Same with my wife ,she was on the grand jury and asks pertinent questions from things she has learned from me as far as firearms and ballistics so they like her now she has been called quite often.
- Thread starter mvphilly
- Start date
Yeah, mentioning "jury nullification" in or near a courthouse is like saying the word "bomb" inside an airport, even when not in "that" context. I've seen people stand out in front of a court house with placards/signs talking about "jury nullification" in re: a case where they actually want to see the jury (or potential voire dire candidates) do just that, and be arrested on the spot.
I have served on two juries in my lifetime, and almost got on a third (got dropped at voire dire). I was "on call" for a fourth, but was not needed. The one where I was dropped was a US District Court trial where I had to answer that I was an "associate member" of a local "bar association" (IANAL) but had ceased being a member for at least 1.5 years. Didn't matter. I, and any person that had anything to do with the legal profession (eg. "legal secretary") or knew many judges or lawyers, etc., got dropped by the defense.
Do I like serving on juries? Well, "like/dislike" are probably not the correct terms. It's more like "duty." I feel a duty to serve on a jury because I'm a huge fan of "justice." And I want to ensure that those having their day in court (be they victim/plaintiff or defendant) get the justice they deserve. On the two juries on which I served, I watched all the
the litigants tried tried to get over on the jury members... playing to their emotions, etc. etc. instead of focusing on the evidence, testimony, and coming to a finding of fact as a result. Trial #2 for me was a criminal trial involving a biker gang brawl where someone was cut with box cutter blades. They were able to gather some evidence (blades themselves, covered with blood, etc.), but could never establish that the defendant owned or possessed any of it, nor used it during the brawl. The defendant's blood was on the blades, yes. But they couldn't establish that the victim's blood (nor the defendant's fingerprints) were on them (the defendant did have some bloody discharge) nor could they even establish by testimony that the defendant ever had the blades in his possession, draw them out or strike the victim. The prosecutor tried to establish that the two parties (victim and defendant) were isolated when the fight broke out, but we received testimony that several gang members attempted to break it up, leaving it impossible to know who possessed the blades and/or used them. We ended up acquitting the defendant of all the serious Assault charges and weapons possession charges (some were 2nd degree felonies) but we did convict the defendant on the tiniest of simple assault charges with the stipulation that there was "mutual consent" for the fight. That landed him the classic "30 days in jail." I'd imagine he had already served that and went home.And, all that said, the prosecutor was the lowest scum on the Earth. I think he was trying to get a little "reverse jury nullification" from us (i.e. a conviction where there was no established evidence). Furthermore, he committed the "ultimate" violation against us, the jury. We got the case late on a Monday, deliberated all day Tuesday and rendered a verdict on Wed. before lunch. On the full day, Tuesday, we were going to lunch, and, of course, the judge calls us into the court room for the standard admonitions (don't discuss the case with anyone, etc.) before excusing us for lunch (since this courthouse had no cafeteria, we all had to go to outside eateries). As we're being led down the stairwell towards the security checkpoint, there at the base of the stairwell, stood the very prosecutor in our case. He was holding the stairwell door open for us as we passed through. He never said a word to us, not even a "Good morning." He followed the judge's instructions to not "interact" with jury members during deliberations. He had an intern working for him that did the same with the external courtroom door beyond the security station. It was obvious to all of us (and anyone else with half a brain) what they were doing... playing a little "judiciary Texas Hold'em" trying to read our "tells." I was ready to report him to the judge, but I wasn't; sure. He did it right in front of the security station (manned by a deputy sheriff) so, maybe that was acceptable. I didn't report, and it really didn't affect the deliberations or the verdict. He just had a real crappy case.
So, yes, I will serve on whatever juries I can, and bring my very strong "BS Meter" with me. People deserve justice on both sides.
Last edited:
