Questions Asked to Potential Jurors

[RandyD]

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.

This is the oath jurors take; "Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the court?" See http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/step1.htm

If you vote your conscience and it does not comport with the evidence or instructions of the court, you have violated the oath you took.

[RandyD]

I've always wondered...can you legally refuse to answer/plead the 5th for any questions?

Your question prompted me to do some research and this is what I found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/step1.htm It appears that prospective jurors take an oath to answer all questions before they even know what questions will be asked.

Prospective jurors are first required to swear that they will truthfully answer all questions asked about their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case.

The perjury admonishment, which basically requires potential jurors to tell the truth when answering the questions, is read as follows:

"Do you, and each of you, understand and agree that you will accurately and truthfully answer, under penalty of perjury, all questions propounded to you concerning your qualifications and competency to serve as a trial juror in the matter pending before this court, and that failure to do so may subject you to criminal prosecution?"

[RandyD]

Hopefully this isn't wandering too far off topic, but one thing about jury selection that I don't understand: if you are selected, can the outcome of the trial be used against you later?

When I went through selection process a few years ago, the judge noted that in our group there were many people with engineering or technical backgrounds, and if we were able to refrain from our own assessments and stick to the facts presented. It got me thinking: If I did so, disregarding contrary information that I have access to personally, could my participation in the verdict be used against me later?

For example, if the case was concerning IT security and I was systems administrator, and there was testimony/evidence that I know was misleading or false. The opposing attorney does not bring it up for whatever reason, and I am compelled to ignore what I know. Fast forward and now I'm under investigation or on trial. Could someone go back to that trial and use that to state that I'm incompetent?

Jurors are immune from civil liability regarding their verdicts, so you will never find yourself on trial for the verdict you rendered. Jury deliberations are conducted in private, and only the jurors know what was said behind those closed doors. Jurors are expected to draw upon and use their life experiences in reaching a verdict. Jurors are not expected to ignore what they know.

[DParker]

I've been on multiple juries over the years and have been foreman twice. I have also helped pick juries several times as the corporate defense representative in civil trials back when I was in management.

In my experience, juries do 'think for themselves' and nullifications do happen regardless of the law.

On one case where I was a juror, key material testimony of the defendant was known by myself and a couple of the other jurors to be a lie due to our local knowledge. Corrective testimony or evidence was never presented by the prosecution. In deliberations we pointed out the significant lie and one of the jurors correctly pointed out that we were only supposed to consider evidence presented at trial. We smiled and nodded 'yeah'...and then we all promptly voted to convict.

In another trial, where I was foreman, it was a drug charge. The actions of the cops were just so far over the line that enough of us in the jury were sufficiently offended at their actions that we turned the jury from an initial majority vote to convict to an ultimate unanimous vote to acquit. I still remember how shocked that kid was to hear the 'not guilty' verdict.

And, btw, I do remember when picking a jury for a civil trial, our attorney excusing an Asian farmer. He explained that for our purposes, 'farmer' and 'Asian' were too groups statistically favored to oppose us. I also remember us excusing jurors that were simply very unhappy to be there for various reasons. We didn't want anyone that viewed the trial as a major difficulty.