9 Hours I’ll Never Get Back
Tweet
Some guy is so lucky he didn’t get Oliver “They’re All Guilty” Willis deciding his fate.
19 Responses to “9 Hours I’ll Never Get Back”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
And I will almost certainly be doing the same in Baltimore City on Wednesday.
In the last decade I’ve ended up on two trials. The first was a drug possession/distribution charge that was a no-brainer: guilty. The other, a piece-of-shit attempted murder in which the state gave us almost nothing with which to convict an obvious thug. The “star” witness, the intended victim, practiced “stop snitching,” and the prosecution’s case was shot. Sad thing is, a little girl was injured in the same shooting, but she was not part of our case. We had no choice but acquittal – 2.5 DAYS down the toilet.
I feel you Oliver.
In my county they just make you call in everyday. No waiting at the legal club.
I love doing my civic duty but always feared I would be on a jury trying a wife beater or child abuser. I’m thinking I would be torn about lying to get on the jury to make sure the (presumed innocent) was locked the hell up—–or going into a spasm and feigning illness because I knew I might not be fair at the outset to the (presumed innocent).
“I love doing my civic duty but always feared I would be on a jury trying a wife beater or child abuser. I’m thinking I would be torn about lying to get on the jury to make sure the (presumed innocent) was locked the hell up”
Yeah, ’cause everyone accused of those particular crimes is guilty, right? Don’t even need a trail. Fortunately, lawyers tend to be bright enough not to let people like you on juries.
Way to take your civic duty seriously, Oliver. Good job
Good grief Ian—you are a bit of an ass . . .
Did you not understand that this was written tongue in cheek.
Funny–you didn’t quote the part that said I’d feign a spasm
because of the unfairness of presuming guilt on anyone.
Take a pill . . . .
I have never understood the bad rap jury duty has gotten. it’s like everyone is taught from early days that if they ever get summoned the first thing that should cross their mind is how to get out of it.
I waited nearly 20 years for my first duty summons and was anxious to do my part.
IMHO, anyone who is unable to serve on a jury when called for anything other than the most valid of reasons (e.g., sole provider of child care) should have to do something else for the community for the duration of the trial they would otherwise have served on.
Claim your 2nd cousin is married to a security officer so you are biased toward cops and couldn’t judge all evidence fairly? OK, fine, no problem. You can go. And pick up your mop as you do ’cause you’ll be cleaning the City hall bathrooms until the trial is over.
It’s a good thing my wife does not enforce traffic laws.
There would be summary executions.
Sean D. Martin has the right idea. Oh, along with paying the jurors some minimum wage, because not everybody is an upper middle class type who can afford to take time off for $2.50 a day or whatever California currently pays. Or has a nice employer who pays out of civic duty or plain decency.
But OW might have been amused by some of what went on the last time I sampled my county’s (exceptionally good) handling of jury panelists, a couple of months ago. Sitting in the courtroom as part of the pool (never getting called into the jury box, as it happened), one got an outline of the case so the lawyers could ask the right questions of the jury panelists. It was an assault sort of case arising from a brawl, and it was clear that the witnesses would be firemen on one side and police on the other. What a case for a Good Citizen who believes in conscientious truth-telling public officials!
Oddly, no one really called attention to this conflict; they just asked questions about attitudes toward testimony from police officers, or from firemen, depending which side the questioner represented.
Actually, I was kind of sickened by the way the lawyers and the judge tried to persuade jurors of their duty to treat testimony impartially, when lots of them honestly admitted they’d find a police officer’s (or firefighter’s) testimony with special credence because those officers are “held to a higher standard.” That was the phrase, and that was the passive voice, and nobody ever asked or said who might be doing that holding. The public? Officialdom? Truth and Reason and Justice? The officers themselves?
I mean, they tried to talk reason to these bozos rather than summarily bumping them since they admitted not knowing how to hear testimony or wanting to know.
Good thing I didn’t get called. The last thing they need is a jury guy who gets argumentative when questioned.
Oh — I hope it was clear enough that I do not accuse Oliver of being that kind of Good Citizen.
Jury duty is a privilege you should take seriously.
Anyone who tries to ‘get out of it’ for any reason other than death or severe sickness is doing the justice system wrong.
It’s hard enough for attorneys to get jury panels together given the technicalities of law and juror perceptions. People who make a game of it by saying they will be ‘hanging’ jurors or showing a complete lack of interest just make our judicial system weaker and less effective.
I live in an area that has a lot of cases and a lot of people. I had been called for jury duty 4 times before I was 30. I was jury foreman once, and sat on another jury as an alternate. The other 2 cases I found myself dismissed after 2 days of jury panel. The past couple of years I have not been sent a summons, but I fully expect to be called again soon. I look forward to that day as a citizen of this fine country.
Jury Duty will be (for most people) their only interaction with our system of law. It’s a learning experience, and good for the soul. Sure it’s a complete disruption from your daily routine, but that shouldn’t be cause for disregarding civic duty.
Perhaps someday you may find yourself as a defendant in front of a jury. Would you want the jurors called in for the panel to show a complete lack of prudence? I think not.
So…suck it up….
Wait, I thought you were a namby-pamby moral relativist bleeding heart liberal! Can’t you hear both sides of the issue before letting the guy off?
(I was on a case recently that was a repeat indecent exposure defendant. The jury was let go after one prospective juror said he had seen the guy ‘doing his thing’ before, so yeah he was not able to keep an open mind.)
Porlock Jr: Good thing I didn’t get called. The last thing they need is a jury guy who gets argumentative when questioned.
Yeah, that’s what got me bumped from the jury pool when I was called in. I was asked a basically “Do you think our justice system is good” type question and said I thought there was room for improvement.* Two questions later the lawyer twisted things around and started with something like “So since you think the system is unfair…” and I knew I was off. So much for being honest.
sigh. Little naive me, went in expecting to find responsible people and instead they were living up to every prime-time courtroom drama stereotype. I got bumped, but at least I got called again several weeks later and this time I played dumb and answered nice. Then they were stuck with me on the jury.
* Peremptory challenge of a juror, for example. Why does the lawyer just get to say “Don’t want them.” and the person gets kicked? Clearly the lawyer has some reason for their objection. (Too smart? Too black? Too liberal? To likely to actually evaluate the evidence?) They should have to justify it, state it out loud. These are lawyers. If they can’t make a case regarding a juror, how are they gonna actually be able to take on a real case?
revenantive: I look forward to that day as a citizen of this fine country.
Absolutely. And I hope OW is a bit ashamed, as a person who has blogged about the erosion of our civil liberties on more than one occasion, for falling into the “get me out of here” camp when called to serve.
tsk, tsk.
Last year my friend sat on civil jury,a giftwrap maker and the mfg co that ha made a printer were absolved of any responsibility for ordering a young mother of two to crawl between operating presses to clean. She was scalped and seriously injured and why did a North carolina jury decide against her injury suit? She spoke Spanish…10 jurors to 2 had no understanding of the issue beyond prejudice. My friend tried to sway them that the state (their taxes) would pick up the medical bill ,thinking toappeal to the inner Lou Dobbs,to no avail.
I’ve got no problem serving jury duty, but there is no reason why it should be constructed as something where I had to stare at a blank wall for 8 hours. We had an instructional video with Ed Bradley and Diane Sawyer and then it was all downhill from there.
I get a little Old Testament on crime and punishment issues (I am a death penalty supporter) but I think if I had to weigh evidence objectively I could do it. In the trial I was on, it was interesting that the defense lawyer let so many middle aged white women on the jury in its final makeup. Her client was a mid-30s black guy accused of distributing cocaine. In my opinion – an opinion with heavy doses of Law & Order and A&E, this seemed like a bad move on her part. Then again, had I been up to bat my guess is the prosecution would have objected to me as a 30something black male. Which would be ironic since I’m personally more inclined to see things the prosecution’s way over the defense.
I have never *tried* to get out of jury duty the several times I have been called, I always answered the “voir dire” questions honestly, etc. But then I have the advantage of (a) making a decent salary, and (b) working for companies which support jury duty (i.e, will pay you your full salary when doing jury service given a note from the state). I don’t hold it against people who are not in this situation, and know they will lose several days’ pay, when they try to avoid such service. I do hold it against people who won’t suffer financial loss but try to get out of service just because they don’t think they’ll enjoy it.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I have never actally been selected so sit on a jury. I always suspected that this might be because my education is in science and I work in an engineering capacity. This suspicion was confirmed the last time I exited jury selection at the Harris County courthouse in Houston. I hadn’t been in the area before and was looking for the bus stop. An older gent coming from the courthouse saw my apparent lost-ness and pointed me in the right direction, and talked with me while we walked. He was an attorney, and when I discussed my situation with him he confirmed that they tend not to like having scientists & engineers on juries, because they tend to ask too probing questions and don’t uncritically accept what counsel tells them.
because they tend to ask too probing questions and don’t uncritically accept what counsel tells them
Another flaw I see in the system. The jury should be able to ask questions of the witnesses. Since, by and large, jurors aren’t trained in the niceties of legal rules of relevance the questions would have to be submitted to the judge who would decide if the question can be asked. But the jury should be allowed to question the witnesses.
We’re asking them to make a serious judgment based on this testimony. It there is something the jury wants to understand, why shouldn’t they be able to ask for more info?
Thanks to a ridiculously high summons number, I won’t have to serve tomorrow. Hoo-rah…
Basd on what I’ve read here, Baltimore City doesn’t seem to be too bad. The city pays jurors $15/day (up from $10 a decade or so ago). And the jury rooms are reasonably comfortable, with TVs on which they show two movies each day. (Problem there is they usually don’t start the morning movie until about 11 am, and lunch call is 12:30, so you don’t get to see how it ends.) If you don’t want to see any pictures, there’s a separate “quiet room” with VERY comfy lounge chairs (if you’re lucky to get one…they get filled quickly). Finally, they give you an hour-fifteen for lunch break, unless you’re on a trial. With the courthouses smack-dab in the middle of downtown (the harbor only five minutes or so away), there’s dozens of choices available.
So, we seem to have it good here – unless you end up as a juror on a typical POS city trial.
revenantive, Sep 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Jury Duty will be (for most people) their only interaction with our system of law. It’s a learning experience, and good for the soul.
It certainly was a learning experience for me. Everyone who testified, especially the cops, lied their a$$es off while under oath. A third time (caught) drunk driver who had done a lot of property damage and almost ran over some people on the sidewalk (but we couldn’t hear about the previous two times he got caught – it might prejudice our opinion of him the third time he got caught) who blew over .2 two hours after he was booked at the cop shop.* The cops Cheneyed up the arrest a bit and had to lie about it on the stand in order to make sure the defendant didn’t get off on a technicality.
I specifically asked the judge how he dealt with listening to people lie to him under oath all day every day. He was unable to give me an answer for that question – maybe he was afraid that his off the record opinion might come out in public…
* – personal disclosure: I was the only juror who even hesitated on a guilty verdict, bleeding heart liberal (who wanted to be absolutely sure we weren’t railroading an innocent man) that I am…
Every summons I’ve gotten for the last 15 years has resulted in the dreaded call later phone call the next day to see if I have to serve, then never even going in. It’s annoying to be in limbo. I’d rather go in, be told I’m dismissed or I’m serving and get it over with.
I’m waiting yet another day to find out if I have to go in today, or told to call again tomorrow. How the heck am I supposed to plan my days when I have no clue what to expect?