Tell us about your service on a jury.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

I was the foreman on the jury in an armed robbery case.

Jury selection went rather quickly, and I passed through. The court room was a bit cold, we took our seats, and the judge gave us instructions. Then the case began. The prosecutor was female - a tall young brunette. The lawyer for the defendant was an old, battle-weary guy who gave it his best shot, but he was done for by the end of the prosecution opening statement. Annihilated.

The defendant and his accomplice had planned to assault a residence known to house drug-dealers. Indeed, the house had been the locus of a vigorous drug trade in the neighborhood for quite sometime. But for unspecified reasons the dealers had moved on, and the house had subsequently been rented by a man, his sister, and her boyfriend.

When the robbers kicked in the door demanding drugs and money, the brother and the boyfriend were watching TV, and the woman was in the bedroom. When she heard the assault in the living room, she immediately called 911, and when the raiders stormed into her room, she flung the phone aside, interrupting the 911 call.

The thieves proceeded to tie up the 3 victims in duct tape and stack them in the hallway to the garage, where the trunk of the family car was open.

Right about then the local cops showed up and entered the residence. They apprehended one dude in the LR and one on his way out a window.

The point is - I was startled at the stark simplicity of the facts as laid out by the prosecuting attorney and corroborated by the simple testimony of the police and the victims. Brutally effective tesimony by every prosecution witness, under the guidance of this fine lawyer for the D.A.

Nevertheless, the jury deliberated for more than 6 hours, meticulously going over the evidence and challenging each other's reasoning until we arrived at a unanimous verdict and sent the young man to prison for 4 consecutive 25-to-life sentences.

The crux of our collective decision was this: did the victims have any motive to lie?

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. I've only served on a Coroner's Jury. We had to rule whether a death was an accident, murder or

suicide. The cases were mostly car accidents. We went through many deaths in one day. It was quite depressing.:(

[etherealtruth]

3. Oh, geez

I don't think I could take that.

The fears I have about being called for jury duty are all associated with violence ... I am sure I could act impartially (and hopefully, intelligently) on a jury for a non-violent crime ... I honestly don't think I could take it if the case(s) were associated with violence (or depravity)

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. I know. It was so sad. One accident was a van that rolled over on the interstate..full of children

an entire family was killed. Mom, dad and 5 kids.:cry: That was just one case. It was awful. The coroner goes through the police report with all the gory details, he explained how the accident happened, how the van rolled, why the van rolled, where and how each person was thrown from the vehicle, where and how they landed, and how they died.:( DEPRESSING!

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. I was enpaneled in a civil suit of a contract

worker against the local Catholic archdiocese.

He slipped and fell on ice which the church said was his job to remove, he said the church did not provide a safe working environment. After the opening, there was at just about every other question an objection from one side or the other, and we were trundled off to the jury room while it was discussed.

We were there as a jury for 6 days. I think we were in the courtroom for about 1 hour tops.

Finally the judge called us back, thanked us for our service and dismissed us.

I guess they settled.

[2Design]

4. yes - automobile accident -two lane road - one party suing the other

Shouldn't have even made it on the jury since I was called for earlier one in the day and dismissed
they are suppose to go throught the cards in order - I watched as someone put the ones I was in back on top -
so it was two days - they passed around pictures of the guy all bandage and bruise but were instructed we didn't have to look at them - so I didn't since I hate blood and guts stuff -

We decided against the guy who want money from the other guy - just too many things not right to place blame on one party - neither remembered but the evidence was based on where the cars wound up after.

They say you will never see the people again - well I did
The banged up guy worked for the phone company and keep being at several of my aoccunts months later
The lawyer for one of the sides was sledding on the hill where we went when it snowed - I could hear his voice and distinguish it - so I went over to him and asked if he were a lawyer - sure enough it was him - this was months later

It was creepy running into them after.

[Turbineguy]

6. Two cases during the same tour

Criminal Mischief. Navy CPO with marital problems has argument with wife. He walks out the house and kicks her car, damaging it. He never touches her. In the meantime, she's called the cops. Cops find him kicking car and slap the cuffs on him. This is when I found out that in Washington if you are reported to the police, the charges get brought under the law and the original complainant cannot withdraw them. This was apparently to keep criminals from strong arming victims into pulling their complaint. The young lady DA was looking for a nice notch in her gun and charged the guy. By the time the trial came the car had been repaired at the husband's expense. When asked, I gave my theory of marital tiffs and got thrown off the jury on pre-emptory.

Accident case. Interesting set of circumstances. Everett WA just before Christmas. A woman driving along late at night on the freeway believes she is having a heart attack (as it turned out, she was not). There's a stretch were there is a long curve. She sees a police car on the right of the road, the Officer having made a routine traffic stop. She stomps on the brakes to attract police attention and gets rear ended by a Canadian. Nobody seriously injured fortunately. Two cars totaled. The woman however seems to have some lingering emotional issues.

She sues. The jury was chosen after the pre-emptories. That was interesting too. The Judge gave us our instructions. In opening statements both sides say they will bring scientific expert witnesses forward. By some miracle the Canadian was actually doing the speed limit (a rare thing in these parts).

By lunch the trial is well underway going back and forth with plaintiff, defendant, Police, EMT witnesses. I was completely unsure how this would go. That's why we have trials.

After lunch we found out that one of the Jurors (a real idiot) had lunch with another Judge's Secretary and had told her that he thought this suit was bullshit.

After lunch was over, we all sat down and the Judge declared a mistrial (he was pissed! I think he wanted to find out what would happen too) and we all went home. The trial had to be rescheduled. The Juror was let off the hook although he could have been liable for the costs of the retrial.

What was strange was the lady's lawyers brought out all sorts of prior problems making it look like she had made very few wise decisions during her life and was now looking for a settlement that would put her on easy street. It was clear she worked hard and for little money. I suppose it's a good strategy to come in with your own version of the truth first. The guy seemed like a decent guy. There was no way he could have stopped in time because of the curve blocking his view (Seattle area DU'ers will know this place on I-5 northbound in Everett). To this day, I do not know how I would have decided. I never got all the facts. I felt sorry for both of them having to go through all this again.

[Missy Vixen]

7. Jury duty

I've been called frequently for jury duty, (estimated ten times in the last 13 years or so,) but I've only made it onto one jury so far.

The case I served on was a guy accused of exposing himself to two early 20's women on a Metro bus. The defendant would have had to register as a sex offender if he'd been convicted, but we didn't find this out until after the trial was over. What made the experience stick out in my mind was the pitched battles among jurors. Even being in a jury room for only four days made some of the other jurors extremely cranky and argumentative.

The prosecutor in the case was overtly hostile to the jury. To this day, I'm not sure what her problem was. The defense attorney kept rattling her papers whenever she'd get up to talk. We're all told that sitting in a courtroom is nothing like television. It's quiet, everyone's orderly, but in this case, that didn't quite happen.

The prosecutor went through her case, and the defense attorney took the floor. She was due to question the arresting officer. She asked him three separate times before beginning her questioning if he would like to review the report he wrote, since the incident had happened almost a year before. He refused all three times. She rattled her paperwork a few times, then proceeded to prove that they'd arrested the wrong man via his own testimony and photographs and diagrams of the bus, where the other passengers were sitting and other witnesses. It was impossible for the defendant to have flashed the two women in question from where he was sitting on the bus. He wasn't even wearing the same clothing the officer had noted in his report, and others on the scene had made notes of. The prosecutor jumped out of her chair and shouted, "Your Honor, I want a sidebar! NOW!"

After the closing arguments, we went to the jury room. I asked if the group would like to take a vote, just to try it. We voted "not guilty" in less than five minutes. The foreman wanted to "make it look good," so we ate the catered lunch and called the judge 45 minutes later.

Julie