I might be a juror

[Foggy]

I share the opinion of others that when verdicts are tossed or a settlement is reached eight days into a trial that somehow this is an insult to us.

So for the first seven days of the trial, the jury looked really bored (it was a boring case) and the lawyers were just going through their paces ... and then on the eighth day, a witness testified and the jury was visibly mesmerized, hanging on every word the witness said. Laughing when the witness told a joke (we don't shoot jurors for laughing in court). Eyes wide open in shock when the witness said something surprising.

Bloody obvious to every living soul in the courtroom with any experience of trials that this one witness has suddenly changed the outcome of the trial, because the jury was so obviously affected by her testimony.

That's not an insult. The jury MADE one side cave and settle, eight days into the trial. You get full credit for that one.

'Course, that's rare but not unpossible. So you never know, and everybody appreciates your service in any case.

[Azastan]

Number 1 says it all for me. If we jurors are the linchpin for the court system, then counsel and the court need to do their jobs better.

The last jury on which I served was originally scheduled to be three weeks max (which seemed like a really long time, even at the time). I told the court that I'd be able to serve those three weeks.

Trial got started. A week into the trial, one of the witnesses (had to do something or go somewhere?) wasn't available. So the court told us that we'd have TWO WEEKS break. In the middle of the trial. Which was only supposed to be three weeks max in the first place.

That two week break meant that I wasn't going to be able to keep serving on the jury, because I'd already informed the court during voir dire that I had vacation plans for the week following the 'three weeks max'. I was already an alternate, so my needing to continue with my plans didn't make a lot of difference, but what about any jurors who had medical appointments or other plans?

[northland10]

As for the attorneys here, while IANAL, part of me would not want you on a jury, especially if you were a litigation attorney. I would fear that a trained attorney might be able to influence a jury more than most.

"Influence" in what way, exactly? And why would (whatever that "influence") be necessarily a bad thing?

I mean "influence" not as much as the attorney intentionally influencing others but that their presence may cause the jurors to look more toward the attorney than they personally consider the issues. Folks here like Filly I would trust to try to avoid that (as she mentioned she denied being foreperson) but the fact that they looked to her for that shows they considered her position as a greater one to look up to, likely due to her vocation, and not for her natural abilities and knowledge that are not dependant on her lawyer position.

As an example, my parish (i.e church) has had various small-group discussions about ministries and the future direction of the parish. While officially a member and communicant in good standing of this parish, I have not attended any of those small group discussions. While I would hope that parishioners would feel free to speak their mind even around me (which some are very good at), I realize that my training along with my pastoral and position of authority could cause others to unconsciously hold back. My role with the parish is a pastoral one and one of "power." That is not a good or bad thing, it is just the way it is (and, btw, why certain relations are not allowed between myself and parishioners who may be in a pastoral relationship with me because we are not on equal ground since a power relationship exists). I intentionally make sure that I am not in a place where I may prevent our parishioners from providing their full thought without checking their words because somebody in "authority" is around.

Seeing an attorney as John Q. Public when they are in a jury is not entirely a realistic expectation. An attorney in a courtroom, even if just passing by, visiting, or serving on a jury, may easily be seen to others as a person of authority. It is human nature to make those associations. It is not good or bad, it is just the way it is.

This has nothing to do with the attorneys themselves and if they are able to rise above this. I would like to see it possible but juries are also made up of different people who see things in many different ways and therefore, some may allow the mere presence of an attorney on the jury influence how they consider the case. For this reason, "part of me" would not want a lawyer on the jury if I were an attorney trying a case (which I am not, and maybe my thinking would change if I was a lawyer).

[northland10]

I also think that there is a certain amount of hubris among the lawyers and judges in the court systems.

Sadly, there are times that hubris extends outside of the courtroom. While most of our wonderful attorneys here have been so helpful with us IANALs in understanding how the legal system works, to which I have been so grateful, it is not always the case as I have seen lawyers out there (and sadly, a few here from time to time but happily, very few) come off with the "you are not a lawyer so just shut up, you don't know anything" approach.

The thing is, this hubris extends to many other disciplines (including both of mine) but is probably noticed the most with lawyers because it is a world where those not in the know tend to trend more often than other vocations, and also has a tendency toward adversarial relationships (probably a side effect of how the law often works).

Hubris in professions is sadly a reality. I am a member of various organist FB boards and there have been many times I what to slap my fellow musicians around for this. Seriously, stop whining and find ways to educate your congregations on why we are doing it the way we do. Create a conversation with them about what liturgical music is supposed to accomplish and not just demand that you know what you are doing so they should stop complaining (which never works because at all times the organist will be too loud, too soft, too fast, too slow, too old, too new, too borrowed, too blue).

[mojosapien]

Shofar I have passed prosecution muster

[mojosapien]

Jury pool is 6 plus 4...not 6 plus 200...

[mojosapien]

Postscript...I was excused because of this website. The presiding judge did not feel comfortable with mojosapien's stray comments in the jury lounge after voir dire. Blame Dolly Parton....lol.

Meanwhile back to probate and coughing up $3000 to retrieve my younger brother's ashes from the funeral home because he thought he was safe from the clutches of the IRS.

A mess for sure.