I'm on a federal jury panel this week and the case is one of those depressing ones that can't even be made up. The first thing I did after discovering that they were putting me on the jury was to walk to St. Joseph's during the initial recess. Only later did I club a baby seal.
A few things I've learned about federal courts:
1. Bailiffs aren't very attractive people, but since all they do is tell people where to go and will occasionally pass a microphone, they get very lonely and enjoy pointless conversation.
2. Giving jurors wrapped candy is a bad idea, especially when the same lady unwraps a new candy every 15 minutes, drowning out whoever's speaking with the sound of crinkling.
3. Having a bachelors degree (in fine arts, no less), working as a system administrator, and doing so at a university are not as likely to get one rejected as everyone seems to think. I was picked 8th of 8 out of 18 possible.
4. Dress as if you're about to depart on an arctic expedition.
Brian, it's been said that the judge really has no legal standing about how a juror performs other than in the courtroom. When he says "no outside investigation", is there concrete legal backing behind that?
jeff [email] said at 4:36 PM 05-06-2004: Until now.
Civil case. Local resident suing two companies for products that he alleged were responsible for 1st & 2nd degree burns on his arms and face, which resulted in extensive skin grafts from his thighs. The trial ended abruptly today when the bug spray involved was found to not be responsible as the cause of the explosion. This ejected the primary lawsuit and negated the second, against a waterheater company, since the second suit was filed after the max date that the plantiff could seek damages.
The amount of speculation, drama, emotion, and potential sources of cause in this trial made it really ripe for a tv series. I consider myself fortunate to have not had to draw a conclusion on the matter.
Several recommendations to my peeps:
1. Stop smoking.
2. Always have a professional install your waterheater.
3. If you have a gas waterheater on ground level with you, make certain that it's both raised about 18" and has a flame arrester grid on it.
brianbibbly [email] said at 10:44 AM 05-05-2004: Actually, I don't really understand the question Jeff. Please rephrase it and I'll be happy to answer.
P.S. You seem like someone that would be picked for Jury Duty. Smart, attentive, accomplished, presents well. If I was a defense counsel and I put you through voir dire, I'd probably pick you too.
Woody said at 11:15 AM 05-05-2004: I always thought because I have a love of logic and great admiration for the legal process, I would only get picked for jury duty by the defence if they had a solid defense. If the prosecutor had their man beyond reasonable doubt, the defense would want to challenge me. Do you think that's true? Do defense lawyers not think like this?
brianbibbly [email] said at 11:36 AM 05-05-2004: Well Woody, it's different for criminal trials than civil trials. 'Reasonable Doubt' is a criminal term. I only do civil defense work. Usually, I want a juror who is somewhat conservative and logical as oftentimes my defense hinges on a complex rule of law, application of a statute or complex insurance policy. The jurors only rule on the facts, I know, but a level-headed, conservative juror usually can apply those facts to the judges instructions as to the law. So a guy like Jeff is usually good for me. I don't want emotional people who will get pulled in to the Plaintiff's sob story about his/her injury or potential wrong. I represent big corporations and insurance companies. I am automatically seen as the 'bad guy'. I need juries with some business acumen who can look past emotional stories and make a level-headed decision as to whether my client is liable for any alleged damages sustained.
I suspect that criminal defense counsel also look for similar qualities in a juror. They want someone who can sift through the doom and gloom story the prosecution will throw out there and look at the facts objectively. Usually those people are older, more experienced people who are level-headed. But I can't testify to that cause I stay as far away from the blood and guts criminal stuff as I can. Let Johnnie Cochran do that. He can have it.
Woody said at 12:26 PM 05-05-2004: That's why I really hate some criminal rules. Like how they allow "impact evidence" into the trial before sentencing phase. Does it matter how much pain and suffering went on? How horribly children were mangled? Usually this has no bearing on guilt or innocence, and is there to make the jury think "somebody has got to pay, might as well be this guy in front of us". I think they were allowed to do that at McVeigh's trial. Damn it, a bomb went off and either he did it or he didn't. Pictures of dead toddlers don't prove anything. Why is this allowed?
brianbibbly [email] said at 12:40 PM 05-05-2004: In criminal trials I don't really know. In civil trials, damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish are awarded so I can see how that could get in.
*myriam said at 1:51 PM 05-05-2004: Yes, I agree. The scare tactics just inflame emotion and cloud reason... thus endangering the fairness of the trial.
Coward said at 2:34 PM 05-05-2004: Please rephrase it
The question seems to be whether there are legal repercussions for ignoring a judge's instructions to the jury, including instructions not to conduct an outside investigation.
If this guy conducts his own investigation, will he get in trouble? If so, what kind?
brianbibbly [email] said at 5:26 PM 05-05-2004: I don't answer cowards. Well, only if the coward has big boobs. Then I might answer. Ok! I will! I will answer!
jeff [email] said at 9:17 PM 05-05-2004: Doesn't matter. I have no intent to do something stupid like this anyway. I was asking to get a better idea of what's being asked of the jury as opposed to what's being legally required. Ultimately it would be inappropriate for jurors to imbalance the facts they're all working with as a group. It's difficult sitting there all day, not being able to ask what you consider to be crucial or clarifying questions and also can't validate the answers you're being fed, even on your own time.
What annoys me the most is that we can't take notes during the trial. That's a really big deal to me because I'm forgetting what I consider to be major details--the kind that keystone the more openly-discussed issues.
Thanks for the info on juror selection. I guess I should take it as a compliment given the large cut. I was trying to read what the closest attourney wrote about me before they made the selection, but his page was too far away to make out.
Woody said at 4:54 PM 05-06-2004: You don't have to take notes because it's like a lecture where the entire transcript is available after class. This way you can focus more on how people respond and who you believe, based on the shiftiness of their eyes, or their skin colour; important stuff like that. Also, if there's a really hot witness, you can totally make eyes at her.
brianbibbly [email] said at 5:09 PM 05-06-2004: Speaking of hotness and the law, I got to depose the entire bartending staff of buxom ladies at the Coyote Ugly (albiet shitty) Bar. Hehe, Of course, I made small talk with all the ladies prior to the depositions and I'm quite confident that I've secured some fun times at that (again, shitty) bar should I feel the need to step foot in there (which I probably won't).
I'm just trying to follow this weeks theme of big boobs people. Don't hate me for continuity.
brianbibbly [email] said at 11:43 AM 05-05-2004: Thats a quick way to get slapped with contempt from the judge Josh, but maybe if you covered up the 'fucked' with tape and it read 'f*cked'. But even then, watch out.
loren [email] said at 12:44 PM 05-05-2004: If there's one thing i fucking HATE it's how people, and i say people to encompass everyone i've ever met, take pride in finding ways to weasel out of jury duty, and seem to think it's cool. Take part, do your time. I especially find it funny when i hear this from fairly politically active people.
jeff [email] said at 9:28 PM 05-05-2004: Incidentally, here's a tip to anyone that has to sit in as a juror:
1. wake up early
2. immediately drink a can of "Mello-Yello" (or cup of coffee)
3. show up at court 30 minutes early so you can empty your bladder 5 minutes before
4. enjoy a morning of caffeine-alertness rather than nearly falling asleep or getting edgy
5. during lunch, repeat
My problem is #5. I'm not repeating, so by about 3:15pm I'm starting to fall asleep big time. Spending the day at complete mental attention and being physically stationary is extremely exhausting.
