Jury Duty

[dgies9156]

Called for jury duty three times:

1) Was interrogated for jury duty in DuPage County on a shoplifting case at Sax in Oak Brook Mall. Was never seated.

2) Was seated on a Lake County, IL jury in which an African American woman was charged with battery on a Gurnee Police Officer. The cop gave conflicting testimony as to whether the incident happened at 3 a.m., or 3 p.m. The woman closed the door of her car and the police officer inserted his hand inside the door so he could retain the right to search it. The woman probably was charged with operating a motor vehicle while being African American in Central Lake County. Unanimous verdict on the second vote for acquittal. It was 11-1 the first time and 12-0 the second.

3) Was called again eight years later. Got off when I sent them a copy of my Florida voter registration.

My wife was called one month after we became Florida residents. She was seated on a drug case because she was so new, she didn't know the police, the attorneys or the judge, much less the defendant. Guy was charged with selling cocaine in front of a church (really massive penalty for doing that in Florida). He was convicted easily. Went up the river for 30 years. Was a habitual dealer and the county apparently had him on about 12 charges.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Served on two juries.

In 2004 in Chicago, I was on a jury that awarded $21 million to a family whose daughter was accidentally poisoned due to Walgreens mis-filling a prescription.

https://chicagoist.com/2004/08/12/walgreens_ordered_to_pay_21_million.php

The defense attorney was brilliant, but he had nothing to go on. It was super interesting to be part of the process, as the 12 of us decided on the award.

A couple years ago in Charlotte, I was on a jury that found a guy guilty of pimping out and abusing a 17-year-old girl. Also an interesting trial.

It is a civic duty, but I do feel badly for those, like the OP, who are called numerous times in a short window. Doesn't seem very fair to them.

Surprised being in media didn't get you disqualified.   That was always my dad's out.

[dgies9156]

Surprised being in media didn't get you disqualified.   That was always my dad's out.

In Illinois, they eliminated that exemption more than 25 years ago.

Only exemptions are for officers of the court and police officers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I've been called four times. Once I got the college student exemption. The other three times I got weeded out the second I told them what my job was.

[MU82]

Surprised being in media didn't get you disqualified.   That was always my dad's out.

I was surprised I was selected. After it was all over, I sat down with the judge because I thought I might write about the whole experience. When I told him I was surprised that an active member of the media was selected for the jury, here was his exact quote (so don't shoot the messenger):

"We like having journalists on juries, assuming all the other boxes are checked. Journalists tend to be fair. Analytical. And many of you are cynics by nature -- your attitude is, 'Prove it to me,' and that's exactly how we want a juror to think when hearing testimony. So unless a media person's actual job assignments create a conflict of interest -- for example, an athlete that a sportswriter knows is on trial for something -- being with the media is usually viewed as a positive and not a negative when choosing juries."

[Dr. Blackheart]

I was in a jury pool in Cook County when you had to serve a week (versus one day, one trial) with Dan Webb's mom.  Her son was the US Attorney for Northern Illinois who was prosecuting Operation Greylord which was targeting all the corrupt judges.  No trial would take her with a ten foot pole.

[rocket surgeon]

I was surprised I was selected. After it was all over, I sat down with the judge because I thought I might write about the whole experience. When I told him I was surprised that an active member of the media was selected for the jury, here was his exact quote (so don't shoot the messenger):

"We like having journalists on juries, assuming all the other boxes are checked. Journalists tend to be fair. Analytical. And many of you are cynics by nature -- your attitude is, 'Prove it to me,' and that's exactly how we want a juror to think when hearing testimony. So unless a media person's actual job assignments create a conflict of interest -- for example, an athlete that a sportswriter knows is on trial for something -- being with the media is usually viewed as a positive and not a negative when choosing juries."

  https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

[jficke13]

  https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

I'll make sure to take your biases under advisement the next time I'm empaneling a jury. You do realize that "Americans" are not the group of people who need to trust a potential jury member during voir dire right?

[MU82]

  https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

I thought worshipers of the deposed Mad King considered polls to be "fake"? Are they only "real" if you like what's in them?

As I said, it was a direct quote from the judge. Don't shoot the messenger.

And say hi to Q for me.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

Gratz to the right wing noise machine on their successful campaign.

[JWags85]

Unnecessary partisan agenda driven link from Rocket...check

Mad King/Your hero/Your Idol reference...check

Secondary mocking of Rocket to start a chain of such responses...check

SUPERBAR THREAD JACK BINGO!!!!

[MU82]

Unnecessary partisan agenda driven link from Rocket...check

Mad King/Your hero/Your Idol reference...check

Secondary mocking of Rocket to start a chain of such responses...check

SUPERBAR THREAD JACK BINGO!!!!

Look, Wags … I was asked a legit question and I gave a legit answer. And then doQter roQket goes into his bullshyte.

Could I have taken the high road and said, “Thank you for that truly relevant poll, fine sir”? Sure, but I didn’t … and neither would you have.

[Uncle Rico]

  https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

I had jury duty last year but got out of it with wearing my MAGA hat and shirt

[MU82]

I had jury duty last year but got out of it with wearing my MAGA hat and shirt

Wasn't there a Curb Your Enthusiasm episode kinda like that?

[Mutaman]

Free advice: if you don't desire to sit on a jury, try to postpone your appearance to July or August. There won't be many jury trials going on so you'll be out of there in about 10 minutes.

[MU82]

This long, but outstanding, New York Times Magazine article about a Black man wrongly convicted on almost no evidence provides a chilling example of systemic racism and its effects.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/magazine/yutico-briley.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210630&instance_id=34188&nl=the-morning&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=62115&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

Here is a summary of the article by the NYT's David Leonhardt:

After Benjamin Joseph was robbed at gunpoint outside his New Orleans home one night almost nine years ago, he described his attacker to the police: a Black man with a slim build who was wearing a pullover hoodie, Joseph said.

Eighteen hours later, the police made a curious decision. They arrested a teenager named Yutico Briley — even though he was heavyset and wearing a zip-up hoodie — while he was walking in Joseph’s neighborhood. Briley was Black and carrying a gun, which was evidently enough for officers to consider him a suspect.

From there, the case followed a course that’s more common than it should be. The police and prosecutors moved aggressively, seeming to care more about securing a conviction than making sure they were convicting the right person.

Instead of putting together a lineup that included Briley and several other men, the police brought him — and him alone — to Joseph and asked if Briley was the robber. “It seemed really unprofessional,” Joseph would say later. It is also a common way to produce false identification, research has found. Sure enough, Joseph identified Briley as the robber.

Later, investigators failed to collect evidence that could have cleared Briley, like security-camera footage and cellphone records that would have confirmed where he was when the robbery occurred. His original lawyers failed to do so, too. By the time other lawyers tried to do it, the records had been erased.

Ultimately, a jury convicted Briley based largely on Joseph’s identification, and a judge sentenced him to 60 years in prison without the possibility of parole. He had no prior violent convictions on his record. It was a virtual life sentence for a 19-year-old convicted of a single crime on extremely thin evidence.

There are almost certainly tens of thousands of Americans who are now imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. (Several studies have suggested a nationwide wrongful conviction rate of at least 3 percent.) A disproportionate share of the wrongly convicted are Black men.

By now, you’ve probably read at least a few stories about these injustices. They can be both depressing and enraging. But I encourage you to make some time today or this week to read the story of Yutico Briley. It appears in The Times Magazine, written by my colleague Emily Bazelon. It is in many ways “crushingly ordinary,” as Emily says. But it is also different.

White man who murdered two people carries a gun in Kenosha; police wave him through and he is considered a hero to many. Black man who hurt nobody carries a gun in New Orleans; he's automatically assumed to be a felon. The systemic racism in our policing and legal system is so obvious, and yet some refuse to accept it as real.

I hope that those who do serve on juries involving these kinds of cases will stay open-minded and will demand hard evidence before convicting.

And as a member of American society, I thank the fine attorneys and the heroic journalist who worked to get this outrageous conviction overturned, and I hope Yutico Briley will make the most of his freedom.

[mu_hilltopper]

Called for duty 3 times, got lucky twice on two juries.

Both trials were examples of people wasting everyone's time.  --- And it's an ENORMOUS amount of wasted time.  Lawyers, judges, bailiffs, jurors, hundreds of man hours wasted.

Trial 1 was to remove parental rights from a dad.  There's a long process where the State sets minimal parameters to gain your kid back:  No substance abuse, you need a place to live, and a job.   This dad had none of that .. but damnit, he wanted his day in court, and he lost.  Hundreds of hours wasted for this fartnocker.

Trial 2 was great too.  A woman accused her ex-boyfriend of assault.  Seemed cut and dried, young girl, big tough (black) dude, good prosecution.  Except the girl was lying to get revenge for whatever and the jury saw right through it, he was not guilty, hundreds of hours wasted for this soap opera.

That being said .. I totally enjoy jury duty and would sign up every year if that was an option.   I was bummed I didn't catch a case the last time.

[lawdog77]

This long, but outstanding, New York Times Magazine article about a Black man wrongly convicted on almost no evidence provides a chilling example of systemic racism and its effects.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/magazine/yutico-briley.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20210630&instance_id=34188&nl=the-morning&regi_id=108420427&segment_id=62115&te=1&user_id=d36dcf821462fdd16ec3636710a855fa

Here is a summary of the article by the NYT's David Leonhardt:

After Benjamin Joseph was robbed at gunpoint outside his New Orleans home one night almost nine years ago, he described his attacker to the police: a Black man with a slim build who was wearing a pullover hoodie, Joseph said.

Eighteen hours later, the police made a curious decision. They arrested a teenager named Yutico Briley — even though he was heavyset and wearing a zip-up hoodie — while he was walking in Joseph’s neighborhood. Briley was Black and carrying a gun, which was evidently enough for officers to consider him a suspect.

From there, the case followed a course that’s more common than it should be. The police and prosecutors moved aggressively, seeming to care more about securing a conviction than making sure they were convicting the right person.

Instead of putting together a lineup that included Briley and several other men, the police brought him — and him alone — to Joseph and asked if Briley was the robber. “It seemed really unprofessional,” Joseph would say later. It is also a common way to produce false identification, research has found. Sure enough, Joseph identified Briley as the robber.

Later, investigators failed to collect evidence that could have cleared Briley, like security-camera footage and cellphone records that would have confirmed where he was when the robbery occurred. His original lawyers failed to do so, too. By the time other lawyers tried to do it, the records had been erased.

Ultimately, a jury convicted Briley based largely on Joseph’s identification, and a judge sentenced him to 60 years in prison without the possibility of parole. He had no prior violent convictions on his record. It was a virtual life sentence for a 19-year-old convicted of a single crime on extremely thin evidence.

There are almost certainly tens of thousands of Americans who are now imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. (Several studies have suggested a nationwide wrongful conviction rate of at least 3 percent.) A disproportionate share of the wrongly convicted are Black men.

By now, you’ve probably read at least a few stories about these injustices. They can be both depressing and enraging. But I encourage you to make some time today or this week to read the story of Yutico Briley. It appears in The Times Magazine, written by my colleague Emily Bazelon. It is in many ways “crushingly ordinary,” as Emily says. But it is also different.

White man who murdered two people carries a gun in Kenosha; police wave him through and he is considered a hero to many. Black man who hurt nobody carries a gun in New Orleans; he's automatically assumed to be a felon. The systemic racism in our policing and legal system is so obvious, and yet some refuse to accept it as real.

I hope that those who do serve on juries involving these kinds of cases will stay open-minded and will demand hard evidence before convicting.

And as a member of American society, I thank the fine attorneys and the heroic journalist who worked to get this outrageous conviction overturned, and I hope Yutico Briley will make the most of his freedom.

Here's a free article:
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5942

The person robbed was brought down to the station to identify the offender,  There was no photo array or live lineup with several men standing against a wall. Instead, B.J. remained in the car, at least 15 feet away from Briley, while officers illuminated Briley’s face with the headlights from a nearby police vehicle. B.J. said that Briley was the man who robbed him.

To me, This case is more about the incompetence of the defense counsel rather than the jury.

For example, placing p.m. instead of a.m. on the time for the subpoena of the motel video.
Also, a 6 minute closing statement basically stating its up to them to prove he did it, and they didn't..Na Na Na Na


Oh, and he was a felon who illegally was carrying a handgun. But that is a separate issue and by no means justifies this conviction (in fact it wasn't allowed in trial to mention that)

[MU82]

Here's a free article:
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=5942

The person robbed was brought down to the station to identify the offender,  There was no photo array or live lineup with several men standing against a wall. Instead, B.J. remained in the car, at least 15 feet away from Briley, while officers illuminated Briley’s face with the headlights from a nearby police vehicle. B.J. said that Briley was the man who robbed him.

To me, This case is more about the incompetence of the defense counsel rather than the jury.

For example, placing p.m. instead of a.m. on the time for the subpoena of the motel video.
Also, a 6 minute closing statement basically stating its up to them to prove he did it, and they didn't..Na Na Na Na


Oh, and he was a felon who illegally was carrying a handgun. But that is a separate issue and by no means justifies this conviction (in fact it wasn't allowed in trial to mention that)

Agree on all of that, lawdog, including Briley illegally carrying (as always an easily available) gun ... though while I wasn't in the room with the jury it's hard to believe there wasn't enough reasonable doubt to not convict.

Part of the systemic racism in our legal system is that poor folks often get overworked and/or bad lawyers.

[warriorchick]

With all due respect, MU82, what does the article you posted have to do with being summoned for jury duty?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

MU82 looks for any opportunity to inject politics into a discussion.

[StillAWarrior]

I got off easy this time. As I mentioned above, I got excused when I got there Monday morning with instructions to return Tuesday morning. I returned the next morning, sat in the big room where all the prospective jurors wait, and worked. They called one panel (25 people or so) at about 11:20. After that panel was called, they told the rest of us that they wouldn't be needing any more jurors this week and sent us home about 11:45 having completed our jury service for the week. Now I'm done for the next couple years.

I think the biggest reason for this is that they are still on a very limited case load due to COVID. The county only has three court rooms that are being used for trials for 32 full-time judges and visiting judges. Typically each of those judges has their own court room and the visiting judges try cases across the street in the old courthouse. So, you go from a potential 35+ trials at any given time (which, obviously, would never happen) to a potential three trials. They just don't need many jurors right now.

Anyway, I'm pleased to have only had to spend one half day on jury duty this time.

As a litigator, I always wanted to be on a jury. I got to do that several years ago and it was a good and enlightening experience for me. However, I saw first hand why many (most?) lawyers don't want a lawyer on the jury. In my experience, a lawyer on a jury had way, way too much influence on the proceedings. Maybe that's not always the case, but it was definitely the case for me. I'm not saying that to boast, but simply reporting what I experienced. I understand it -- many people in a new and unfamiliar situation will quite naturally look to those who they perceive as more knowledgeable or experienced for guidance (either explicitly or implicitly). Honestly, I found it uncomfortable and will try to avoid actually sitting on a jury in the future if any questions in jury selection allow me to express that concern.

[MU82]

With all due respect, MU82, what does the article you posted have to do with being summoned for jury duty?

It has to do with the job of jurors. But yes, it is only kinda related. If I had it to do over again, I probably would have put it in its own thread or in the cops shooting Blacks thread.

MU82 looks for any opportunity to inject politics into a discussion.

Dear Scoop Posting Police (except when you post something that has nothing to do with the OP; then it's OK):

Eradicating systemic racism from our legal system isn't a political issue, or at least it doesn't have to be.

[MU82]

I got off easy this time. As I mentioned above, I got excused when I got there Monday morning with instructions to return Tuesday morning. I returned the next morning, sat in the big room where all the prospective jurors wait, and worked. They called one panel (25 people or so) at about 11:20. After that panel was called, they told the rest of us that they wouldn't be needing any more jurors this week and sent us home about 11:45 having completed our jury service for the week. Now I'm done for the next couple years.

I think the biggest reason for this is that they are still on a very limited case load due to COVID. The county only has three court rooms that are being used for trials for 32 full-time judges and visiting judges. Typically each of those judges has their own court room and the visiting judges try cases across the street in the old courthouse. So, you go from a potential 35+ trials at any given time (which, obviously, would never happen) to a potential three trials. They just don't need many jurors right now.

Anyway, I'm pleased to have only had to spend one half day on jury duty this time.

As a litigator, I always wanted to be on a jury. I got to do that several years ago and it was a good and enlightening experience for me. However, I saw first hand why many (most?) lawyers don't want a lawyer on the jury. In my experience, a lawyer on a jury had way, way too much influence on the proceedings. Maybe that's not always the case, but it was definitely the case for me. I'm not saying that to boast, but simply reporting what I experienced. I understand it -- many people in a new and unfamiliar situation will quite naturally look to those who they perceive as more knowledgeable or experienced for guidance (either explicitly or implicitly). Honestly, I found it uncomfortable and will try to avoid actually sitting on a jury in the future if any questions in jury selection allow me to express that concern.

Sounds like you got a good result, SAW, and I definitely understand how uncomfortable serving could make you.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

MU82 looks for any opportunity to inject politics into a discussion.

How is that politics?