|
If you remember the wrong things it backfires Also general studies of human cognition may not be applicable to a jury setting Also as mentioned the get all the exhibits and testimony and also jury instructions so what is to remember
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Also lawyers want you to make a decision based on a combination of emotional response and simply believing what they argue, that's why they try to appeal to emotions and verbal persuasion during the trial so much. If you took copious notes and actually studied the statements, you might make a decision based on facts and evidence instead, and they don't want you to do that. In particular, they don't want your CSI-watching rear end thinking you're going to crack this case wide open by carefully picking apart the statements of the witnesses and the details you noted about the evidence. They want you to just believe the arguments they make in court, either that the evidence is overwhelming and the guilt blindingly obvious, or, the evidence clearly insufficient and definitely not beyond a reasonable doubt. In either attorney's view, a jury that is right on the edge to the point where it might make its decision based on some detail some juror noted, is a case they've already horribly failed to argue properly. Last time I was in jury selection, the questionnaire for some reason asked what people's favorite TV shows were. The #1 answer was The Big Bang Theory (loving :negative) but the big leads for #2 were various flavors of NCIS. Especially as actually-seated jurors skew older, a huge percentage of them are glued to police and crime procedurals. Neither lawyer wants jurors thinking they're in a courtroom drama where the jury heroically finds justice despite the blundering of the experts on one side or the other. So the concern is poo poo like "the prosecutor said the suspect stabbed the victim to death. But the coroner testified their autopsy showed the victim died of, uh, <checks notes> 'tampo... tamponade, uh, ventricular, lacerbation'! Ahah, something doesn't add up here, sounds like the poor guy just had a heart attack and didn't really die from being stabbed" or poo poo like "the officer testified he found the bullet casings in the <check notes> dining room, but earlier he said the victim's body was found in the <checks notes> bedroom! Nobody who gets shot to death could make it across the whole house, the officer must have been lying." Take away the ability to take notes and the jurors are less likely to remember details that neither the prosecutor nor defense attorney thought were relevant enough to actually highlight and talk about a lot. The key points of the case are going to be drummed on over and over by one or the other or both attorneys, so the jurors will remember those. If the coroner's report is questionable, the defense attorney is going to make a big deal about that and harp on it a lot. If a witness for the defense is making inconsistent statements, the prosecutor is going to point that out and talk about it over and over. The jurors aren't going to miss the things the lawyers want them to focus on because they didn't take notes. That's the theory, anyway. It kinda falls apart if you assume that attorneys are frequently incompetent, though... Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Also what do you do if the jurors wrote down notes about evidence later removed
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also what do you do if the jurors wrote down notes about evidence later removed As someone with no experience in the legal profession (outside of wanting to go to law school 15 years ago and deciding not to because there are like 50x more law school graduates than there are retiring lawyers every year), this is something which baffles me. I understand it from a logical standpoint; a person can be told “use this set of evidence alone to draw a conclusion,” and they’re supposed to consciously ignore anything else they’ve seen or heard. The problem is that I’ve worked in both retail and fast food, and most people lack the mental elasticity to ignore the things they’ve made up in their own heads about the world around them, let alone some presented-but-removed evidence in a trial that they can barely comprehend to begin with. Is the whole process just based on an understanding that the court is asking jurors to do a thing that they’re plainly not going to do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Well if it’s bad enough it’s just a mistrial and you do it again
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
Juries are ludicrous anyway and should be banned imho.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
I'll give you eliminating juries if you give me eliminating elected judges and DAs
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also what do you do if the jurors wrote down notes about evidence later removed The same thing that you do if the jurors remember and act on evidence later removed
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
homullus posted:The same thing that you do if the jurors remember and act on evidence later removed Pause the trial and use scissors to cut out all references ?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'll give you eliminating juries if you give me eliminating elected judges and DAs I'm in favor of a roulette wheel system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'll give you eliminating juries if you give me eliminating elected judges and DAs Deal In fact let’s just eliminate elections entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Deal We could also make sure all positions are for life and......maybe have the person retiring choose their own successor? That seems pretty fair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'll give you eliminating juries if you give me eliminating elected judges and DAs We did  gently caress juries. Who needs em.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Motronic posted:We could also make sure all positions are for life and......maybe have the person retiring choose their own successor? That seems pretty fair. No that seems silly Anyway juries really don’t add anything to the system afaict other then a thing veneer that criminal Justice is legitimate
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
In theory the evidence never makes it to the jury and in rare occasions where someone either intentionally shows them something they aren’t supposed to see or fucks up and lets it slip, well, that’s a
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
My second day's over so here's more first-hand experience of being on a Federal Grand Jury: *There's always someone loving eating or talking over unrelated stuff and it's incredibly annoying. *Our Chairperson thinks he's a lawyer now and will try and act as such, often asking stuff that was already clarified or reminding lawyers "Shouldn't you bring up X thing because Y AUSA did" *Someone always asks a question that really has no bearing on the case. This was not brought up in any case, but questions like "What color was the car" *Hearing multiple sexual assault cases, especially those involving minors in rapid succession is extremely draining There was a massive backup in cases because of COVID, it seems like a lot of them are from 2019 unless there's some more pressing ones from recently that they need handled ASAP. They mentioned we may be called in more frequently than the 1-2 times per month if other counties in our district have worse COVID conditions than we do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
RealFoxy posted:They mentioned we may be called in more frequently than the 1-2 times per month if other counties in our district have worse COVID conditions than we do. Ohhhhhhh, I thought you had a new full-time unpaid job for the next 18 months and was like how can you afford this
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ohhhhhhh, I thought you had a new full-time unpaid job for the next 18 months and was like how can you afford this Plus decompressing after hearing several detailed sexual abuse and assault cases a day involving minors effectively leaves me drained the next day too. It's interesting to hear and I'd still recommend it to most people, but not "losing out on a chunk of your normal paycheck" worth doing. Especially over 18 months. RealFoxy fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
You only get paid $50 a day to sit ona jury? What kind of garbage system is that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Outrail posted:You only get paid $50 a day to sit ona jury? What kind of garbage system is that? e: Quick googling says some states are under $10 and at least one is zero compensation, but the same website lists my state as $15 so it might be out of date e2: More reliable source so it might be standardized now RealFoxy fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
RealFoxy posted:This is America. And $50 is the maximum, in a lot of southern states it's $10 a day. Don't forget to report it on your taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Pretty sure in most states your employer is supposed to make up the difference that you're losing out on, but good luck getting them to do that
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
If you're in a state where your employer still pays you while you're on jury duty but requires you to turn over the juror fees you still need to report it on your taxes on line 8 and then adjust your income on line 22.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
The more I read about jury bullshit the less I'm surprised nobody wants to go do it. Being expected to remember details of a long, complicated, and not particularly interesting narrative without any kind of note-taking ability is a literal nightmare, jesus christ. How are they with accommodations for the myriad of disabilities that might require some kind of external aid to understand and retain everything being thrown at you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
I had to call the company insurance provider and basically file a claim to get paid on jury duty. But I still got paid in time so that was good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:The more I read about jury bullshit the less I'm surprised nobody wants to go do it. Being expected to remember details of a long, complicated, and not particularly interesting narrative without any kind of note-taking ability is a literal nightmare, jesus christ. How are they with accommodations for the myriad of disabilities that might require some kind of external aid to understand and retain everything being thrown at you? Yeah, I was just thinking this earlier. Realistically, I expect someone who is blind or deaf is going to get struck more or less right away
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
A few things come to mind; Kevin Smith has a story about having to do jury duty with an anal fissure and the judge letting him lay on the floor during the trial as long as he could see. Also, secondhand anecdotes from dog nerd friends who EXTREMELY know and can quote the service dog laws they live in, and see people bringing things into court that literally unquestionably do not constitute legal service animals. It seems like if someone who otherwise wants to be there needs something that won't disrupt the proceedings, the judge will just be "sure whatever"; I'm just curious how that'd go with something less commonly understood than a service dog or serious physical pain, especially if it runs directly counter to one of their edicts like the notebook thing. If I tell them that I will never be able to usefully remember anything without a notebook or notebook-like object or device to scribble poo poo on, are they likely to let me have one? toss me? force me to do it anyway then be mad when I can't keep any of the keywords straight? I'm just morbidly curious, my closest brush with this I didn't really think about any of that poo poo, then ended up being 193/200 or something and never having to even go in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
Jury service is covered by the ADA so if a blind person or deaf person wants to serve, they’re getting accommodation made (audio descriptor or ASL interpreter or whatever.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Jury service is covered by the ADA so if a blind person or deaf person wants to serve, they’re getting accommodation made (audio descriptor or ASL interpreter or whatever.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Pretty sure in most states your employer is supposed to make up the difference that you're losing out on, but good luck getting them to do that For long jury trials, I try to only pick civil servants or people who work for employers who won't gently caress them over. So teachers, low level bureaucrats, dmv workers, the state will continue to pay them their daily wage while they're on jury duty. Some retail workers (particularly Costco workers) are super excited to be on jury duty because their companies cover wage time. The big hospitals in town do as well. It totally depends. Losing out on wages won't get you off a jury in most cases, because we are citizens who have a civic duty, and being a juror is a direct, personal involvement in your democracy. That circumstance can affect how long the type of case you hear is going to take though. I try to send those people down to misdemeanor land to do a one day DUI trial. Some schmuck with three kids who is the sole breadwinner and will lose out on five weeks of paychecks for some godawful white collar trial is not a good juror. I had one dude who was super jazzed to be on a jury, and he got picked for a four week long slog. The problem was he was a janitor who worked nights, and he said he needed to keep working. The judge asked "are you sure that leaves you with enough time to sleep during the day?" Dude said he'd give it a shot and the judge let him stay on. By day three he was falling asleep in the box, which was bad for lots of reasons. He got excused and one of the alternates was put in his spot. Nice guy though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
BigHead posted:For long jury trials, I try to only pick civil servants or people who work for employers who won't gently caress them over. So teachers, low level bureaucrats, dmv workers, the state will continue to pay them their daily wage while they're on jury duty. Some retail workers (particularly Costco workers) are super excited to be on jury duty because their companies cover wage time. The big hospitals in town do as well. It totally depends. How do you know who has what job and if they will get paid? Do you just straight up ask them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 07:44
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:How do you know who has what job and if they will get paid? Do you just straight up ask them? It was straight up a line to fill out when I was on a Jury: "How many days will your job compensate you for jury service?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 07:58
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Is a translator for witness testimony hearsay? No. Hearsay is an out of court statement made for the truth of the matter asserted. A translator in court translating in court statements is not an out of court statement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 11:55
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:How do you know who has what job and if they will get paid? Do you just straight up ask them? Yeah this is one of the basic questions they all get asked. Age, job, marital status, ever been a criminal victim/accused, ever been a civil plaintiff/defendant
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
I feel like serving on the grand jury would be very frustrating, knowing you are only hearing half the story and that you are expected to rubber stamp the prosecutors decisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 13:09
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Is a translator for witness testimony hearsay? A quick nitpick: translation is for documents, interpreting is for the spoken word. Interpreters used in court cases have to be court-certified, I'd guess the process varies by state. Court-certified interpreters are also quite expensive, which is one reason why unscrupulous shitheads (like a lot of chiropractors) will target people who don't speak English as a first language for insurance scams (usually without the knowledge of their targets).
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2021 17:38
|
|
|
What if you are on the jury and have a bad case of the shits? Will the judge allow you to trot to the restroom every 10 minutes or just tell you to poo poo your pants in the jury box?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
It’s called the jury box because it’s where the jury shits, dumbass. They just put down some clay litter. Remember to bury it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 06:06
|
|
|
RealFoxy posted:This is America. And $50 is the maximum, in a lot of southern states it's $10 a day. Vote innocent on everything until they send you home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Mmmmm, grand jury nullification. Speaking of, does double jeopardy apply to grand jury indictments? Can a prosecutor keep trying again until he gets his shot in trial court?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2021 12:14
|
|
