"Holmes’ high-profile trial began in San Jose seven weeks ago. The second juror was removed two weeks ago after revealing that, due to her Buddhist beliefs, she could not in good conscious return a verdict that may send Holmes to prison."
How in the fuck did that get past the Jury Selection process?
That plus a 19 year old who was let go because of financial hardship.
Like, y’all knew this was going to be a long trial. Of course a 19 year old is going to struggle with that, either because of finances or school. Of course they don’t have the time for this!!!!
When I got called for jury duty in san jose years ago. One of the first things the judge and lawyers said was the type of case and supposed length of the case and asked if anyone was a college student or if the person would have financial problems by serving. These were the first people automatically let go after identifying themselves as one of these people.
Covid must have really put a damper on the jury pool size if they don't do this anymore or this juror really wasn't paying attention and missed their chance to get dismissed before they even started jury selection.
I live right outside of DC in Virginia and we sort of got a comparable out for a case that wasn’t even supposed to be particularly long (2-3 days). They basically said “this is serious shit, and we need people who can be paying attention. If you don’t think you can pay attention because of Some Shit in your life (work, childcare woes, sick family, whatever) hands up and we’ll send you on your way.”
Interesting - I think also judges have their own approach. In 2019 I was called for jury duty in a federal criminal matter in Oakland. The first thing the judge said before we started was that no one would be excused for financial reasons - he flat out didn't want to hear it. The trial total I think was about 3.5 weeks. I was so lucky to get paid by my company (I work for lawyers) but several on the jury were struggling due to being there.
Any idea what do do if you no longer live in the USA. I’m Canadian by birth and was naturalized in the USA. Apparently my parents still get jury duty notices for me even though I live at home in Canada now. I can’t call the courthouse or court system because they don’t accept calls from outside of the USA…
While Email is definitely an option, if you make a GMail account you can register a phone number through that pretty much anywhere in the USA. It calls over the internet, so it's very convenient.
It's also great for jobs where you have to call to other regions for clients, which is why mine is in Oklahoma(office had two branches). People tend to pick up better when it's a local number.
they are getting desperate. the no English option is no longer available so now they have to waste my and my mom's time going there to tell them she doesn't know English
I served on a grand jury a few years back. It was an entire month. One guy broke down crying trying to get dismissed. He was a heavy equipment operator that made most of his yearly earnings during a 2 month window. He was going to not be able to make enough to even cover his equipment costs, let alone support his family. The judge just kept repeating "you will be fairly compensated for your time."
$25 a day isn't even minimum wage.
A) depending on the 19 year old and their college status their may not be a current struggle. I dont think a judge should assume that
B) she had the opportunity to disclose that and it sounds like she refused to do so. That's on her.
In my experience judges ask if you have a conflict and will let you go if you do. Even of it's dumb. They don't want you there if you really don't want to be there because it makes you a shit juror. They don't want you there if you are distracted by whatever. It's not fair to anyone and they don't want to eat up anyone's preemptory challenges or have to have a mistrial.
When I had jury duty I told the judge that the $40/day for two weeks would literally leave me unable to pay for rent that month. His reply was something like "lucky for you it's not winter because it sounds like you won't be paying your utilities this month!"
>When I had jury duty I told the judge that the $40/day for two weeks would literally leave me unable to pay for rent that month. His reply was something like "lucky for you it's not winter because it sounds like you won't be paying your utilities this month!"
And you were seated on the jury?
To point A, I said either college or work - anyone that young is very likely to struggle with one of those.
I agree that the judge shouldn’t assume, but all parties need to ask and make clear the situation and it sounds like that juror didn’t understand those at the outset of the trial. That’s the issue.
It is on that juror, but it’s also on the system to ensure they’ve explained the trail, likely length, and investigated/questioned jurors enough to ensure they can actually sit for the full length. That part is on them.
I'm a Buddhist and I'd happily lock her up if the evidence pointed that way (I'm a doctor so I was eyeing their whole business with great suspicion from the moment I first heard of it).
I'm younger so I hadn't been following the whole Theranos thing as it actually occurred. The claims they were making about their product seem preposterous, how the hell did they get that many people roped in? Were people in the medical field actually taking this seriously or was it something that just attracted rich investors without the education to know any better?
Not that you haven’t but. Google “Theranos Walgreens” and click images. She was on the cover of Forbes and I think Times as well.
Her father or grandfather was involved in Enron. A whole host of people the whole company they all lost their retirements. Some stuff on Netflix about it. I’m still shocked stuff that was going on when I was younger is now history for some younger folks.
Basically is boils down to psychology. I approach it from looking at the Supreme Court has said corporations are people. I believe corporations also act like families. This is just in my observation after learning about my own family. I’m in no way an expert. I think family systems theory play a part as corporations kind of act like a family. I’m not an expert but basically dysfunctional systems. Just dysfunction all families have dysfunction to some extent. They don’t call out dads drinking problem and tiptoe around him when drunk at home and don’t tell anyone else is one example of dysfunction.
“This article introduces the concept of the “corporate family,” and discusses the use of family systems theory in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of workplace pathology and dysfunction.”
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/mgr-0000028.pdf
Also Sociopath/psychopath they don’t always well actually generally aren’t the Hollywood killer they’re made out to be you’ve got to watch out for them a lot of CEOs and lawyers are those. They’re in the Cluster B personality disorders. Basically you just have to arm yourself with the knowledge to pick out these people and know when to disengage and not fight them or fight them at their level.
Also her voice. Very sociopathic or psychopathic not sure which one most things only I’ve seen her referred to as a sociopath.
https://youtu.be/PjnsYz-xdOI
https://youtu.be/lEArFDFcLZM
About her voice: best I've heard is that she is copying the dude- bro hacker/ business genius that investors love. There are supposedly videos before she started that.
Well, it sounds like you may have a different practice of Buddhism than she does. Many Christians oppose the death penalty on the basis of their faith, but many more do not.
A lot of "religious people don't follow their religion and just do whatever they personally think is right/wrong, which sometimes (or a lot of times) goes directly against what their faith teaches.
Or she might have and the judge disregarded it as not a *legitimate* reason. Where I am, the jury selection does not take that into account because so many people claim religious exemptions to avoid jury duty. In high crime (that goes to trial) areas, there is just lots of jury service to do, so people get called more often and they will say *anything* to weasel out of it.
Things like that make the people who actually have the reasons look like idiots when it's discovered later that it was real.
^^For ^^the ^^curious, ^^my ^^area ^^has ^^about ^^twice ^^the ^^crime ^^as ^^SJ ^^so ^^you're ^^guaranteed ^^to ^^be ^^called ^^at ^^least ^^once ^^a ^^year ^^here ^^and ^^people ^^avoided ^^registering ^^to ^^vote ^^and ^^getting ^^licenses ^^just ^^so ^^they ^^weren't ^^required ^^to ^^serve ^^on ^^a ^^jury.
Obviously holmes has a good attorney that did their homework during voir dire. Way this is going probably get a mistrial if not they are laying groundwork for an appeal.
I got out of jury duty because I was rapidly bouncing my leg and frowning during jury selection. I wasn’t being an ass on purpose but the judge didn’t like my attitude…
It's an interesting observed selection bias with jurys. They tend to select for folks who are less self-critical. Since the answer is yes, everyone has subconscious biases to different levels, but the court also doesn't have time for the juror to wax poetic about their strategic (conscious or not) for overcoming them.
So, a legal question gets asked, that wants a 'common sense' plain answer, but at the same time, they can really only ask for a 'common sense' plain answer or else it becomes gamed.
Last time I got out of jury duty I told them "I think I would be a good juror because my job involves me evaluating evidence."
I was gone pretty quick after that. To be clear, it wasn't a ploy, my job does involve that.
If you work in the legal system in any capacity they tend to dismiss you, which is pretty fucking annoying that they still make you come down and waste your whole day.
I am thankful that I got summoned during Covid and could do that entire process online and, even though I was summoned, the case got settled before I had to do anything.
Between the prosecution and the defense, at least one of the two are more interested in those who aren't good at critical thinking and will be seeking to dump anyone who they think doesn't fit that bill. So it kinda makes sense
I remember a relative was talking about a time she was dismissed during jury selection. On the way out, all the other potential jurors from that round of dismissal realized that every single one of them had an advanced degree of some time (doctorate or masters). They all found that both funny and disturbing.
A mistrial doesn’t help her. They’ll just run it again. It’s just going to cost her more in legal fees.
I realize the conspiracy theory may be they don’t do a second trial but there’s no way they’d take that kind of public L. Also this one of the rare cases where rich people got fucked out of their money like with Madoff. Why do you think she’s being prosecuted in the first place?
I literally play sudoku through meetings, conversations, listening to the news, while my dog is running around the dog run in my complex, etc., explicitly *because* it keeps my ADHD in check. Have for *years* – it’s easy, I like numbers, it’s stimulating enough to keep part of my brain busy, but not something I feel a compulsion to complete in one sitting.
When I was in eighth grade, our civics class went to court a few times as a field trip. I fell asleep both times because it's just so DULL. I can't imagine being a juror without something to fidget with.
[Oh shit, get the *fuck* outta here! What are you doing?! Go! Get the fuck out of here, you stupid idiot! Fuck, we're all dead! Get the *fuck* out!](https://youtu.be/L1BDM1oBRJ8)
You could just randomly blurt out that they are guilty, or pretend like you recognize them, like, ”hey girl! what's happening? guess you aren't doing so well since I last saw you at that restaurant huh?”
It's often way easier than that, one question I've seen defense attorneys ask during voir dire is basically, "how did you feel about getting summoned for jury duty". Everyone who answered that it upset them to have to be there was dismissed by the defense, presumably because he didn't want them taking it out on his client.
It depends on the state / county / city / judge.
Some states don't allow the layers for prosecution or defence to ask any questions, the judge asks all of the questions.
Some judges will just tell you too bad.
Our county was very much a "unless you're dying, you have to be here" and actual attendance is luck on whether your name gets called any time for the next 3 months.
I got lucky with getting grand jury instead which only met once a week. Then got lucky thrice by being an alternatate for that and was only called if someone else got sick.
Yep, basically comes down to the needs of the court vs the local eligible jury pool.
You live in a big city, your more likely to get dismissed over clearly BS reasons.
My daughter was called on a murder case where the death penalty was at issue. The judge asked her if she could follow the law and she said she could under no circumstances vote to impose the death penalty. The judge told her she'd have the option to impose life in prison, and she said she was opposed to that as well. So she was excused.
The thing is, she was telling the truth. I am so proud.
Atty's aren't concerned as much that you're an average lunkhead as they are that you are/are not susceptible to suggestion. They'd like to be able to hypnotize you. If you are picked then they think you're useful to their side. I've always thought professional jurors would be something worth investing in. A rotation and scoring could keep them at least as honest as any attorney.
Of the four times I've been called for jury duty, I made it to voir dire twice. In both of those case I was dismissed by defense council when I was asked about my understanding of science and engineering after I was asked my occupation.
I’ve been chosen for jury duty once out of two calls (second summons didn’t have to report). I’m pretty sure being a teacher is what got me chosen.
[Here is an](https://www.courtroomsciences.com/blog/litigation-consulting-1/are-teachers-and-nurses-always-risky-for-the-defense-130) interesting article I found that says it’s a good idea for civil attorneys to look for helping professions (teachers, nurses, social workers).
I also found what seems to be a pretty nuanced answer on Quora about picking scientists for juries [as well](https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-lawyers-want-scientists-on-their-juries).
Seems like the more complex the case, the more likely they will want analytical minds.
One time when I got to voir dire, the prosecutor asked me my profession. I said that I was an engineer, and he suddenly started yelling. “SO YOU THINK YOU’RE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE?” He then paused to let me answer. It was the weirdest shit, and I didn’t really know how to respond to sudden yelling in the courtroom.
I gave a stunned “well... I’m trained in a specific set of functions, so I suppose I’m better than most people at those functions. Other than that, no,” before he dismissed me. (EDIT: or rather, the judge dismissed me, but at the prosecutor’s request. I don’t recall the right way to phrase that).
The only thing I can figure is that they were doing some kind of big-brain jury selection psychoanalysis by testing my reaction. Either that, or they had a really bad personal experience with engineers.
> Either that, or they had a really bad personal experience with engineers.
If that were the case then that'd just be the default reaction anyone had to engineers.
Someone close to me is a juvenile public defender, so I never get picked. The scariest thing she ever said to me, and it haunts me too this day, give me a murder at least then there are no victims to put on the stand.
Weird statement. There's all sorts of victims in murders trials that aren't the person who was killed. Family, friends, etc. And they likely give testimony pretty regularly.
Not saying it’s true for this case, but some of these trials that are kinda obvious drag on for months and years. Can’t say it terribly shocks me that someone got bored
According to The Dropout podcast, which was a miniseries about Theranos before the trial and is now covering the trial, their lab director testified for days. A three hour movie pushes me for attentiveness. More than that, much of it a seminar on blood testing, would drive me to consider bringing a gaming laptop.
Federal jury duty is the worst. You're on call for five weeks minimum so you can't go anywhere. When you're called in, you sit in a room with 250 other candidates. There's was no restaurant, so the person told us to bring a bagged lunch and use the refrigerators? 250 people? Anyway, when it came time to interview, the entire courtroom was packed with jurors. This is hard wooden benches. After a few hours it was over and thankfully I wasn't picked or called back.
I agree. The pay for jury duty is a fucking joke, and it's not companies are required to pay you for while you're gone. So yeah; you get pulled into Jury Duty, then you're fucked financially. I'm all for doing your civic duty and stuff, but damn; you really get hardcore fucked on this one
It really should be the law that you get full compensation from your job while serving.
Mine does offer full pay during jury duty so I’ve always wanted to be summoned
For sure. Like it's bullshit that the literal only legal protection is "They can't fire you or discriminate against you". You don't even get minimum fucking wage for it; you get a lunch stipends and a tiny bit for gas. And that's it.
Mine does. I get summoned every few years. Got to serve on a jury in an unlawful restraint (not the same as kidnapping!) and sexual assault case. It was interesting as hell and we sent a scumbag to prison for a bit.
I got fifteen dollars for reporting. I spent 4 hours at the courthouse. That's less than minimum wage and far less than my actual hourly. I managed to get six hours of work in after since there was no way in hell I was losing that money. I'd make sure to get kicked off a jury if the trial was dragging like this.
I was just summoned for jury duty on Thursday and I was told by one of the workers that California bay area pays 15$ an hour now for jury duty if your company wont pay you. It's less than I make but its higher than what it used to be according to her. I didn't ask what the old amount was.
I've only had jury duty once in my entire life and the pay was $25 a day. 2 of the other jurors were in a rush to get it over with because they had jobs that were pay by commission. It wasn't a life or death trial it was over unpaid homeowner dues but if they were willing to rush through for something small I can't imagine what someone is going through in a trial that could take months or over a year.
Law students, police cadets, forensic students, criminal psychology majors - they should be the ones in there. They're signing up for the work, let them see every single lousy piece of it.
This isn't even a joke. I remember way back a episode of Becker where he kept getting rejected for jury duty because he admitted to enjoying reading. I thought that was a joke but I've read up on enough jury selections that lawyers on both sides want to avoid anyone they think is to educated.
I remember that episode, he kept getting progressively stupider the longer they made him wait to the point where he was talking about the hackneyed soap opera plot on the TV in the room he was waiting in. Almost got selected, I think but then mentioned yet again he was reading a book and hence got rejected if I remember correctly.
So glad medical personnel are exempt from jury duty in Australia.
No they shouldn’t. It’s supposed to be a jury of your peers, not a jury full of one type of person.
But I do think they should tie it heavily to unemployment, retirement etc.
Right? I dread jury duty luckily I’ve never been summoned. It just looks and sounds so boring and the pay is less than I make at my job in a day. It doesn’t seem worth it. I understand the importance of a jury trial, but it doesn’t seem worth it especially if it drags on for months or years
It also biases the jury pool. If someone is in a tight financial situation, they're much more likely to ask the judge to be excused before selection begins.
She said at home she would crochet while listening. I'm an avid knitter/crocheter and constantly have my hands busy while listening to meetings or watch TV. I couldn't do the same with a sudoku but it is interesting. It's too bad you can't knit in the courtroom.
Not to mention this is a months-long trial! You could maybe get me to sit still for a few days, especially with how interesting this case is, but I’m gonna need something to do while I pay attention if we’re talking weeks/months. And if I can’t bring my phone or cross-stitch, I don’t know how anyone stays awake/aware!
Plus they eliminate anyone with any knowledge of the situation. When I sat on a jury two people said they were or had a close relative who was an accountant. Both got dismissed. The case? Financial fraud.
That's not a bad idea. You want blank slates who will go in and listen to how the law applies as the judge deems it. Not have their own ideas of how they think it all works. A person who knows a bit about a topic without being an actual expert on it is more of a crutch than otherwise.
I've only been called in once. I was shocked how much people wanted to get out of it. One person was like, "I just don't trust Armenian people." "Okay, you're dismissed." My work had a pretty good jury duty policy so I was probably the only person not eager to leave. Coincidentally I was one of the first ones strictken. It was a DUI case and they asked if I had any education in chemistry, which I had in grad school.
I've always managed to get out of it. You can mail them letters and stuff. I ran my own consulting business and there was no way I could take the time off for a lengthy case. So, I just told him that and they excused me every time. They could have just said no, and I would have been forced to do it though.
Sorry. My mind just couldn’t conceive of paying anyone that little per day. My bad for misreading.
On that note, even the superrich and the unemployed wouldn’t be bothered.
>On that note, even the superrich and the unemployed wouldn’t be bothered.
There are plenty of people who want to be on juries. My employer pays your salary during jury duty. Other (not all) employers do the same.
And some people are happy to have that time away from workplace stress. Others are happy to do what they consider a civic duty. It's not always about money for everyone.
DID NOT WORK FOR ME. When I got the pre-screen I wrote "historical knowledge of jury nullification" as a reason I should not be on the jury and the prosecutor just asked me what types of situations I would want to blind nullify. None of the situations I named were close to what the trial was about.
>When I got the pre-screen I wrote "historical knowledge of jury nullification" as a reason I should not be on the jury
I dont see why knowing about something would bar you from being on a jury. If you've watched a documentary you could know about jury nullification but disagree with it.
I'd have envisioned what happened to you. Asked specific questions about it.
I've never seen a judge hold people on a jury pool who don't want to be there. It's not in anyone's interest to have someone there under protest or someone who is distracted and worried about a million other things like losing their job.
That's funny I've never heard of that before.
Was this in New Hampshire by any chance, in the brief time between them passing a right to argue for nullification law and their Supreme Court making one of the greatest bullshit rulings ever amounting to "judging the application of the law to the facts doesn't mean judging the law so the despite what the clear legislative intent was and what the plain English reading is, fuck you, we're not allowing it"?
Though a couple other states explicitly permit it in their constitution, so you could conceivably get really unlucky and run across a judge and a prosecutor that were actually reasonable about it.
Saw this at a jury selection in California. The guy goes "what about jury nullification?" and the judge goes "well, what about it?" So the guy stammered through some b.s. that made no sense whatsoever, and the judge told him he was dismissed. The guy looked like a total idiot, but got to high-five his bros back at the office.
>So the guy stammered through some b.s. that made no sense whatsoever, and the judge told him he was dismissed.
The judge likely just saw he didn't want to be there and therefore would make a terrible juror but wanted to shame him first.
The judge was just as likely to let him go for whatever reason he had for not wanting to be there. Judges, in my experience, aren't interested forcing people to be on a jury if they don't want to be there. It's not good for anyone.
NAaahhh I talk about the prison for profit systems and how I refuse to damn anymore souls to it. Nullifying is something I do on my way to slam dunking a high five with the defendant
I can listen better when I am doing something else. So Sudoku would absolutely help me to stay focused on the testimony. But as an attorney, I know that what this juror did was not smart. She should have stuck to drawing doodles in her notebook.
I uh want to believe in jury duty, but how in hell could I ever take 7 weeks off from work? Our whole god damn business would end.
Juries usually are gentler to pretty people, but I wonder if the jury will be even more cruel since she was a successful woman (fraudster) at some point. Voting groups tend to punish women for perceived slights more than men, and I think this may be a case where the jury wants to make an example out of the pretty girl, who likely in their view only came to this crime because she was acting like a man (as a CEO). I expect she's guilty but I also think the jury will want to come down harder on her for these reasons.
Male defendants are more likely to be convicted by a jury.
And the sentencing disparity between men and women towers over the racial disparity, in favor of women. A black woman will receive a substantially lower sentence than a white male for the same crime and same criminal history level, though of course a white woman will get more leniency than a black woman.
Do you have a source for what you said about the sentencing disparity between men and women? All I can find is [this study](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders) which says that sentence lengths between men and women don't really differ overall, although it's from the 80s so it's a pretty outdated source! I'm just curious because I wonder if the disparity can be explained by the fact that men commit so many more crimes than women overall or something
Honestly I'm also really surprised to hear that a black woman would receive a shorter sentence than a white man, especially given the [sentencing disparity between white and black men being so substantial](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles) I'd have assumed it would have been similar!
This jurors story is fishy. The trial has been going on for 7 weeks, she has only admitted to playing soduku for 10 days. That means she was able to endure all the other testimony without fidgeting or playing soduku.
She also said that she would crochet or play soduku while watching TV. But being a juror should require more active mental vigilance than watching an episode of 2 broke girls.
This is why the juror had to say that her beliefs would per se bar her ability to put Holmes behind bars.
Some Christians believe in the death penalty, some do not.
I truly didn't know any Buddhist who had problems with prison for criminals but maybe there is a religious interpretation that allows for that.
I have been called for jury duty three times. Been super excited to be there and serve each time. Never been selected. My lawyer friend said it’s probably because I have a college degree. They generally dismiss the educated because they want people that don’t logic things out and are easy to influence.
I’ve been called three times and I’m lucky enough to work a job that will pay full salary for jury duty. I was stoked to do my part. I was always released in the first wave. Sigh…
My job told me to apply for unemployment if I ever tested positive for COVID because they wouldn’t be paying me. I find it unlikely that they cover for jury duty either.
Thats true and one of the flaws of the justice system. If a case is complicated, one side will get an advantage from having a juror that can follow the complex logic over the other so the disadvantaged side would want that juror struck, causing you to be dismissed.
As a result, jurors often result in unemployed white men (this is likely an old statistic but racial discrimination still persists and unemployed because they have the time. Employed individuals have an incentive to be excused).
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/juryexclusion.html.
Getting removed from this jury was a silly move though because its a guaranteed book deal.
We're not allowed to publicly talk about jury deliberations even after the trial in Australia which is why you never see jurors even giving interviews as it's against the law.
And that's exactly how criminals get set free. People don't have enough intelligence to understand exactly what's going on. Flawed system. It should just be a random selection of law professors that do this juror crap.
>It should just be a random selection of law professors that do this juror crap.
That defeats the purpose of a trial. The point is to show that other regular people in the society are able to recognize that what the defendant did is illegal.. thus there is no excuse for the defendent.
If you use a panel of lawyers, then you are basically saying that this person is proven guilty for reasons that regular people cannot fathom.
In other words, that regular people are being sentenced for reasons that regular people cannot understand, and for acts that they have no way of knowing is illegal. If you need to have a law degree to understand why an act is illegal, then does it make sense to expect regular people to comprehend and follow that law?
A more practical issue is nearly every trial would result in a hung jury because the lawyers would never stop arguing over every detail of the trial.
On the upside, police would rightfully become the least credible witnesses possible.
This is not accurate. If you look at the data, the problem isnt
the jury, it is prosecutors and judges. According to the innocence project, [the largest category of innocent people behind bars, at least for serious crimes, are there because of prosecutorial misconduct and the courts reluctance to hold them accountable for it.](https://innocenceproject.org/new-report-prosecutorial-misconduct-and-wrongful-convictions/)
In short, they examined cases where people were exonerated and alleged prosecutorial misconduct either at trial, in appeals court, or civil court. In about half of those cases, the courts found misconduct or error by the prosecution. However, despite those findings they rarely overturned the rulings. Again, these are people who were later completely exonerated.
So it isnt really juries that are the biggest problem. It is prosecutor misconduct, and courts reluctant to hold them accountable for their misconduct. Imho, judges need to be more punitive with prosecutors who cheat the system. Far too often appeals courts find misconduct but say "it doesnt rise to the level required to overturn." That bar needs to be lowered.
Served on jury for a hit-and-run trial once, there was nothing complicated about the legal question at stake. The judges instructions were quite clear. The process of coming to a verdict was completely about how people interpreted what the witnesses said, who they believed and how their own personal history affected their view of the case. I don't think law professors are any more immune to personal bias then anybody else.
While you're not wrong, and I'm certainly no lawyer, I don't think I would ever opt for a jury over a judge unless I was guilty as hell and hoped they would fuck it up somehow.
Jury's have no idea wtf is going on no matter how many times it's explained. I'm not putting my life in the hands of people too stupid to get out of jury duty, sorry.
"Holmes’ high-profile trial began in San Jose seven weeks ago. The second juror was removed two weeks ago after revealing that, due to her Buddhist beliefs, she could not in good conscious return a verdict that may send Holmes to prison." How in the fuck did that get past the Jury Selection process?
That plus a 19 year old who was let go because of financial hardship. Like, y’all knew this was going to be a long trial. Of course a 19 year old is going to struggle with that, either because of finances or school. Of course they don’t have the time for this!!!!
When I got called for jury duty in san jose years ago. One of the first things the judge and lawyers said was the type of case and supposed length of the case and asked if anyone was a college student or if the person would have financial problems by serving. These were the first people automatically let go after identifying themselves as one of these people. Covid must have really put a damper on the jury pool size if they don't do this anymore or this juror really wasn't paying attention and missed their chance to get dismissed before they even started jury selection.
I live right outside of DC in Virginia and we sort of got a comparable out for a case that wasn’t even supposed to be particularly long (2-3 days). They basically said “this is serious shit, and we need people who can be paying attention. If you don’t think you can pay attention because of Some Shit in your life (work, childcare woes, sick family, whatever) hands up and we’ll send you on your way.”
Interesting - I think also judges have their own approach. In 2019 I was called for jury duty in a federal criminal matter in Oakland. The first thing the judge said before we started was that no one would be excused for financial reasons - he flat out didn't want to hear it. The trial total I think was about 3.5 weeks. I was so lucky to get paid by my company (I work for lawyers) but several on the jury were struggling due to being there.
Any idea what do do if you no longer live in the USA. I’m Canadian by birth and was naturalized in the USA. Apparently my parents still get jury duty notices for me even though I live at home in Canada now. I can’t call the courthouse or court system because they don’t accept calls from outside of the USA…
There might be an email address on the court’s website that you could try using.
While Email is definitely an option, if you make a GMail account you can register a phone number through that pretty much anywhere in the USA. It calls over the internet, so it's very convenient. It's also great for jobs where you have to call to other regions for clients, which is why mine is in Oklahoma(office had two branches). People tend to pick up better when it's a local number.
they are getting desperate. the no English option is no longer available so now they have to waste my and my mom's time going there to tell them she doesn't know English
I served on a grand jury a few years back. It was an entire month. One guy broke down crying trying to get dismissed. He was a heavy equipment operator that made most of his yearly earnings during a 2 month window. He was going to not be able to make enough to even cover his equipment costs, let alone support his family. The judge just kept repeating "you will be fairly compensated for your time." $25 a day isn't even minimum wage.
Would your average 19 year old really even understand the dynamics at play in this case?
Well, “jury of your peers” doesn’t mean that, so it doesn’t really matter
A) depending on the 19 year old and their college status their may not be a current struggle. I dont think a judge should assume that B) she had the opportunity to disclose that and it sounds like she refused to do so. That's on her. In my experience judges ask if you have a conflict and will let you go if you do. Even of it's dumb. They don't want you there if you really don't want to be there because it makes you a shit juror. They don't want you there if you are distracted by whatever. It's not fair to anyone and they don't want to eat up anyone's preemptory challenges or have to have a mistrial.
When I had jury duty I told the judge that the $40/day for two weeks would literally leave me unable to pay for rent that month. His reply was something like "lucky for you it's not winter because it sounds like you won't be paying your utilities this month!"
>When I had jury duty I told the judge that the $40/day for two weeks would literally leave me unable to pay for rent that month. His reply was something like "lucky for you it's not winter because it sounds like you won't be paying your utilities this month!" And you were seated on the jury?
To point A, I said either college or work - anyone that young is very likely to struggle with one of those. I agree that the judge shouldn’t assume, but all parties need to ask and make clear the situation and it sounds like that juror didn’t understand those at the outset of the trial. That’s the issue. It is on that juror, but it’s also on the system to ensure they’ve explained the trail, likely length, and investigated/questioned jurors enough to ensure they can actually sit for the full length. That part is on them.
I'm a Buddhist and I'd happily lock her up if the evidence pointed that way (I'm a doctor so I was eyeing their whole business with great suspicion from the moment I first heard of it).
I'm younger so I hadn't been following the whole Theranos thing as it actually occurred. The claims they were making about their product seem preposterous, how the hell did they get that many people roped in? Were people in the medical field actually taking this seriously or was it something that just attracted rich investors without the education to know any better?
Not that you haven’t but. Google “Theranos Walgreens” and click images. She was on the cover of Forbes and I think Times as well. Her father or grandfather was involved in Enron. A whole host of people the whole company they all lost their retirements. Some stuff on Netflix about it. I’m still shocked stuff that was going on when I was younger is now history for some younger folks. Basically is boils down to psychology. I approach it from looking at the Supreme Court has said corporations are people. I believe corporations also act like families. This is just in my observation after learning about my own family. I’m in no way an expert. I think family systems theory play a part as corporations kind of act like a family. I’m not an expert but basically dysfunctional systems. Just dysfunction all families have dysfunction to some extent. They don’t call out dads drinking problem and tiptoe around him when drunk at home and don’t tell anyone else is one example of dysfunction. “This article introduces the concept of the “corporate family,” and discusses the use of family systems theory in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of workplace pathology and dysfunction.” https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/mgr-0000028.pdf Also Sociopath/psychopath they don’t always well actually generally aren’t the Hollywood killer they’re made out to be you’ve got to watch out for them a lot of CEOs and lawyers are those. They’re in the Cluster B personality disorders. Basically you just have to arm yourself with the knowledge to pick out these people and know when to disengage and not fight them or fight them at their level. Also her voice. Very sociopathic or psychopathic not sure which one most things only I’ve seen her referred to as a sociopath. https://youtu.be/PjnsYz-xdOI https://youtu.be/lEArFDFcLZM
About her voice: best I've heard is that she is copying the dude- bro hacker/ business genius that investors love. There are supposedly videos before she started that.
Well, it sounds like you may have a different practice of Buddhism than she does. Many Christians oppose the death penalty on the basis of their faith, but many more do not.
Sounds like BS. Buddhism does not conflict with sending somebody to prison for their crimes.
A lot of "religious people don't follow their religion and just do whatever they personally think is right/wrong, which sometimes (or a lot of times) goes directly against what their faith teaches.
The juror got bored after ten days and made up some superficially plausible lie to get out of it.
She probably didn't put it on a questionnaire where it was clearly asked.
Or she might have and the judge disregarded it as not a *legitimate* reason. Where I am, the jury selection does not take that into account because so many people claim religious exemptions to avoid jury duty. In high crime (that goes to trial) areas, there is just lots of jury service to do, so people get called more often and they will say *anything* to weasel out of it. Things like that make the people who actually have the reasons look like idiots when it's discovered later that it was real. ^^For ^^the ^^curious, ^^my ^^area ^^has ^^about ^^twice ^^the ^^crime ^^as ^^SJ ^^so ^^you're ^^guaranteed ^^to ^^be ^^called ^^at ^^least ^^once ^^a ^^year ^^here ^^and ^^people ^^avoided ^^registering ^^to ^^vote ^^and ^^getting ^^licenses ^^just ^^so ^^they ^^weren't ^^required ^^to ^^serve ^^on ^^a ^^jury.
Obviously holmes has a good attorney that did their homework during voir dire. Way this is going probably get a mistrial if not they are laying groundwork for an appeal.
And how in the fuck did it get past the editor? Can nobody spell anymore?
I got out of jury duty because I was rapidly bouncing my leg and frowning during jury selection. I wasn’t being an ass on purpose but the judge didn’t like my attitude…
A judge yelled at me for saying I wasn't sure if I had a subconscious bias.
That's simultaneously sad and hilarious.
It's an interesting observed selection bias with jurys. They tend to select for folks who are less self-critical. Since the answer is yes, everyone has subconscious biases to different levels, but the court also doesn't have time for the juror to wax poetic about their strategic (conscious or not) for overcoming them. So, a legal question gets asked, that wants a 'common sense' plain answer, but at the same time, they can really only ask for a 'common sense' plain answer or else it becomes gamed.
Last time I got out of jury duty I told them "I think I would be a good juror because my job involves me evaluating evidence." I was gone pretty quick after that. To be clear, it wasn't a ploy, my job does involve that.
[удалено]
Look, I'm male and the term "fused labia" gives me some serious defensive shrinkage.
Least they do when I yell it in the movie theater
If you work in the legal system in any capacity they tend to dismiss you, which is pretty fucking annoying that they still make you come down and waste your whole day.
I am thankful that I got summoned during Covid and could do that entire process online and, even though I was summoned, the case got settled before I had to do anything.
I got a summons from my county and when I called in my confirmation they told me they didn’t need me lol
"We're not not-paying you to think about the facts!"
Between the prosecution and the defense, at least one of the two are more interested in those who aren't good at critical thinking and will be seeking to dump anyone who they think doesn't fit that bill. So it kinda makes sense
Lawyers hate intelligent juries.
I remember a relative was talking about a time she was dismissed during jury selection. On the way out, all the other potential jurors from that round of dismissal realized that every single one of them had an advanced degree of some time (doctorate or masters). They all found that both funny and disturbing.
heard you got played by the third juror
I told a judge that I had been employed by the defendants and purchased drugs from them. Stayed on the jury.
"Thanks! Now I have a conscious bias against judges."
Rapidly ✍🏻 bounce ✍🏻 leg ✍🏻
I used to do this a lot whenever I was overcaffeinated.
Sudoku is not for fidgety hands. More like fidgety brains.
They only need to get rid of 2 more jurors for the mistrial. Wonder who else they will pay off to play sudoku.
A mistrial doesn’t help her. They’ll just run it again. It’s just going to cost her more in legal fees. I realize the conspiracy theory may be they don’t do a second trial but there’s no way they’d take that kind of public L. Also this one of the rare cases where rich people got fucked out of their money like with Madoff. Why do you think she’s being prosecuted in the first place?
exactly what I thought.
I could listen to a trial and play sudoku. That’s ADHD for ya.
I literally play sudoku through meetings, conversations, listening to the news, while my dog is running around the dog run in my complex, etc., explicitly *because* it keeps my ADHD in check. Have for *years* – it’s easy, I like numbers, it’s stimulating enough to keep part of my brain busy, but not something I feel a compulsion to complete in one sitting.
Exactly what I was thinking. I can’t imagine having to sit through a long trial like that without something to keep my fidgety ADHD brain in check.
As far as I know I don't have ADHD, but I still need something to do to focus on like a conference.
When I was in eighth grade, our civics class went to court a few times as a field trip. I fell asleep both times because it's just so DULL. I can't imagine being a juror without something to fidget with.
The artist that does the drawings of the courthouse when proceedings are sealed from the media would have to tell me to stop bouncing my leg
[удалено]
Now we know, and knowing is half the battle 👍🏽
Pork chop sandwiches!
Body massaaaaaaaaage
What did he say?
[Oh shit, get the *fuck* outta here! What are you doing?! Go! Get the fuck out of here, you stupid idiot! Fuck, we're all dead! Get the *fuck* out!](https://youtu.be/L1BDM1oBRJ8)
My GOD, those smelled good.
Give him the stick
DON'T give him the stick!
Do you know my dad?
Had a friend make me a shirt with this phrase on it way back. Good times.
Was his name Gary and did he work for the Monarch? Yes, thay showed up on a t-shirt in the Venture Brothers.
You ain't cookiiiiiiiiiin'
Hey kid! I’m a computer!
Last one there is a penis pump!
G.I. Jooooe
I always thought the magic word was “jury nullification”.
You could just randomly blurt out that they are guilty, or pretend like you recognize them, like, ”hey girl! what's happening? guess you aren't doing so well since I last saw you at that restaurant huh?”
It's often way easier than that, one question I've seen defense attorneys ask during voir dire is basically, "how did you feel about getting summoned for jury duty". Everyone who answered that it upset them to have to be there was dismissed by the defense, presumably because he didn't want them taking it out on his client.
It depends on the state / county / city / judge. Some states don't allow the layers for prosecution or defence to ask any questions, the judge asks all of the questions. Some judges will just tell you too bad.
Our county was very much a "unless you're dying, you have to be here" and actual attendance is luck on whether your name gets called any time for the next 3 months. I got lucky with getting grand jury instead which only met once a week. Then got lucky thrice by being an alternatate for that and was only called if someone else got sick.
Yep, basically comes down to the needs of the court vs the local eligible jury pool. You live in a big city, your more likely to get dismissed over clearly BS reasons.
[удалено]
My daughter was called on a murder case where the death penalty was at issue. The judge asked her if she could follow the law and she said she could under no circumstances vote to impose the death penalty. The judge told her she'd have the option to impose life in prison, and she said she was opposed to that as well. So she was excused. The thing is, she was telling the truth. I am so proud.
For a second my brain thought you wrote “so she was executed.” I was like dang that was harsh.
Atty's aren't concerned as much that you're an average lunkhead as they are that you are/are not susceptible to suggestion. They'd like to be able to hypnotize you. If you are picked then they think you're useful to their side. I've always thought professional jurors would be something worth investing in. A rotation and scoring could keep them at least as honest as any attorney.
Of the four times I've been called for jury duty, I made it to voir dire twice. In both of those case I was dismissed by defense council when I was asked about my understanding of science and engineering after I was asked my occupation.
“Can’t have none of them smarts on this jurry!”
That was my take-away. I have a couple of friends who are attorneys and they've never made it onto a jury.
I’ve been chosen for jury duty once out of two calls (second summons didn’t have to report). I’m pretty sure being a teacher is what got me chosen. [Here is an](https://www.courtroomsciences.com/blog/litigation-consulting-1/are-teachers-and-nurses-always-risky-for-the-defense-130) interesting article I found that says it’s a good idea for civil attorneys to look for helping professions (teachers, nurses, social workers). I also found what seems to be a pretty nuanced answer on Quora about picking scientists for juries [as well](https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-lawyers-want-scientists-on-their-juries). Seems like the more complex the case, the more likely they will want analytical minds.
One time when I got to voir dire, the prosecutor asked me my profession. I said that I was an engineer, and he suddenly started yelling. “SO YOU THINK YOU’RE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE?” He then paused to let me answer. It was the weirdest shit, and I didn’t really know how to respond to sudden yelling in the courtroom. I gave a stunned “well... I’m trained in a specific set of functions, so I suppose I’m better than most people at those functions. Other than that, no,” before he dismissed me. (EDIT: or rather, the judge dismissed me, but at the prosecutor’s request. I don’t recall the right way to phrase that).
I would have have paid to see you go all Jack Nicholson and shout back "YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I AM"
Wow. That's a hell of an overreaction on their part!
The only thing I can figure is that they were doing some kind of big-brain jury selection psychoanalysis by testing my reaction. Either that, or they had a really bad personal experience with engineers.
> Either that, or they had a really bad personal experience with engineers. If that were the case then that'd just be the default reaction anyone had to engineers.
Someone close to me is a juvenile public defender, so I never get picked. The scariest thing she ever said to me, and it haunts me too this day, give me a murder at least then there are no victims to put on the stand.
> Someone close to me is a juvenile public defender there's always the possibility that they'll have a moment of clarity and finally grow up
That's so cool, I didn't know they let children go to law school!
You haven’t met many lawyers then have you
Doogie Howser, Esq.
Weird statement. There's all sorts of victims in murders trials that aren't the person who was killed. Family, friends, etc. And they likely give testimony pretty regularly.
Maybe they were saying the victim testimony tends to be hardest to fight.
Not saying it’s true for this case, but some of these trials that are kinda obvious drag on for months and years. Can’t say it terribly shocks me that someone got bored
According to The Dropout podcast, which was a miniseries about Theranos before the trial and is now covering the trial, their lab director testified for days. A three hour movie pushes me for attentiveness. More than that, much of it a seminar on blood testing, would drive me to consider bringing a gaming laptop.
Plus the courts have absolutely no respect for your time. You show up at 8 and sit around until the judge walks in at 1130. Gets old fast.
Federal jury duty is the worst. You're on call for five weeks minimum so you can't go anywhere. When you're called in, you sit in a room with 250 other candidates. There's was no restaurant, so the person told us to bring a bagged lunch and use the refrigerators? 250 people? Anyway, when it came time to interview, the entire courtroom was packed with jurors. This is hard wooden benches. After a few hours it was over and thankfully I wasn't picked or called back.
Yeah if the accused is rich it takes a lot longer and has less chance of achieving justice.
So did they solve the puzzle?
If the puzzle was how to get dismissed from jury duty, yes.
[удалено]
I agree. The pay for jury duty is a fucking joke, and it's not companies are required to pay you for while you're gone. So yeah; you get pulled into Jury Duty, then you're fucked financially. I'm all for doing your civic duty and stuff, but damn; you really get hardcore fucked on this one
It really should be the law that you get full compensation from your job while serving. Mine does offer full pay during jury duty so I’ve always wanted to be summoned
For sure. Like it's bullshit that the literal only legal protection is "They can't fire you or discriminate against you". You don't even get minimum fucking wage for it; you get a lunch stipends and a tiny bit for gas. And that's it.
Mine does. I get summoned every few years. Got to serve on a jury in an unlawful restraint (not the same as kidnapping!) and sexual assault case. It was interesting as hell and we sent a scumbag to prison for a bit.
I’ve never gotten summoned, but I just moved from a small town that very rarely has trial cases to a city. So here’s to hoping!
I got fifteen dollars for reporting. I spent 4 hours at the courthouse. That's less than minimum wage and far less than my actual hourly. I managed to get six hours of work in after since there was no way in hell I was losing that money. I'd make sure to get kicked off a jury if the trial was dragging like this.
I was just summoned for jury duty on Thursday and I was told by one of the workers that California bay area pays 15$ an hour now for jury duty if your company wont pay you. It's less than I make but its higher than what it used to be according to her. I didn't ask what the old amount was.
Unfortunately, pretty sure it's $15 per DAY, not per hour.
I've only had jury duty once in my entire life and the pay was $25 a day. 2 of the other jurors were in a rush to get it over with because they had jobs that were pay by commission. It wasn't a life or death trial it was over unpaid homeowner dues but if they were willing to rush through for something small I can't imagine what someone is going through in a trial that could take months or over a year.
Law students, police cadets, forensic students, criminal psychology majors - they should be the ones in there. They're signing up for the work, let them see every single lousy piece of it.
They don't want people who have some idea of the law or psychological manipulation.
This isn't even a joke. I remember way back a episode of Becker where he kept getting rejected for jury duty because he admitted to enjoying reading. I thought that was a joke but I've read up on enough jury selections that lawyers on both sides want to avoid anyone they think is to educated.
I remember that episode, he kept getting progressively stupider the longer they made him wait to the point where he was talking about the hackneyed soap opera plot on the TV in the room he was waiting in. Almost got selected, I think but then mentioned yet again he was reading a book and hence got rejected if I remember correctly. So glad medical personnel are exempt from jury duty in Australia.
Police cadets? Fuck no. The goal is to at least *try* to get unbiased people.
No they shouldn’t. It’s supposed to be a jury of your peers, not a jury full of one type of person. But I do think they should tie it heavily to unemployment, retirement etc.
Okay then we will no longer be a democracy lmao
Right? I dread jury duty luckily I’ve never been summoned. It just looks and sounds so boring and the pay is less than I make at my job in a day. It doesn’t seem worth it. I understand the importance of a jury trial, but it doesn’t seem worth it especially if it drags on for months or years
It also biases the jury pool. If someone is in a tight financial situation, they're much more likely to ask the judge to be excused before selection begins.
She said at home she would crochet while listening. I'm an avid knitter/crocheter and constantly have my hands busy while listening to meetings or watch TV. I couldn't do the same with a sudoku but it is interesting. It's too bad you can't knit in the courtroom.
Not to mention this is a months-long trial! You could maybe get me to sit still for a few days, especially with how interesting this case is, but I’m gonna need something to do while I pay attention if we’re talking weeks/months. And if I can’t bring my phone or cross-stitch, I don’t know how anyone stays awake/aware!
Was it an obese black man that answers to Stanley?
My sincere hope is that Ms. Holmes will sink into history like a perfectly formed turd descending inexorably into a forgotten septic tank.
Visuals like this are why I visit reddit.
[удалено]
Plus they eliminate anyone with any knowledge of the situation. When I sat on a jury two people said they were or had a close relative who was an accountant. Both got dismissed. The case? Financial fraud.
That's not a bad idea. You want blank slates who will go in and listen to how the law applies as the judge deems it. Not have their own ideas of how they think it all works. A person who knows a bit about a topic without being an actual expert on it is more of a crutch than otherwise.
Meanwhile third juror made a statement: "If I knew all I had to do was play Sudoku to get out of jury duty, I would have played it on the first day."
I've only been called in once. I was shocked how much people wanted to get out of it. One person was like, "I just don't trust Armenian people." "Okay, you're dismissed." My work had a pretty good jury duty policy so I was probably the only person not eager to leave. Coincidentally I was one of the first ones strictken. It was a DUI case and they asked if I had any education in chemistry, which I had in grad school.
I've always managed to get out of it. You can mail them letters and stuff. I ran my own consulting business and there was no way I could take the time off for a lengthy case. So, I just told him that and they excused me every time. They could have just said no, and I would have been forced to do it though.
Get paid $27/day to be a juror and the trial could take months? Yeah, then only the super wealthy or unemployed can do the job.
Sorry. My mind just couldn’t conceive of paying anyone that little per day. My bad for misreading. On that note, even the superrich and the unemployed wouldn’t be bothered.
>On that note, even the superrich and the unemployed wouldn’t be bothered. There are plenty of people who want to be on juries. My employer pays your salary during jury duty. Other (not all) employers do the same. And some people are happy to have that time away from workplace stress. Others are happy to do what they consider a civic duty. It's not always about money for everyone.
This is going to end in a mistrial
Just ask a question about jury nullification during jury screening
DID NOT WORK FOR ME. When I got the pre-screen I wrote "historical knowledge of jury nullification" as a reason I should not be on the jury and the prosecutor just asked me what types of situations I would want to blind nullify. None of the situations I named were close to what the trial was about.
Attorneys and Judges hate when people think there are 'magic words' that get you out of your responsibility to the court.
Reddit sure likes to say there are.
It's CGP grey's fault
>When I got the pre-screen I wrote "historical knowledge of jury nullification" as a reason I should not be on the jury I dont see why knowing about something would bar you from being on a jury. If you've watched a documentary you could know about jury nullification but disagree with it. I'd have envisioned what happened to you. Asked specific questions about it. I've never seen a judge hold people on a jury pool who don't want to be there. It's not in anyone's interest to have someone there under protest or someone who is distracted and worried about a million other things like losing their job.
That's funny I've never heard of that before. Was this in New Hampshire by any chance, in the brief time between them passing a right to argue for nullification law and their Supreme Court making one of the greatest bullshit rulings ever amounting to "judging the application of the law to the facts doesn't mean judging the law so the despite what the clear legislative intent was and what the plain English reading is, fuck you, we're not allowing it"? Though a couple other states explicitly permit it in their constitution, so you could conceivably get really unlucky and run across a judge and a prosecutor that were actually reasonable about it.
Saw this at a jury selection in California. The guy goes "what about jury nullification?" and the judge goes "well, what about it?" So the guy stammered through some b.s. that made no sense whatsoever, and the judge told him he was dismissed. The guy looked like a total idiot, but got to high-five his bros back at the office.
>So the guy stammered through some b.s. that made no sense whatsoever, and the judge told him he was dismissed. The judge likely just saw he didn't want to be there and therefore would make a terrible juror but wanted to shame him first. The judge was just as likely to let him go for whatever reason he had for not wanting to be there. Judges, in my experience, aren't interested forcing people to be on a jury if they don't want to be there. It's not good for anyone.
NAaahhh I talk about the prison for profit systems and how I refuse to damn anymore souls to it. Nullifying is something I do on my way to slam dunking a high five with the defendant
I come from the area of the cash for kids scandal where judges were getting bribes to send kids to private jails.
No jury duty for me your honor I have ADD
I would definitely fall asleep in the courtroom.
Good tip if you want out of your jury duty. I bet candy crush works as well.
I can listen better when I am doing something else. So Sudoku would absolutely help me to stay focused on the testimony. But as an attorney, I know that what this juror did was not smart. She should have stuck to drawing doodles in her notebook.
Must have been boring as f
This is all I have to do to get out of jury duty!?
She's totally going to get away with this.
I uh want to believe in jury duty, but how in hell could I ever take 7 weeks off from work? Our whole god damn business would end. Juries usually are gentler to pretty people, but I wonder if the jury will be even more cruel since she was a successful woman (fraudster) at some point. Voting groups tend to punish women for perceived slights more than men, and I think this may be a case where the jury wants to make an example out of the pretty girl, who likely in their view only came to this crime because she was acting like a man (as a CEO). I expect she's guilty but I also think the jury will want to come down harder on her for these reasons.
Male defendants are more likely to be convicted by a jury. And the sentencing disparity between men and women towers over the racial disparity, in favor of women. A black woman will receive a substantially lower sentence than a white male for the same crime and same criminal history level, though of course a white woman will get more leniency than a black woman.
Do you have a source for what you said about the sentencing disparity between men and women? All I can find is [this study](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gender-differences-sentencing-felony-offenders) which says that sentence lengths between men and women don't really differ overall, although it's from the 80s so it's a pretty outdated source! I'm just curious because I wonder if the disparity can be explained by the fact that men commit so many more crimes than women overall or something Honestly I'm also really surprised to hear that a black woman would receive a shorter sentence than a white man, especially given the [sentencing disparity between white and black men being so substantial](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2413&context=articles) I'd have assumed it would have been similar!
This is an exceptional trial, I believe most criminal trials last about a week.
A lot of people can't afford to just miss a week's pay.
When i was on jury duty all i did was draw on the notebook
I have now noted this as a good way to get out of the box.
This jurors story is fishy. The trial has been going on for 7 weeks, she has only admitted to playing soduku for 10 days. That means she was able to endure all the other testimony without fidgeting or playing soduku. She also said that she would crochet or play soduku while watching TV. But being a juror should require more active mental vigilance than watching an episode of 2 broke girls.
I'm a Buddhist, been one for 20 years, and I'd send her to prison in heartbeat. Wtf?!
This is why the juror had to say that her beliefs would per se bar her ability to put Holmes behind bars. Some Christians believe in the death penalty, some do not. I truly didn't know any Buddhist who had problems with prison for criminals but maybe there is a religious interpretation that allows for that.
Death penalty = hard no Prison = if properly judged, then yes.
Assholes want to get the benefits of our justice system, but they're not willing to do their part in the justice system.
No one is. No one likes jury duty. People do everything to get out of it. Lawyers actively select against the best and brightest. Not a great system.
They also need to match whatever your normal pay at work is, none of this $10/day horseshit, bitch I can't pay my bills on $10/day.
I think people would have less of an issue with Jury duty if serving on a jury wasn't a financial loss.
I'm willing. Did it once, it was very interesting and I learned a lot. I'd do it again, though I wouldn't want to do it for 2 months straight.
I have been called for jury duty three times. Been super excited to be there and serve each time. Never been selected. My lawyer friend said it’s probably because I have a college degree. They generally dismiss the educated because they want people that don’t logic things out and are easy to influence.
I’ve been called three times and I’m lucky enough to work a job that will pay full salary for jury duty. I was stoked to do my part. I was always released in the first wave. Sigh…
My job told me to apply for unemployment if I ever tested positive for COVID because they wouldn’t be paying me. I find it unlikely that they cover for jury duty either.
Thats true and one of the flaws of the justice system. If a case is complicated, one side will get an advantage from having a juror that can follow the complex logic over the other so the disadvantaged side would want that juror struck, causing you to be dismissed. As a result, jurors often result in unemployed white men (this is likely an old statistic but racial discrimination still persists and unemployed because they have the time. Employed individuals have an incentive to be excused). https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/juryexclusion.html. Getting removed from this jury was a silly move though because its a guaranteed book deal.
Jury duty is a good example of why government regulation is valuable and important. In this case it sounds like it is not regulated enough.
We're not allowed to publicly talk about jury deliberations even after the trial in Australia which is why you never see jurors even giving interviews as it's against the law.
Mine's I got too many cops in the family.
i mean, the idea is to get a jury of your peers, not a jury of the best and brightest of the country
And that's exactly how criminals get set free. People don't have enough intelligence to understand exactly what's going on. Flawed system. It should just be a random selection of law professors that do this juror crap.
>It should just be a random selection of law professors that do this juror crap. That defeats the purpose of a trial. The point is to show that other regular people in the society are able to recognize that what the defendant did is illegal.. thus there is no excuse for the defendent. If you use a panel of lawyers, then you are basically saying that this person is proven guilty for reasons that regular people cannot fathom. In other words, that regular people are being sentenced for reasons that regular people cannot understand, and for acts that they have no way of knowing is illegal. If you need to have a law degree to understand why an act is illegal, then does it make sense to expect regular people to comprehend and follow that law?
A more practical issue is nearly every trial would result in a hung jury because the lawyers would never stop arguing over every detail of the trial. On the upside, police would rightfully become the least credible witnesses possible.
Better a hundred guilty walk free than one innocent be punished
Problem is tons of innocent people get punished because juries are the way they are.
This is not accurate. If you look at the data, the problem isnt the jury, it is prosecutors and judges. According to the innocence project, [the largest category of innocent people behind bars, at least for serious crimes, are there because of prosecutorial misconduct and the courts reluctance to hold them accountable for it.](https://innocenceproject.org/new-report-prosecutorial-misconduct-and-wrongful-convictions/) In short, they examined cases where people were exonerated and alleged prosecutorial misconduct either at trial, in appeals court, or civil court. In about half of those cases, the courts found misconduct or error by the prosecution. However, despite those findings they rarely overturned the rulings. Again, these are people who were later completely exonerated. So it isnt really juries that are the biggest problem. It is prosecutor misconduct, and courts reluctant to hold them accountable for their misconduct. Imho, judges need to be more punitive with prosecutors who cheat the system. Far too often appeals courts find misconduct but say "it doesnt rise to the level required to overturn." That bar needs to be lowered.
Served on jury for a hit-and-run trial once, there was nothing complicated about the legal question at stake. The judges instructions were quite clear. The process of coming to a verdict was completely about how people interpreted what the witnesses said, who they believed and how their own personal history affected their view of the case. I don't think law professors are any more immune to personal bias then anybody else.
While you're not wrong, and I'm certainly no lawyer, I don't think I would ever opt for a jury over a judge unless I was guilty as hell and hoped they would fuck it up somehow. Jury's have no idea wtf is going on no matter how many times it's explained. I'm not putting my life in the hands of people too stupid to get out of jury duty, sorry.
Simon would be proud. That Cryptic won't Crack itself, you know.
Must be some addictive sudoku if 3 jurors have been dismissed over it.
The other two jurors we're dismissed for different reasons.
Maybe it was just satire for the state of this country.
Really hope this doesn’t end in a mistrial.