This week, I have jury duty, though I did not actually end up sitting on a jury. We ended up in the jury area, which was under construction but usable. They didn't have a working video system, so they played the audio of Judge Ladd and the head of courthouse security talking. It was explained to us that cellphones were banned because it was possible to record audio and video with them. This bothered me for a couple of reasons. For one thing, there are other devices that are also capable of doing these things which are allowed. At a deeper level, this suggested that the court didn't expect that jurors would obey the rules unless they were actively enforced. But it also seems like the system depends on an honor system to work properly. Unless you have a sequestered jury, nobody is going to be making sure that the jurors aren't reading news stories about the trial, talking to others, etc. So if jurors can't even be trusted not to do egregiously inappropriate stuff like taking photos in the courtroom, what about the other stuff?
Someone pointed out that it only took one idiot juror to cause an expensive mistrial, and the court might as well do whatever it can to prevent this. I'd also heard that Champaign County didn't enforce jury summons, and wondered whether some of the rationale for this was to let potential problem jurors self-select themselves out of the pool. If someone gets a summons saying that they're legally obligated to report for jury duty and ignores it, what are the odds that they'd comply with other rules about jury service?
I'd also heard that Champaign County didn't enforce jury summons,...
This bothers me. Not enforcing the jury summons just furthers disrespect for the law. It also ends up "punishing" the law abiders.
Wayward, you owe it to yourself and this community to educate yourself and others about Jury Nullification. Wikipaedia has some nice stuff on the subject.
Juries have the power to nullify laws that they feel are unconstitutional. Never shirk your responsiblity if you are asked to be on a jury.
http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=displaytxt&id=212&refer=news
Mistrials and failed convictions are quite expensive, and that is why Jury Nullification is such an important and effective tool in the hands of We the People for the overturning of unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional laws. Jury Nullification in Prohibition trials finally discouraged prosecutors so much that it contributed to the repeal of Prohibition.
The land of the Free and the home of the Brave currently has the largest inmate population in the world, with more than 2½ million or more than one in a hundred adults in prison and jails. Although the United States represents less than 5% of the world's population, over 25% of the people incarcerated around the world are housed in the American prison system. Pulitzer Prize winning author Joseph T. Hallinan wrote in his book Going Up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation, "so common is the prison experience that the federal government predicts one in eleven men will be incarcerated in his lifetime, one in four if he is black." Of those, 68% are incarcerated for non-violent "crimes". Not only is such incarceration likely to constitute cruel punishment (which should unusual) and quite likely out of proportion to the impact of the offense, it is also Expensive to incarcerate a prisoner, costing some $20,000 to $30,000 per head per year. That's USD$62 billion per year. (Enough to run the War in Iraq for more than 3 months, eh?)
On June 10th, 2008 at 03:54 PM, redstatewannabe said:I'd also heard that Champaign County didn't enforce jury summons,...This bothers me. Not enforcing the jury summons just furthers disrespect for the law. It also ends up "punishing" the law abiders. It usually costs more than what it is worth to pursue those who skip jury duty. There are plenty of other more convenient sheep. But considering the prospect of jury nullification to overturn bad laws, everyone should be pleased to get an opportunity to vote on the application of the law itself. For more information visit the website of the Fully Informed Jury Association. And tell others about it too.
It usually costs more than what it is worth to pursue those who skip jury duty.
Yeah, I know. But it also sends out a message that we care about the law in this county. I see it as an investment. Kind of like the perception (true or not) that Walmart fights every lawsuit, no matter how small.
This bothers me. Not enforcing the jury summons just furthers disrespect for the law. It also ends up "punishing" the law abiders.
At one level, it did, but for some people, $10/day jury duty would be a serious hardship and it doesn't seem right to punish them for not coming. As far as the folks who just blow it off, it seems like that leads to some interesting self-selection in the jury pool - lots of people there who tend to "play by the rules."
Jury Nullification!!1! Ron Paul!1!!111!
Jury nullification is not a useful tool. It's a miscarriage of justice. If you don't like the laws, get them changed the proper way.
Why not pay people a modest, living wage for jury service?
I'd be more in favor of changing state law to read that employers must guarentee someone called for jury duty their normal salary rate, whatever that may be, for however long they're serving; if they're not currently employed, pay the state's minimum wage times 7 or 8 hours as a lump sum (on the theory that a juror "works" from 8a to 5p, for example). Given that few people, relative to the employed workforce in a county, are called, and that not all of them are needed, I think it could work.
(and like a good candidate for office, I'd offset this increase in an employer's expenses by a tiny, tiny decrease in tax rates for corporations and business owners :-) )
I like Xian's idea, I just don't think it goes far enough to offset any percieved or real loss of wages for someone called to jury duty.
HG
Those of us whose jobs have jury duty benefits are lucky, though many people aren't so fortunate. I wonder if the county would issue fewer summonses if they had to pay more - what if having a bunch of people sitting around became a lot more expensive?
History Guy: What about the self-employed person with one employee? If that employee goes on jury duty he would have to pay the employee their regular wage even though they are not working? The next month he gets summoned for jury duty and now no one is there to remiburse the employer. Double the burden on the employer and place no burden on the employee?
This is a shared citizen duty. What makes it unfair is the systematic non-enforcement of the juror subpoena.
It called a 'duty' for a reason. It not a job, it's a requirement for good citizenship. Ignoring a jury summons should be punishable, not by a fine or extra costs for the government just a revocation of voting rights for four years.
It called a 'duty' for a reason. It not a job, it's a requirement for good citizenship. Ignoring a jury summons should be punishable, not by a fine or extra costs for the government just a revocation of voting rights for four years.
I'd suspect that voting might not be a high priority for folks who don't show up for jury duty either, so that probably wouldn't have much impact.
I served on jury duty this spring/summer as well, before the renovations started. What most struck me was how disrespectful of the time of the jurors the process is. I have been planning to write a letter about it and this will stimulate me to do that. The processes in place now are designed to facilitate the work of the jury wranglers. There are many changes that could be made that would still be efficient for the staff who need to provide jurors to courtrooms without wasting so much time of so many people. It's one thing if you're sitting around in a courtroom because you're in a jury pool and entirely another when you have the entire crop of jurors just sitting around in the jury assembly room. And there was a LOT of that during my jury experience.
the process very much is setup to respect the time of the judges and lawyers, it seems to me. I, and 50 others, sat in the jury pool for 4 hours a few weeks ago - the case was settled just before the trial was to start.
On the bright side, the new jury room was pretty comfy, and I got a lot of reading done.
On June 11th, 2008 at 05:30 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said: History Guy: What about the self-employed person with one employee? If that employee goes on jury duty he would have to pay the employee their regular wage even though they are not working? The next month he gets summoned for jury duty and now no one is there to remiburse the employer. Double the burden on the employer and place no burden on the employee?
Well, no one is there to pay the self-employed business owner sick time when he has to stay home ill. No one is there to pay the self-employed business owner vacation time for a trip to Disneyworld. That's one of the facets of being self-employed: you pay yourself for the work you do and you don't pay yourself when you don't work. Also, from my experience, a self-employed business owner can state, quite truthfully, when answering the voir dire questions, that any time away from his business will incur significant financial losses. That is very valid way of being excused from jury duty. The one time I served on a jury, there were two such people, and the judge consulted with the attorneys present and excused the jurors. My mother was in fact excused for that very same reason a few months ago.
Since the point of my plan was to reduce the burden on a summonsed employee, I agree that the burden would shift to the employer. The point, however, wasn't to come up with a perfect plan for everyone; it was to come up with a plan that would alleviate the financial hardship of employees being summonsed to jury duty. Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good (or good-enough).
HG
Well, tomorrow will be the fourth day of jury duty. Tuesday, we went up to Judge Clem's courtroom for a drug case, and they did voir dire. Clem seemed like a really nice guy. My number didn't come up, though I probably would have been bounced by both sides. He introduced the prosecutor and the defense attorney, who stood up and faced us, and for a split second, I wondered if we were supposed to start applauding. Fortunately, I didn't. Anyhow, he asked a lot of questions, including whether people belonged to any organizations that favored legalizing drugs or believed that existing drug laws weren't strict enough. The defense attorney didn't have many questions, but the prosecutor asked if anyone believed that our drug laws were too strict. I agree with Obama's position on medical cannabis, which might have been enough to have gotten me kicked off by the state.
This morning, we sat around for a while, and then we went up to Judge Ladd's courtroom in the afternoon for a forgery case. She asked a lot of questions too. One thing that both she and Judge Clem did that bothered me was that she asked people who'd checked "yes" on the survey for being a victim of a crime to explain it in front of everyone. This is probably OK for stuff like burglaries, but what if someone had been sexually abused or assaulted? At any rate, my number didn't come up for voir dire in that trial either, so I just sat and watched. A lot more people got excused in this case, and I was a little surprised by some of them. There was one guy who'd been close friends with another prosecutor in the State's attorney's office, and IIRC, he ended up getting bounced by the state rather than the defense. The prosecutor also asked questions about people's teaching and research. At least two UI professors who ended up in the jury box ended up getting bounced for no obvious reasons. I've heard that people with advanced degrees are sometimes considered undesirable jurors, but it's not clear why.
I've heard that people with advanced degrees are sometimes considered undesirable jurors, but it's not clear why.
It's because the system is predicated upon use of people who are mostly sheep who have few original thoughts and not many opinions and can be easily plied by the prosecution. Analytical minds will cause trouble and engender dissent among the jurors, leading to the "unfavourable" result of more acquittals and hung juries and fewer prosecutions.
*
A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves.
We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
Edward R. Murrow.
Wayward.......off subject........but the guy selected for Urbana decided to take a powder...time to get out the resume for your four legged little darling and go for the job this time:)
Wayward.......off subject........but the guy selected for Urbana decided to take a powder...time to get out the resume for your four legged little darling and go for the job this time:) What guy selected for Urbana?
The new admin guy,,,,,he decided to turn them down and work in Indiana instead,,remember?:) I guess he did not wish to work for Laurel
Both the ASAs I saw when we got sent to the courtroom seemed competent enough. The impression I've gotten was that working as a prosecutor could be interesting and rewarding, but less lucrative than other areas of law. So it seemed like a tradeoff. Personally, I've never wanted to live in the Chicago area - higher cost of living, more traffic, and potentially long commutes. YMMV.
Another juror I talked to turned out to be a law school professor who covers jury selection in the classes he teaches. He has both a JD and MD and got bounced by the state during voir dire. He said that professors, with the possible exception of those in engineering fields, tended to be considered undesirable jurors. He made some interesting points. One problem with "expert" jurors is that it's easy for them to dominate discussions and other jurors may pay more attention to them than to expert witness testimony. I'd noticed that one issue with voir dire questions is that sometimes situations are complicated, and the yes-no questions asked might not give the whole picture. He said that was a fact of life in trials. I brought up my concerns about how the cellphone ban made it seem like the court didn't expect that jurors would voluntarily obey rules, and he explained that the jurors probably weren't the people Judge Difanis had been concerned about. He said that it was easiest to just have a single set of rules at the front door, because making an exception for jurors would make the whole security process more complicated. He'd also been concerned about the practice of asking jurors in court about their experiences as crime victims, and was planning to write a letter to the court about it.
The cops I've talked with haven't seemed dumb. I believe that Shannon Bridges, one of the officers wounded in West Side Park, has a master's degree.
After reading anonymous 12:14 I have to ask myself, why do I waste my time reading this blog?
FWIW, I don't think that the 12:14 post represents the opinions of most posters here, but it was probably published because it didn't violate guidelines.
Speaking of officer Bridges... have there been any updates on her since her release from the hospital? I haven't heard anything since then. [/threadjack]
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Speaking of officer Bridges... have there been any updates on her since her release from the hospital? I haven't heard anything since then. [/threadjack]
I saw her a couple of months ago, and she looked good but was still recovering.
wayward... that's probably to be expected. Thanks for the update though. That whole mess was pretty upsetting. She always watched out for us night-owls.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
those wandering from the law school to accept a job in Champaign County are of mediocre skill and limited moral character, who couldn't qualify for the "A"-list jobs in the city.
I think the people in the SA's office are doing a pretty good job of putting the"Trash from the City"in jail, as a lot of them have migrated from the "City" Tell me what is an A List job up there anyway??? Paying some corrupt politician for a made up job where you kick back to the scum every pay day or working for some crooked judge?? You can have the "City" and all that goes with it!!
One thing that both she and Judge Clem did that bothered me was that she asked people who'd checked "yes" on the survey for being a victim of a crime to explain it in front of everyone. This is probably OK for stuff like burglaries, but what if someone had been sexually abused or assaulted?
wayward,
you can ask the judge if you can explain the circumstances in private and then you and the judge and both attorneys retire to chambers and you explain.
wayward,
you can ask the judge if you can explain the circumstances in private and then you and the judge and both attorneys retire to chambers and you explain.
Thanks, PB. In my case, talking about having my apartment broken into wouldn't have been a big deal, but I've known people who've been sexually assaulted so I was a little sensitive to that question. I think it would be a good idea if judges explained that option to prospective jurors, since many people might not know about it.
Lots of unnecessary crap in this thread, all started by my inadvertently approving a trolling comment at 12:14 PM.
Please resume the discussion, and ignore the trolls.
Thanks.
Since the county started using the questionnaire and allowing potential jurors to say which months they'd prefer to serve, about 75% of people summoned for jury duty show up.