Jury duty

[Dutch3]

Not only that, I think a judge can set aside the jury verdict completely.

Well, isn't that wonderful.

I know that most of you here in this particular forum have not experienced jury service due to your exempt status.

I have served on juries numerous times and found it to be very educational. It certainly wasn't 'fun', but I got through it.

At 61 years old, I think I am done with it after what I have seen. The 'justice' system here is entirely skewed. I'll show up and share my experience in the court. I will be instantly dismissed, as they don't want to confront the truth.

[pacrat]

As this thread is about jury duty, all I can say is that as a juror you can do your job as assigned, but the judge might be an idiot.

I believe we can agree that the opposite also happens.

I often read or see in the news about slam dunk cases. Where the jurry is comprised of at least one idiot.

[Dutch3]

I believe we can agree that the opposite also happens.

I often read or see in the news about slam dunk cases. Where the jurry is comprised of at least one idiot.

Certainly. There is always that one 'Karen' who relies on her feelings and emotions. Even though the judge instructed the jury to only follow the points of the law and the facts presented in the testimony.

Increasingly more people just don't comprehend it.

[Warbonnet]

Certainly. There is always that one 'Karen' who relies on her feelings and emotions. Even though the judge instructed the jury to only follow the points of the law and the facts presented in the testimony.

Increasingly more people just don't comprehend it.

Does the judge inform jurors of their right to nullify if they don't agree with the law?

Nope.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Well, isn't that wonderful.

I know that most of you here in this particular forum have not experienced jury service due to your exempt status.

I have served on juries numerous times and found it to be very educational. It certainly wasn't 'fun', but I got through it.

At 61 years old, I think I am done with it after what I have seen. The 'justice' system here is entirely skewed. I'll show up and share my experience in the court. I will be instantly dismissed, as they don't want to confront the truth.

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!

[micro911]

I got called to jury duty at a federal court last year. I was the first guy to be kicked out.

[Che762x39]

I am a retired LEO and I served on two criminal cases. The first was Misdemeanor Battery and Drunk in Public. The second was a Murder Case, gang related.

I get the Jury Notice every two or three years but those were the only times I was called in.

[RickD427]

Does the judge inform jurors of their right to nullify if they don't agree with the law?

Nope.

That's because there is no statutory or case law recognizing such a right and the prevailing judicial belief is that there is no such right.

[Tyke8319]

I guess I was under the mistaken idea that after 72 (don't ask me why 72 comes to mind) you would no longer be "summoned" to jury duty.
Boy was I wrong!! I'm now 82 and two days ago I received another summons.

[Che762x39]

If you are 70 years of age or older, the California Rules of Court allow you to be excused due to a medical condition without a doctor's note.

[Tyke8319]

Yep...I allergic to defense attorneys

[Supersapper]

That's because there is no statutory or case law recognizing such a right and the prevailing judicial belief is that there is no such right.

But jury nullification is a very real thing. I'm not sure if I read it here, but there was a case where a group was fined $500 for feeding a homeless person lunch. The prosecution could not find a single juror willing, if the evidence was there to support conviction, who would actually convict. I guess at one point they brought in 15 potential jurors and during the voire dire process, prosecution couldn't get ANYONE to say they'd convict if the evidence were certain to support it.

For me, as long as our system supports mandatory sentencing that is not so mandatory or is differentially applied, I can't serve on a jury. And when the state can ignore higher court rulings and punish people using laws that are suspect, I will vote for acquittal EVERY TIME. Why? Because with all of the obfuscation that goes on and legal shenanigans, I can never be sure I'm voting correctly on innocence or guilt. So I will follow what I was always told if I ever served on a jury:

You must vote according to your convictions and the evidence. Since I will always assume there is missing evidence, I will always have doubt. Therefore, I have no choice to acquit.

[Supersapper]

I believe we can agree that the opposite also happens.

I often read or see in the news about slam dunk cases. Where the jurry is comprised of at least one idiot.

True, but there is one huge difference. While one "idiot" might be able to hang a jury, the judge can still address that.

But if the jury is all good, the judge can still override. So the potential idiot on the jury is far less dangerous than the potential idiot on the bench.

[Che762x39]

On the topic, I have just started watching "How to Get Away with Murder" on Netflix.

I think we all have a dislike for Defense Attorneys.

[bigger hammer]

Gee, you sound like a dedicated public servant...so do you think it's not a waste of time to sit and wait to be called, when if you're called no defense atty would ever allow you on their jury? You may be dedicated, but you're not displaying any common sense.

You are wrong here. That's probably the case on a criminal trial. But I was a juror on a civil suit. And I know many other LEOs who did the same.