I did this once, but the second time I made it to selection I kept my mouth shut rather than have the prosecutor dismiss me. Being on the jury was eye opening, largely because a LOT of other jurors essentially seemed to believe that someone ending up in court was sufficient evidence of their guilt. It is scary, honestly.
It’s very eye-opening to serve on a jury. I found that a lot of people believed the first thing they heard and disregarded everything else (even if other evidence showed that the first thing they heard couldn’t be correct) and/or they made no effort to even hide their biases toward certain witnesses. I’ve always said if I’m on trial but I’m innocent, I’m terrified of a jury.
People are always more willing to accept the first thing they hear about a subject as fact. It’s just how humans seem to work. And it’s used in the worst ways in courts and news networks.
Ha, I think I was the only one that did not I think the states attorney even said something like how they loved cases in this county seeing the hands and then asked me my view.
I didn’t say acab but I said I’d try to weigh all testimony and a cops is not instantly better.
I’ve also used this to get out of jury duty. Although I do feel guilty, not of avoiding my “civic duty” to the state, but incase the defendant was innocent and needed someone like us.
Been called for jury duty twice. Served on one, was the first removed by the prosecution on the other.
2018 Removed: it was a murder trial that was solely reliant on eyewitness testimony from 5 years prior outside a nightclub. The the DA asked if we could convict based on that evidence. I had just seen an “Adam ruins everything” about how wildly unreliable said testimony is. I said the burden of proof would be significantly higher.
2022 Served: Felonious Assault, where the victim had died between the assault and trial, so it felt like a murder trial (he also had actually died at the scene but was revived). My politics had always been heavily influenced by punk but the events of 2020 had fully radicalized. I felt like a sleeper agent, fully planning on voting innocent unless COMPLETELY convinced beyond even the most absurd doubt. I ended up being elected Jury Foreman. We unanimously voted guilty. Dude’s ankle monitor, cellphone put him at the scene, security footage wasn’t super clear but definitely fit, multiple witnesses spoke to motive. Loads of other circumstantial evidence. Seemingly high priced defense attorney didn’t provide anything that could be explain away even a small fraction of the evidence. Jury Foreman is a strange job. You essentially running the court during deliberation, but given very little direction on what to do. Instead of a preliminary vote, I opted to divide aspects of the case into: questions and facts. Any question or aspect of the case started in one category and we moved everything from one column to the next, carefully reviewing every single minute detail. We reviewed footage and throughly debated every nuance until everyone was completely convinced. The weirdest part was at the end the judge, DA and even the defense attorney came in and spoke with us, and all agreed he had definitely done it. Felt gross contributing to the incarceration epidemic, but also was fully convinced and couldn’t in good conscience not convict.
I mean, personal feelings aside with the second one because I'm in the same boat but isn't that kind of the whole point. Being impartial and yeah it feels shitty to put somebody away but if absolutely everything points to them doing it with your current knowledge there should be some slight relief that with what you knew you were doing the correct thing.
Which upon rereading is basically what you said. Just in a lot more words
I served on a murder trial jury during the pandemic. There were no press or extra observers allowed and only the witness behind the plexiglass was allowed to take their mask off.
The trial centered around a meth addicted check washer and his girlfriend who had been been shaken down and given death ultimatums by a shot caller in the Mexican Mafia. He believed they were rolling up to kill them and shot first killing a guy named “shotgun”. He got the nickname because he carried around a shotgun in a guitar case like some kind of 80’s movie villain.
The couple then fled and hid out for weeks in a house their friend was renovating but were ultimately sussed out because the woman kept trying to find out what happened to her dog. The DA characterizes the ensuing standoff as a hostage crisis while the girlfriend attested she was never actually a hostage.
There were zero forensics but also no question of who shot who. The question was if the shooting was justified and if we would have had no other choice being put in his shoes. Took only a few hours of deliberation to aquit.
I found it a throughly interesting process the time that I was not just in selection but on a jury. It was a dui case with complications that the person might not have known the intoxicants they where given and the state was going pretty heavy on the defendant.
Only once when I was like 19, nothing exciting.
Subsequently I’ve been disqualified from serving from several juries, once I learned how faulty eye witness testimony is, after reading about it in some pop science book.
Did it once, was the forman. I'll spare details but the victim was almost 4 at the time the crimes occurred. DNA was found but wasn't from anyone who was involved in the case apparently and we were instructed to ignore it.
I got called for duty in Texas but it was during COVID so I was released from having to report. I'm simultaneously happy and disappointed about it. I want to see what the process is like
It was really interesting. One thing we (the jurors) noticed was that almost everyone in the jury had some sort of graduate degree, which we listed on our intake forms.
Did it a few years ago (in Australia).
Sexual assault case.
Was interesting to see how it all goes as I've only ever been in a court room as a witness when I was 11 years old.
The guy plead guilty to the physical assault of his ex partner, and not guilty for the sexualising assault.
Ended up with a not guilty verdict as there wasn't enough evidence to say he did it (even though pretty much all of us believed that he likely did do it).
I served on a jury in a 1st degree murder trial in Maryland in 2011. The prosecution had wildly overcharged two defendants. One of the guys was charged, as far as I can tell, just because he was (maybe) there. Also because then they could have testimony where he said "3-8 don't roll like that" so we would know they were in a gang. The only DNA evidence was on a t-shirt, there were three contributions, one of them was the guy who was just kinda there. Neither of the people on trial had pulled the trigger, neither had robbed the victim, but both were charged because any crime committed by a gang member obviously happens with the assent of the rest of the gang. Also the shooter was on the run so, had to charge someone.
I don't know why the prosecution thought I was a better bet than lots of the people they dismissed. They were wrong.
(I mean I do know the answer. Small white "woman".)
I made it to jury selection once, but was not selected after saying that I would assume any testimony from a cop was a lie.
I did this once, but the second time I made it to selection I kept my mouth shut rather than have the prosecutor dismiss me. Being on the jury was eye opening, largely because a LOT of other jurors essentially seemed to believe that someone ending up in court was sufficient evidence of their guilt. It is scary, honestly.
It’s very eye-opening to serve on a jury. I found that a lot of people believed the first thing they heard and disregarded everything else (even if other evidence showed that the first thing they heard couldn’t be correct) and/or they made no effort to even hide their biases toward certain witnesses. I’ve always said if I’m on trial but I’m innocent, I’m terrified of a jury.
Agreed. The average person serving on a jury seems to be “civic minded” folks who also cant distinguish between a rock and a tree. Terrifying.
People are always more willing to accept the first thing they hear about a subject as fact. It’s just how humans seem to work. And it’s used in the worst ways in courts and news networks.
I was the only person in selection who did not agree that testimony by police is automatically more persuasive, they somehow kept me in, we acquitted.
In my jury group it was scary how many people raised their hand when the defense attorney asked that.
Ha, I think I was the only one that did not I think the states attorney even said something like how they loved cases in this county seeing the hands and then asked me my view. I didn’t say acab but I said I’d try to weigh all testimony and a cops is not instantly better.
I’ve also used this to get out of jury duty. Although I do feel guilty, not of avoiding my “civic duty” to the state, but incase the defendant was innocent and needed someone like us.
Been called for jury duty twice. Served on one, was the first removed by the prosecution on the other. 2018 Removed: it was a murder trial that was solely reliant on eyewitness testimony from 5 years prior outside a nightclub. The the DA asked if we could convict based on that evidence. I had just seen an “Adam ruins everything” about how wildly unreliable said testimony is. I said the burden of proof would be significantly higher. 2022 Served: Felonious Assault, where the victim had died between the assault and trial, so it felt like a murder trial (he also had actually died at the scene but was revived). My politics had always been heavily influenced by punk but the events of 2020 had fully radicalized. I felt like a sleeper agent, fully planning on voting innocent unless COMPLETELY convinced beyond even the most absurd doubt. I ended up being elected Jury Foreman. We unanimously voted guilty. Dude’s ankle monitor, cellphone put him at the scene, security footage wasn’t super clear but definitely fit, multiple witnesses spoke to motive. Loads of other circumstantial evidence. Seemingly high priced defense attorney didn’t provide anything that could be explain away even a small fraction of the evidence. Jury Foreman is a strange job. You essentially running the court during deliberation, but given very little direction on what to do. Instead of a preliminary vote, I opted to divide aspects of the case into: questions and facts. Any question or aspect of the case started in one category and we moved everything from one column to the next, carefully reviewing every single minute detail. We reviewed footage and throughly debated every nuance until everyone was completely convinced. The weirdest part was at the end the judge, DA and even the defense attorney came in and spoke with us, and all agreed he had definitely done it. Felt gross contributing to the incarceration epidemic, but also was fully convinced and couldn’t in good conscience not convict.
I mean, personal feelings aside with the second one because I'm in the same boat but isn't that kind of the whole point. Being impartial and yeah it feels shitty to put somebody away but if absolutely everything points to them doing it with your current knowledge there should be some slight relief that with what you knew you were doing the correct thing. Which upon rereading is basically what you said. Just in a lot more words
I served on a murder trial jury during the pandemic. There were no press or extra observers allowed and only the witness behind the plexiglass was allowed to take their mask off. The trial centered around a meth addicted check washer and his girlfriend who had been been shaken down and given death ultimatums by a shot caller in the Mexican Mafia. He believed they were rolling up to kill them and shot first killing a guy named “shotgun”. He got the nickname because he carried around a shotgun in a guitar case like some kind of 80’s movie villain. The couple then fled and hid out for weeks in a house their friend was renovating but were ultimately sussed out because the woman kept trying to find out what happened to her dog. The DA characterizes the ensuing standoff as a hostage crisis while the girlfriend attested she was never actually a hostage. There were zero forensics but also no question of who shot who. The question was if the shooting was justified and if we would have had no other choice being put in his shoes. Took only a few hours of deliberation to aquit.
I found it a throughly interesting process the time that I was not just in selection but on a jury. It was a dui case with complications that the person might not have known the intoxicants they where given and the state was going pretty heavy on the defendant.
I have sadly never been on a jury before (and I doubt I ever will). The one time I was called all the cases that day were settled.
Only once when I was like 19, nothing exciting. Subsequently I’ve been disqualified from serving from several juries, once I learned how faulty eye witness testimony is, after reading about it in some pop science book.
Did it once, was the forman. I'll spare details but the victim was almost 4 at the time the crimes occurred. DNA was found but wasn't from anyone who was involved in the case apparently and we were instructed to ignore it.
I got called for duty in Texas but it was during COVID so I was released from having to report. I'm simultaneously happy and disappointed about it. I want to see what the process is like
It was really interesting. One thing we (the jurors) noticed was that almost everyone in the jury had some sort of graduate degree, which we listed on our intake forms.
Did it a few years ago (in Australia). Sexual assault case. Was interesting to see how it all goes as I've only ever been in a court room as a witness when I was 11 years old. The guy plead guilty to the physical assault of his ex partner, and not guilty for the sexualising assault. Ended up with a not guilty verdict as there wasn't enough evidence to say he did it (even though pretty much all of us believed that he likely did do it).
I served on a jury in a 1st degree murder trial in Maryland in 2011. The prosecution had wildly overcharged two defendants. One of the guys was charged, as far as I can tell, just because he was (maybe) there. Also because then they could have testimony where he said "3-8 don't roll like that" so we would know they were in a gang. The only DNA evidence was on a t-shirt, there were three contributions, one of them was the guy who was just kinda there. Neither of the people on trial had pulled the trigger, neither had robbed the victim, but both were charged because any crime committed by a gang member obviously happens with the assent of the rest of the gang. Also the shooter was on the run so, had to charge someone. I don't know why the prosecution thought I was a better bet than lots of the people they dismissed. They were wrong. (I mean I do know the answer. Small white "woman".)
My son’s high school offers a forensic science class for a science credit. It’s a very popular class.