The two separate times I was called for civilian jury duty, once in Texas and then in Virginia, neither time we were told what the case was about until we sat for voir dire.
Given your education, it’s likely the defense would disqualify you, especially for criminal trials. When I was in my 20s I served during July and August. For the rest of the year jury duty was one week. I was dismissed on two criminal trials. I was accepted on two torts. In both cases the defense wanted college educated and people that had few problems with authority. Those people were more likely to rule based on facts and not emotions.
What’s your point?
1 Like
I tell you in private if you wish, it got my comment removed on the boards
Using this logic, if you do not have a poli sci degree you should not vote.
3 Likes
Funny but the two where I made it to the pool, they wanted the opposite. Any critical thinking people were excluded, the defense wanted people that were more emotionally motivated. All the engineering types were dismissed…depends on the case at hand.
2 Likes
Interesting, in Florida neither plaintive, prosecution, defense, nor judge know of your military status.
Though the one time I made it as far as Voir Dire, the bailiff leading us to the courtroom I knew from my active duty days.
My military status came out during voir dire with all the standard questions… “Have you ever served on a grand jury or trial jury?” and after I answered, “Yes…” they ask, in what capacity, where, and when? And I answered, “Yes, as a panel member (juror) in two different courts martial (obviously Military…) while assigned in the Republic of Korea and while assigned in Texas.” And probably out of curiosity they also followed up with, “What were the charges and what were the verdicts?” And I replied, “the first case was M u r d e r and the second one was assault and in both cases the verdict was Guilty…” And then the Defense Lawyers utters those phrases so often heard on TV, “Your Honor, the defense would like to thank and excuse juror number ‘X’ (Me…)” and the second time, “Your Honor, we exercise a peremptory challenge on Juror ‘X’ (again, it’s me and I took that one as an insult…)…” 
AI (set up for jury duty) would probably make the best jurors…
Heck, I have even said an AI Judge would be better than a human judge, as long as it was properly set up…
I think AI would convict a LOT of people that human jurors acquitted
1 Like
Perhaps AI prosecutors too. We had a well publicized case where the DA why trying to make a name for himself. Grossly overcharge the defendant. He did amend the charges to include the correct charge but concentrated so much effort on the higher charge that the jury ended up acquitting the defendent.
If your comment is idiotic enough to get it removed, then I don’t want to hear it.
3 Likes
Quite possible, but it also might keep some of the repeat offenders (or habitual criminals) off the streets and save a few lives in the process..
Still needs to have some kind of human oversight involved, but it would take the emotions and other things out of it…
With todays interweb availability, news media (good or bad) and almost everything else that is already out there (good and bad) before a judge ever knows about said crime, most people (good or bad) have already made up their mind about a crime once they hear about it, so buy the time they make it to jury duty, they might already be thinking about the outcome, and once a lot of people have already made up their mind about something, there is no changing it no matter the evidence, AI would take out a humans religious, political and personal believes (no matter what they are) out of the equation… A lot of humans seem to forget that as flat as a pancake is, there are two sides to it…
Not saying human emotions are all bad, but they sure can get in the way of a lot of human thinking… Heck emotions are why some people buy stupid things that are pretty but not practical/affordable, look at the divorce rate, what, isn’t it like 40% to 50%, all human emotions related, again good or bad, wright or wrong… Probably dropping cause people are just living together more, but just my opinion on that… Don’t think it (emotions) doesn’t affect jurors and judges also…
I’ve been in traffic court A LOT back in the day, seen emotions affect a judge many times, heck they will tell you straight up sometimes, stay on my good side and this will be less painful, and there is always some idiot that ticks the judge off and you can see 1st hand his emotions changing his/hers punishments… That wouldn’t happen with AI… just me thinking outload…
Everybody has an opinion. Think ya all got a better way? Be my guest to initiate an amendment to the constitution. Not that easy. I think hillsdale college has a free on line course on the constitution. A place to stsrt.
If you have never served on a jury, you have no idea the quality of the process. 12 citizens using the testimony presented to determine the outcome. It is the best system ever created.
If you have never interacted with a reporter creating a new article, you have no idea how flawed they are.
I have experienced both.
3 months on criminal Grand Jury duty at 23 years old. 4 days sitting on a civil trial involving a motorcycle accident 20 years ago. In both cases I was elected the foreman. Trust my experiences…. You want a dozen everyday citizens deciding for you rather than a judge or a panel of 3!
As for being interviewed for the news…. You would think the reporter could at least get my name right, but no. Playing fast and loose with the facts is standard operating procedure. Incompetence with some, ideology with others.
1 Like
A lot of people that claim to watch the news often can not distinguish between facts being presented and those presenting opinion and/or deliberate distortion of the facts.
2 Likes
Just my 2 cents. Not that its worth much. LOL I think most of the so-called news stations whether it be democratic based or republican based station have become talk shows. I think they should just report the facts without their opinion. I can make up my own mind based on the facts and come up with my own opinion. But I don’t think we will ever see that happening.
I hope everyone made it through the storm ok.
Being in a position or group of people that decides ones’ guilt or innocence, and annual voting, are somewhat different things.
Voting requires a self assessment of one’s own life circumstances, objective knowledge of the conduct and positions of the available candidates, and above all, common sense.
As a juror, your decision on guilt or innocence must be based only on the evidence presented in court and the legal instructions provided by the judge. The core duty of a juror is to set aside all biases, prejudices, and outside information to render a verdict based on the law and facts.
There so many, many things that you as a juror should/must never do… But we all know it happens…
You cannot let Outside Information: Any news reports, social media posts, etc… not admitted as evidence in court be considered…
If you are not sequestered you must not conduct your own Independent Investigation, of visiting the scene, or looking up legal terms online.
As a civilian juror, you decide guilt or innocence. You never consider what penalty the defendant might face. In a military Courts martial, the Panel makes a recommendation to the judge, who is free to accept tot reject the recommendation…
Your own prejudices based on race, gender, class, or personal background of the defendant or witnesses should ever be a consideration…
The constitution protects a defendant’s right not to testify; this cannot be used as an inference of guilt.
The verdict must be impartial, not based on emotional reactions to the parties involved.
2 Likes
This is all ideal, and I agree with the premise of it.
But is that what happens in some real-life examples of jury-appointed trials?
As I state before, but this time as non-specific as possible, I’ve noticed juries being more sympathetic towards, and more likely to acquit, individuals in certain professions.
This comes from the use of my own eyes and watching on TV or reading the headlines.