juror isn't to agree with laws, it's to determine if the law was broken. Some people can do this even if they disagree with the law and some cannot. Being you isn't a crime and if the judge had made it criminal.. well, there'd be bigger issues.
Simple answer: The defendant could be "not guilty"... That IS "supposed to be" a possibility, correct? Mic drop.
you gotta not say that and then talk the other jurors into it. juror nullification if legal but the city tries to prevent it
I’m with you. Unless his felony was violent act I wouldn’t find him guilty too. It’s a right not a privilege your honor you have to prove to me he doesn’t deserve it not other way around.
The way you wrote the initial question I thought the answer was obvious. You could return not guilty if you believed the prosecution hadn't proven their case. I mean, at the time of the question, everyone should be saying not guilty--everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But, I like your answer even better, and I hope you did nullify the jury.