Jury Service - Do it, or else!

[NorthernChaosGod]

Well if that works then I'm all set.

[Citizen Bleys]

being able to actually follow wtf the lawyer's say.

NEVER pluralize with an apostrophe! NEVER NEVER NEVER!

[Big D]

I got called up twice during my time at law school. Back then, I was still on the electoral roll in my hometown, so I was let off. One of the Ciminal Law lecturers totally encouraged us to attend if we ever got the chance, but it was never actually feasible for me at the time.

I've been enrolled in my current city for years now but haven't received another summons to jury service. Figures.

[Loony BoB]

Nothing so far. I moved out of NZ when I was 18, and have only been on the UK electoral register for a short time now.

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

[The Man]

I noticed this is GC but I will be uncharacteristically coherent for once.

If I were in your position and I had to make a jury decision on a case, I would absolutely vote to acquit the accused regardless of evidence.

Basically this, unless it were something like a violent crime for which the accused was clearly guilty. On the other hand if it were something stupid like drugs or prostitution I'd definitely vote to acquit regardless of how clear the case of transgression was, since the fact that the laws exist is a clear violation of human liberty to begin with.

Of course, now that I've admitted this publicly, I may have ruined my chances of ever getting jury duty. If they actually care enough to search people's post history on a Final Fantasy message board, which they probably don't.

Nothing so far. I moved out of NZ when I was 18, and have only been on the UK electoral register for a short time now.

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

WesLY can confirm this for certain, but I believe the way it works is that if it were a criminal trial it would require a unanimous vote to convict, but for civil trials it just goes by majority vote. This sounds like a civil case so basically the guy was smurfed. Isn't our lawsuit-happy "justice" system lovely?

edit: apparently criminal trials require unanimous verdicts if the jury is composed of six people or less, but non-unanimous verdicts have been upheld where the jury was larger. Wikipedia

[Loony BoB]

Wow. This is the kind of thing you guys should be marching over. That's totally crap if it is in fact the case. Majority of a mere handful of people who, let's face it, often won't have much of a clue? Stupid, stupid, stupid. No wonder so many people sue each other over there. Sad.

Also, six people? So much for Twelve Angry Men! Great movie.

[Crop]

So in America do you get called for a certain case or something? Because here (in Britain) you get called up for two weeks and might have to be part of a Jury in a few cases over that time. Or none.
So far, I have had none, and you can't leave you just wait in the waiting room. I did get one today which I was glad for because I do actually want to do it, just not sit in the waiting room for 2 weeks. Anyway, the guy then changed his plea to guilty so we had to leave

[Raistlin]

WesLY can confirm this for certain, but I believe the way it works is that if it were a criminal trial it would require a unanimous vote to convict, but for civil trials it just goes by majority vote. This sounds like a civil case so basically the guy was smurfed. Isn't our lawsuit-happy "justice" system lovely?

It depends on the state. Federal and some states require unanimous verdict; other states require less. But it is never simply a majority that I know of. If it's a jury of twelve, my guess would be between 9-12 jurors would have to agree to find for the plaintiff in most/all states.

Same with criminal trials. In maybe half the states plus federal cases, it has to be unanimous. The rest have allowed 1-3 dissenters, depending on the jury size.

[Peegee]

I'm surprised that a lot of you are talking about ways to quit jury duty. I would jump at the opportunity to not have to work and to usurp the justice industry.

Aaron brings up a good point that an obviously dangerous person should be locked up. I might take those cases seriously only bc if 'a reasonable person' would not vote to acquit based on the evidence, then it would not make sense for me to vote to acquit, and I would get in trouble.

[DMKA]

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

Well mine was a civil case, so it was majority vote. We had ten jurors and at least 7 needed to agree for a verdict.

Seeing as her car damage was already paid for by the guy's insurance, I didn't think she deserved crap beyond an apology. Unfotunately seven of them disagreed with me and argued over how much she should get.

I really felt sorry for the guy because he was just a plain old guy. He didn't have a rich mommy and daddy and he didn't have gobs of cash laying around, much less what she was asking for.

I would have been sympathetic for her condition if she wasn't an idiot who ran up bills she couldn't pay and actively trying to destroy someone else's life in the process.

[Peegee]

DMKA: Surely if you were part of the jury then they could not be found guilty if a single person said 'not guilty', and therefore you could have stopped them being found guilty on any part? Or is it simply a majority vote now on?

Well mine was a civil case, so it was majority vote. We had ten jurors and at least 7 needed to agree for a verdict.

Seeing as her car damage was already paid for by the guy's insurance, I didn't think she deserved crap beyond an apology. Unfotunately seven of them disagreed with me and argued over how much she should get.

I really felt sorry for the guy because he was just a plain old guy. He didn't have a rich mommy and daddy and he didn't have gobs of cash laying around, much less what she was asking for.

I would have been sympathetic for her condition if she wasn't an idiot who ran up bills she couldn't pay and actively trying to destroy someone else's life in the process.

so what happened?

[Raistlin]

Wait, wait, she got paid by the guy's insurance and the defendant himself? Unless she only got a percentage from the insurance, that's double recovery. Although I guess the insurance might not have paid for the acupuncture "medical" expenses, and he shouldn't need to either. I wonder if he could've argued contributory negligence due to her being an idiot.

[Big D]

Exemplary damages, perhaps? If you guys even have them in your legal system.
DMKA's story is both sad and, as I understand it, wholly indicative. It's why I prefer a few aspects of our civil system: juries usually aren't involved in civil cases at all, with the judge or judges reaching a decision and setting the quantum of damages. Also, there's usually no right to seek damages for personal injury, with an elaborate statutory compensation scheme in place to cover losses and costs. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it prevents people from financially ruining each other over relatively minor, blameless acts.

[Yar]

I just want to be part of a hung jury. /smug

[Rye]

I got called in for the first time this year, but I got out of it luckily due to being a full time student. There would just be no time.