Jump to content

Jury Duty Ethics


weesh

Recommended Posts

Assumptions:

1) Jury Duty is an important civic responsibility

2) There exist some people for whom this service is a legitimate hardship, and it is good that they are excused

When I was last called to be a juror, it took a mental toll and nearly two months following the case before I emerged from a low grade depression (If you are interested in that story, I can post it). When a judge next asks a group of us if there are any additional circumstances that should be considered before they make a selection, is it shirking my responsibility to bring this up and ask to be excused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. A juror is called to be non-biased and commit themselves fully to their civil duty, if selected. Depression is a pretty serious thing, and even for those recovering it might impede their focus on the case. A fair trial demands a jury free of bias and legitimate distractions, be they family, health, or otherwise.

Then again, what I think and what the law says are two different things. It's up to them to dismiss jurors or not on certain things, but it definitely isn't shirking one's duty to bring such things up for consideration. While it's a person's duty to serve if selected, it should also be their duty to make sure the best possible jury for a fair trial is selected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. A juror is called to be non-biased and commit themselves fully to their civil duty, if selected. Depression is a pretty serious thing, and even for those recovering it might impede their focus on the case. A fair trial demands a jury free of bias and legitimate distractions, be they family, health, or otherwise.

Then again, what I think and what the law says could are two different things. It's up to them to dismiss jurors or not on certain things, but it definitely isn't shirking one's duty to bring such things up for consideration. While it's a person's duty to serve if selected, it should also be their duty to make sure the best possible jury for a fair trial is selected.

This is why I'm basically not allowed anywhere near a case that has science based testimony... I have extreme biases because of my education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that I could give 100% focus to the case and that I have the ability to perform the duty.

The question is whether it is reasonable to ask to be excused based on the depression caused by the only other case I have sat for.

On the surface, it may seem an acceptable request to the judge, but even the thought of asking feels like shirking an important duty.

This is why I'm basically not allowed anywhere near a case that has science based testimony... I have extreme biases because of my education.

Ah, they should have excused me from the last case because I am biased towards people who act according to logic. That wasn't on the selection questionare for some reason though.

Is it elitist to say that my jury could have used a few more college graduates as well? In the end, 10 jurors went against the logic to deliver a verdict based on feeling. Since it was a civil trial, 10 was all that was necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that I could give 100% focus to the case and that I have the ability to perform the duty.

The question is whether it is reasonable to ask to be excused based on the depression caused by the only other case I have sat for.

On the surface, it may seem an acceptable request to the judge, but even the thought of asking feels like shirking an important duty.

Ah, they should have excused me from the last case because I am biased towards people who act according to logic. That wasn't on the selection questionare for some reason though.

Is it elitist to say that my jury could have used a few more college graduates as well? In the end, 10 jurors went against the logic to deliver a verdict based on feeling. Since it was a civil trial, 10 was all that was necessary.

If you have sufficient reason to show you are or might be biased one way or the other, they have to take that into account. The only case I was called in involved a minor offense (I believe it was breaking and entering) and forensics experts were being brought in on each side (at least that is what I figured), and basically I told them there was no way I would be able to be 100% unbiased if forensics was involved, I'd go with whose science sounded right by my knowledge. And if asked to explain my position I would, possibly creating more bias. So I couldn't be asked to sit in on that case and they excused me.

As for you, you wouldn't be shirking your duty. And psychological aversion to being on jury might be sufficient to excuse you based on your reaction to getting depression from the last time you served. In the end it is up to you.

That is my opinion at least.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have sufficient reason to show you are or might be biased one way or the other, they have to take that into account. The only case I was called in involved a minor offense (I believe it was breaking and entering) and forensics experts were being brought in on each side (at least that is what I figured), and basically I told them there was no way I would be able to be 100% unbiased if forensics was involved, I'd go with whose science sounded right by my knowledge. And if asked to explain my position I would, possibly creating more bias. So I couldn't be asked to sit in on that case and they excused me.

You sound like the perfect person to sit in on that case....what am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like the perfect person to sit in on that case....what am I missing?

Jurors need to be unbiased. I wouldn't have been. Yes, I would have understood everything, but I also would have drawn my own conclusions based on one or two testimonies. They didn't want that. My knowledge created a bias before I would even enter the court room

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was called recently for Jury Duty. This would be the 4th time in 10 years! The last three times they picked my number. The first time I sat in a jury but the case was dropped..The second I waited in the waiting room all day..On the computer..Checking wikipedia. The third time I was put in a jury and sat on a case for a full week. Murder case. It was interesting. HOWEVER, the forth time, I called yesterday to see if my number was picked. IT WAS NOT! :kissy: I double checked the web site to be sure..And I was close..But not close enough. Weird. Most of the people that I knew, from friends to relatives usually just toss the jury card out when they get it. NOW IF I did that, I probably would be snatched by the local R.E.A, banished to the Everfree, or a dungeon, or thrown into a dungeon in the Everfree. Typical.. :!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto to what everyone else is suggesting. Without a doubt your mood will influence your decision. Therefore, if you're feeling depressed, and thinking that you can't make fair judgement, then that's a legitimate excuse, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.

I was actually of sound mind during the case and deliberations. I didn't even get frustrated until halfway though the deliberations, and even then I was thinking quite clearly.

I have the ability to render a fair verdict.

The question is if I can, in good conscience, ask to be excused because of the effect it had on my life AFTER the previous case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well whether it impacts your ability to think clearly and be impartial isn't the only thing to consider, if it impacts your personal life and well being that's worth taking into account as well. Now my view of obligations, what they mean and whether one is yours' or not is probably very different from your own, but even if the negative effects take hold afterwards you should be doing something that causes depression and from what I've heard they often ask more people than they need to specifically because people can miss the letter or do what's required of them; if you feel that bad about being excused what you could do is wait until another case comes up (which may not even happen) and then withdraw the minute you feel the depression return, that way you can say that you gave it a second chance to make sure it wasn't merely a fluke but the affect won't be as strong as it was before because you know what to look for and how to prevent it. Or you could go to the office where you would asked to be excused and ask them if they think you should be excused or not, if anyone would be able to offer a comprehensive second opinion it would be them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with asking to be excused... after this one sent you into a depression i would say that it would be harmful to your health to go again... You did your duty, and it negativly affected you. Doing it again would be irresponsible for both you and the judge...

Side conversation note: I couldnt do jury duty... I have a tough enough time remembering facts about my own life, let alone a court case... I'd get mixed up and probably make a bad decision anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a days they let you take notes, and they give you all the evidence to help refresh your memory.

You also have things like white boards so you can see the issues visually.

Ah, well that would be a big help then... And i suppose i'm often one to be the devil's advocate... If nothing else i'd bring of thoughts to consider in case neither side had concrete evidence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well that would be a big help then... And i suppose i'm often one to be the devil's advocate... If nothing else i'd bring of thoughts to consider in case neither side had concrete evidence....

The biggest bone that I have to pick with jurors in general, and the populous at large is that legally, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, but that is not the way our system works.

The question is not "Do I think that it is more likely that X happened rather than Y?" but "Did the prosecutor prove conclusively that X happened?"

You can say something like "...And there are three other innocent explanations that make sense" and you will get replies of "yes but X is most likely". I KNOW! But that wasn't proven!

If any of you are ever on a Jury, strive to follow the judges instructions. It is just crazy to me that 10 people were willing to ignore them because they sympathized with the poor old man. I felt pretty bad for the guy too, and if his property had not been accidentally damaged, he would not have had the opportunity to make the situation worse.

But the defendant should not be liable for a $30,000 mistake you made after the damage was done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest bone that I have to pick with jurors in general, and the populous at large is that legally, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, but that is not the way our system works.

The question is not "Do I think that it is more likely that X happened rather than Y?" but "Did the prosecutor prove conclusively that X happened?"

You can say something like "...And there are three other innocent explanations that make sense" and you will get replies of "yes but X is most likely". I KNOW! But that wasn't proven!

If any of you are ever on a Jury, strive to follow the judges instructions. It is just crazy to me that 10 people were willing them because they sympathized with the poor old man. I felt pretty bad for the guy too, and if his property had not been accidentally damaged, he would not have had the opportunity to make the situation worse.

But the defendant should not be liable for a $30,000 mistake you made after the damage was done.

Yup, that's the problem... They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and that no other possibilities can be possible... It's kinda crappy, but yeah, that's what they gotta do... You can't just say how a scenario might've happened and have the jurors say 'Well the situation makes sense..." you have to prove it actually happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's the problem... They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and that no other possibilities can be possible... It's kinda crappy, but yeah, that's what they gotta do... You can't just say how a scenario might've happened and have the jurors say 'Well the situation makes sense..." you have to prove it actually happened

I agree until you said "it's kinda crappy".

"Innocent until proven guilty" is amazing. If a case is ever brought against me, I don't want reasonable testimony in my defense to be invalidated because the jurors think there is a 51% chance that the testimony of a prosecutor's witness is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, that's the problem... They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and that no other possibilities can be possible... It's kinda crappy, but yeah, that's what they gotta do... You can't just say how a scenario might've happened and have the jurors say 'Well the situation makes sense..." you have to prove it actually happened

Depends on the court and the case. Only in criminal court is it beyond reasonable doubt. Which is about 90% certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the court and the case. Only in criminal court is it beyond reasonable doubt. Which is about 90% certainty.

Yeah, but the thing is that it's really up to how the jurors are... Some may be swayed by sympathy, while others just want to get it over with and vote with the majority...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the thing is that it's really up to how the jurors are... Some may be swayed by sympathy, while others just want to get it over with and vote with the majority...

Well here is the thing... Court Cases are divided up into types, some types require more jury than others. Beyond Reasonable Doubt is a really difficult thing to get. Which is why many criminal cases fall in favour of the accused rather than the prosecution. And that is why those cases are almost always revisited in civil court, because then it becomes only majority (I think). I am really fuzzy on the different types and the different names of the majority rulings required for each.

And really, it is my opinion that anyone that doesn't want to attend jury duty should be excused. It breaks the system if they are totally apathetic, or they get really bored or find court in general boring, because then they'll just vote to get it over with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...It breaks the system if they are totally apathetic, or they get really bored or find court in general boring, because then they'll just vote to get it over with...

YES! When we arrived at a decision, there was a cheers of "yay, we're done!", "we can go home now!" etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...