Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Questions Asked to Potential Jurors

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • #16
    ohsmily
    Calguns Addict
    • Apr 2005
    • 8938

    Originally posted by I open carry
    A smart person(Masters),
    the Defense does not want you on the jury.
    Uh, on what are you basing this opinion? As a defense attorney, all things being equal, I want the most educated and intelligent people on my jury (in most cases). Prosecutors often rely on people's biases against defendants and emotional reactions to the crime alleged. I want someone who will be analytical and critically evaluate the evidence (in most cases) and not be swayed by the emotional pleas of the prosecutor to throw the "bad guy in jail."

    Originally posted by Wherryj
    That's strange. I often get called (nearly every year) and almost always they try to impanel me-and I have a doctorate.
    Exactly.
    Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/

    Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.

    Comment

    • #17
      ohsmily
      Calguns Addict
      • Apr 2005
      • 8938

      Originally posted by ZombieTactics
      The whole process disgusts me every time I go through it. The idea that somehow a "fair trial" can only been had if the attorneys are allowed to "cross-cherry-pick" juries is an offense to anyone with a mind uncorrupted by law school.
      Why is it an offense to you? Shall we not be able to voir dire jurors? Would you propose we not ask any questions and run the risk of having someone who is friends with and/or knows the victim or defendant? Or in a civil jury, have a juror who works for the company being sued? I don't understand why voir dire, peremptory challenges or challenges for cause would offend you? I guess I am corrupted....
      Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/

      Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.

      Comment

      • #18
        robcoe
        Calguns Addict
        • Apr 2010
        • 8685

        Originally posted by scarville
        Correlation may not be causation but I an engineer and I am alway dismissed. About two or three or summons ago I smiled and chuckled a bit to myself after being dismissed and the judge asked what I thought was so funny. I told him that I am an engineer, I am always dismissed and, after the ninth or tenth time, what can I do but find some humor in it.

        I don't believe any more that attorneys or judges give a rat's fanny about a fair jury; they want a pliable jury.
        I have had basically the same experience, I think it's because engineers analyze data for a living, so we actually think about what we are being told rather than just accept it as fact. Lawyers hate that.
        Yes, I am an electrical engineer.
        No, I will not fix your computer.

        Comment

        • #19
          chris12
          Member
          • Jan 2011
          • 207

          Originally posted by ohsmily
          I don't understand why voir dire, peremptory challenges or challenges for cause would offend you?
          Not that I was who this was directed at but, I understand and agree with challenges for cause, it is just the peremptory challenges that seem unnecessary. I would guess (no data to back that up) that after both sides use their peremptory challenges the leftovers have statistically similar views to those that were dismissed.
          Chris

          Comment

          • #20
            Hopalong
            Senior Member
            • Oct 2010
            • 2436

            Let's face it, lawyers on both sides want jurors that they think can be easily manipulated.

            So as the previous poster states, if you seem to be able to examine evidence and come to your own conclusions.

            They don't want you.

            Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

            I had an apprentice once who said, "my worst fear is to be in front of a jury of my peers"

            Comment

            • #21
              ohsmily
              Calguns Addict
              • Apr 2005
              • 8938

              Originally posted by Hopalong
              Let's face it, lawyers on both sides want jurors that they think can be easily manipulated.

              So as the previous poster states, if you seem to be able to examine evidence and come to your own conclusions.

              They don't want you.

              Kind of ironic, wouldn't you say?

              I had an apprentice once who said, "my worst fear is to be in front of a jury of my peers"
              I don't find that to be true at all. The People (prosecutor) bears the burden in a criminal case. If they don't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense has to do nothing. While every case is different, I generally want people on the jury who can analyze the People's evidence and see the holes and come to the conclusion that there are reasonable explanations, even if unlikely, that the prosecutor has not eliminated in their mind and thus "not guilty." I only need one of these thinking people on my jury to hang it up. The more the better.
              Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/

              Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.

              Comment

              • #22
                N6ATF
                Banned
                • Jul 2007
                • 8383

                I was 18 or 19 when I was first sworn for a criminal jury, 2 or 3 years after graduating high school. It went to mistrial due to a witness not being available. When we chatted with both sides' lawyers afterward, they asked who would have been elected jury foreperson, and the consensus was me. I was probably the youngest there, with an age range all the way up to seniors. Not sure what that says about the state of the jury system. LOL

                Also, the consensus was that charges should not have been brought against the defendant, rather the "victim" - as the defendant was only defending against blood-drawing violence from the "victim". Personally, as they had a young daughter, I would have preferred the "victim" get deferred adjudication and mandatory anger management. The ADA was a rookie lawyer/former cop, and the public defender (kept secret until we were discharged) was a veteran.
                Last edited by N6ATF; 02-09-2011, 2:28 PM.

                Comment

                • #23
                  racer98765
                  Junior Member
                  • Jul 2009
                  • 13

                  My own experiences...

                  I've been called to Jury Duty once and it was for a murder. I was asked the standard questions including profession and "Do you own firearms?". I answered engineer and yes I own a firearm, but was not questioned any further and selected to be on the jury. My memory is a little fuzy but I believe they also asked if you are a member to any "political activist groups" or something similiar. I answered I wasn't a member but align myself with 2nd amendment enthusiast groups. Even answering their question with that response I was still selected to be on the jury. I guess it really just depends on the legal counsel for each side what criteria they are looking for that will make it the easiest to "prove" what their case is based on.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    RandyD
                    Calguns Addict
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 6673

                    I should qualify that my jury trials were all civil cases and not criminal cases. I can understand that some case a criminal defense attorney would want intelligent jurors. The jury selection process can be very involved. There are people who market themselves as experts in assisting trial attorneys in selecting a jury. In my opinion, the questions presented to jurors are too intrusive into their private affairs. There is a lot that can be said about this process, but generally it does result in fairness to both sides.
                    sigpic

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      scarville
                      CGN/CGSSA Contributor
                      • Feb 2009
                      • 2325

                      Originally posted by ohsmily
                      Why is it an offense to you? Shall we not be able to voir dire jurors? Would you propose we not ask any questions and run the risk of having someone who is friends with and/or knows the victim or defendant? Or in a civil jury, have a juror who works for the company being sued? I don't understand why voir dire, peremptory challenges or challenges for cause would offend you? I guess I am corrupted....
                      If all the lawyers asked was my name, place of residence, am I a citizen, do I know anyone involved in the case or do I have a monetary interest in the outcome I wouldn't be bothered at all. Voir Dire is much more than that.

                      Some examples of the kind of stuff lawyers want to know about you:


                      Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        safewaysecurity
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Jun 2010
                        • 6166

                        I'm probably a prosecutor's worse nightmare in a city who's laws I don't agree with. If I didn't think the defendant hurt anyone then I would probably purposefully hang the jury and let the guy go. We have the right to vote our conscience and hang the jury if we disagree with the law.
                        Originally posted by cudakidd
                        I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
                        ^

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          dantodd
                          Calguns Addict
                          • Aug 2009
                          • 9360

                          Originally posted by SteveMartin
                          I'm an engineer and have been on 2 jury trials (1 criminal, 1 civil). Each of them lasted 6 weeks+. The civil trial was last year, and the murder trial was 24 years ago. I have been in the courtroom as part of a jury in the intervening times, but never got seated those times.
                          Maybe they just wanted a good banjo player for long trials.
                          Coyote Point Armory
                          341 Beach Road
                          Burlingame CA 94010
                          650-315-2210
                          http://CoyotePointArmory.com

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            dantodd
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 9360

                            Originally posted by ohsmily
                            Uh, on what are you basing this opinion? As a defense attorney, all things being equal, I want the most educated and intelligent people on my jury (in most cases).
                            If you have the facts on your side, you want an intelligent and critical jury. If the facts are not on your side, go for soccer moms and play to their emotions.
                            Coyote Point Armory
                            341 Beach Road
                            Burlingame CA 94010
                            650-315-2210
                            http://CoyotePointArmory.com

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Hopalong
                              Senior Member
                              • Oct 2010
                              • 2436

                              Originally posted by ohsmily
                              I don't find that to be true at all. The People (prosecutor) bears the burden in a criminal case. If they don't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense has to do nothing. While every case is different, I generally want people on the jury who can analyze the People's evidence and see the holes and come to the conclusion that there are reasonable explanations, even if unlikely, that the prosecutor has not eliminated in their mind and thus "not guilty." I only need one of these thinking people on my jury to hang it up. The more the better.
                              I guess that's a pretty good spin from a criminal defense attorney.

                              I'm not a lawyer, but your argument doesn't address the fact that most trials are not criminal, are not beyond a reasonable doubt, and don't even have to be unanimous.

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                dwtt
                                Calguns Addict
                                • Oct 2005
                                • 7470

                                Originally posted by RandyD
                                One of the attorneys that trained me in jury selection always sought to excuse engineers and asians. He believed they were more analytical.
                                That explains why I never got chosen for the jury. For all those years, I thought they just didn't like me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                UA-8071174-1