Jury Duty - what are your experiences?

I was called when we lived in San Diego and was chosen! I'm fairly certain you served for a total of 10 days and heard as many cases they had to try for the term.

We heard two cases - one was a grocery store alleging a young man had stolen a case of pop of some sort. It was actually surprisingly difficult to reach a unanimous decision! It's hard to be totally "open minded" - the kid looked like a slug.

The second case was a guy suing Ford for a lemon of a truck (this was before the Lemon Law was in-acted). Again, deliberation was difficult.

I'm glad I got the experience of doing my duty, however, I think I'm too old now to subject my brain to THAT much hard work!

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: what the hell is that supposed to mean?

It meant nothing... he/she was evidently not at this trial, has no idea what the paperwork looked like, how the prosecution was lax and lazy in preparing for the case and he/she has nothing to really say. I hope he/she is never on the receiving end of a botched case and he/she is actually innocent. I suspect he/she would be singing another tune.

Or maybe the screen name "dropout" is all we have to know.

I gotta go with TLGOPT on this one, knowing someone is guilty and proving that person is guilty are two different things, That is the very difficult part of being a juror......Our justice system requires the prosecution to prove their case.....there is good reasoning behind the words "innocent till proven guilty".

I was called a couple years ago for federal court in Denver jury duty.....I was on call for the entire month....I had to call in each Friday night and find out if I needed to show up on Monday morning, I wish I had been seated on a jury.....at least having to stick close to home for the entire month of July would have been worth it...

I voted not guilty in the burglary case I mentioned (where the burglar escaped with two guns pointed at him) and the verdict was tied at 6-6. I thought the guy was probably guilty, but you have to assume not guilty unless the evidence says otherwise.

Even though there were at least two eye witnesses that identified the guy, his lawyer (and he had a pretty good hired lawyer) did a good job of showing reasonable doubt (an alibi and the beard issue).

But the big problem was with the prosecution. In their opening argument they said they would show that the defendant's car was found in the neighborhood where the crime occurred. But during the trial, they never presented any such evidence. If they had, it would of been a no-brainer for guilt.

I don't think it's a good idea for the prosecution or defense lawyers to say they'll prove something in opening arguments, then never do it in the trial. Especially for a jury trial. I know it happens, but some jurors will remember it.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: what the hell is that supposed to mean?

It meant nothing... he/she was evidently not at this trial, has no idea what the paperwork looked like, how the prosecution was lax and lazy in preparing for the case and he/she has nothing to really say. I hope he/she is never on the receiving end of a botched case and he/she is actually innocent. I suspect he/she would be singing another tune.

Or maybe the screen name "dropout" is all we have to know.

Maybe if you knew they were guilty, they did prove the case?

Lucky wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: what the hell is that supposed to mean?

It meant nothing... he/she was evidently not at this trial, has no idea what the paperwork looked like, how the prosecution was lax and lazy in preparing for the case and he/she has nothing to really say. I hope he/she is never on the receiving end of a botched case and he/she is actually innocent. I suspect he/she would be singing another tune.

Or maybe the screen name "dropout" is all we have to know.

Maybe if you knew they were guilty, they did prove the case?

Try going back to my original comment and read it again SLOWLY. As I said... they defendant was so flippant in his testimony HE "he almost accused himself." but he DIDN'T... he ALMOST... and the prosecution made numerous mistakes in the evidence, paperwork, follow through etc. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. The prosecution didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

(are we done with the US Justice System 101 lesson?)

While I was active duty military I was never called...my states of residence were not where I lived and most of the time active duty military are excused.

Within 2 years of moving to Park County I was called. I was not chosen probably 'cuz I was retired military and there is the assumption that military are like cops and are very set in their opinions of right and wrong. Possibly also because I've had experience being the victim at two trials. Again, the assumption is that I've already got preconceived notions based on my experiences.

I just received a jury duty summons for 17 Jun...would love to serve, but doubt I'll ever get chosen because of my background.

Wily Fox aka Angela wrote: Pacamom, your experience sounds interesting. I was amazed at how complicated a simple dui hit and run property damage case was; I could not imagine a grand jury case. I would be interested in hearing it.

if we ever run into each other, ask me to tell you about it

I was selected in Park County the guy was charged with DUI and drug possession.

He refused to do a breath test and the deputy messed so many things up we had to let him off of the DUI but he did get drug possession.

We all knew that he was guilty of DUI but like I said it was such a mess had to let him go. The one lady held on until 8:00 at night saying he was guilty so did not leave Fairplay until almost 10:00 and of course it was snowing.

It took me 2 and half hours just to get home yeah what fun hope I am never called again.