Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

The way I look at it, either Obama's views favor one side in which case the other side cuts him.  Or the case is politically neutral and whichever side is more likely to win should cut him, since he introduces an unknown element into the situation.  Not just in terms of how he acts, but in terms of how others react to him, as MSH pointed out.  Obama would make everything more complicated.

On the other hand, you get to say you were at the trial where Obama was juror.

There's also all the additional security and so forth just to physically put him in the jury box, which is going to bog down proceedings and further restrict the jury selection to those who can be properly cleared. I wouldn't be surprised if he was cut simply to avoid the distraction of both his presence and his security.

[Karnewarrior]

The way I look at it, either Obama's views favor one side in which case the other side cuts him.  Or the case is politically neutral and whichever side is more likely to win should cut him, since he introduces an unknown element into the situation.  Not just in terms of how he acts, but in terms of how others react to him, as MSH pointed out.  Obama would make everything more complicated.

On the other hand, you get to say you were at the trial where Obama was juror.

There's also all the additional security and so forth just to physically put him in the jury box, which is going to bog down proceedings and further restrict the jury selection to those who can be properly cleared. I wouldn't be surprised if he was cut simply to avoid the distraction of both his presence and his security.

I eagerly await the one simpleton who's convinced they cut him because he's Blackish/A Democrat/A Liberal/Corrupt/A Garden Gnome.

Because I guarantee you there's going to be someone who tries to connect this to their pet project.

[Baffler]

I would cut him in a heartbeat, just as I would cut any other famous person. It changes the dynamic of the jury far too much, and becomes about pleasing Obama rather than (at the most pessimistic) pleasing the whole jury, because as others have noted the other jurors will either follow his lead or disagree simply because of muh Obummer, and there will be doubt cast on the legitimacy of the ruling in either direction because of it. Doubly so because Obama is a lawyer.

[MrRoboto75]

thanks, obama

[Trekkin]

I eagerly await the one simpleton who's convinced they cut him because he's Blackish/A Democrat/A Liberal/Corrupt/A Garden Gnome.

Because I guarantee you there's going to be someone who tries to connect this to their pet project.

I await the people who are convinced that, having been born outside the US, he can't serve in a courtroom with a gold-fringed flag per Masonic bylaws.

And then try to use this to get out of their traffic tickets or something.

[Max™]

Also, both the defense and prosecution can cut people from the juror pool.  Some people I know claim to have strategies to get cut on purpose so they don't have to serve ("ask a lawyer what jury nullification is"), but that might just be talk.

I told them I thought the role of a juror was to judge the law, whether it was applicable in this case, or should be overturned. I could swear I was right, yet for some reason they dismissed me immediately.

[Egan_BW]

I wonder how often lawyers find their interviews to start with "I know about jury nullification and want do get out of jury duty."

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sure that happens sometimes, but it's a good way to immediately get arrested for uttering those Forbidden Words in front of the rest of the jury, or to get trapped by the judge instructing you to affirm you will assess the case as a matter of fact under law and then getting arrested if you refuse to basically denounce your own beliefs.

The better thing to do would probably be waiting for them to inevitably ask the roundabout question that dodges the Forbidden Words while asking if you believe jurors assess fact under law or something else. Then just say something mildly dumb like "jurors should issue a verdict based on morals" or similar, and they'll most likely just cut you and move on to someone else without the judge thinking that you're trying to play the Forbidden Words to get out of jury duty.

[sluissa]

Also, both the defense and prosecution can cut people from the juror pool.  Some people I know claim to have strategies to get cut on purpose so they don't have to serve ("ask a lawyer what jury nullification is"), but that might just be talk.

I told them I thought the role of a juror was to judge the law, whether it was applicable in this case, or should be overturned. I could swear I was right, yet for some reason they dismissed me immediately.

Not sure if this is sarcasm...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

and this was just your method of getting out of jury duty. But no, that's not the role of a juror and I don't blame anyone thinking you're not suitable based on that answer.

You misunderstand your role and the extent of your powers. You're not judging the law, you're simply deciding guilt or innocence of a party or their liability for damages in a civil trial based on what the law says and the facts surrounding the case. Your opinion of the law shouldn't matter. (Although it's hard to force that on untrained jurors.) Only your opinion of the facts surrounding the case should matter.

The applicability has already been decided(at least according to one group of professionals and any further argument is for a higher court, not you).

And a jury verdict is not precedent and can't be used to overturn a law. It applies to one case and one case only and while it can go against the law (jury nullification), that sort of bad jury decision is intended to be worked out in a higher court of appeals if it leads to a conviction.

I'm no lawyer, and I might have gotten some of that wrong, I admit. Please, feel free to correct me, but it's pretty clear that you were wrong in thinking what your purpose as a juror was.

Actually spoilering it just because I'm pretty sure it is sarcasm at this point...

[Culise]

I'm sure that happens sometimes, but it's a good way to immediately get arrested for uttering those Forbidden Words in front of the rest of the jury, or to get trapped by the judge instructing you to affirm you will assess the case as a matter of fact under law and then getting arrested if you refuse to basically denounce your own beliefs.

Do you actually get arrested for that?  I thought that they just asked you, and if you declared that you could not make a decision based on facts alone due to strongly-held moral beliefs, they simply dismissed you from consideration.  I ask because of the precedent that tends to be set by the most common instance of this: religion.  Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, are pretty infamous for getting dismissed quickly, but say, being a Quaker or member of another pacifist faiths/denominations/secular movements on cases where the death penalty is in play tends to also be pretty common grounds for dismissal without arrest based on one's beliefs. 

Of course, thinking on it, the issue you bring up is mentioning it in front of the rest of the jury; that sounds like the person in question got through the jury selection process without challenge and is now ambushing the entire court in an attempt to force a mistrial.  If they're playing dirty pool with the rules, then I suppose getting arrested and/or fined is not as surprising. 

Ah, there's also the possibility that the judge decides that the juror is simply spouting off in an attempt to get out of jury duty.  In that case, being charged with contempt of court is also rather reasonable.  That, however, isn't a strongly-held belief at all; it's just an opportunistic attempt to fake it in an attempt to skip one's civic duty.  Sure as sin, if you bring it up, make sure you know what it is, make sure it's applicable to the trial in question, and absolutely, definitely don't suggest it as a reason you "recuse yourself" (because you can't; you can give them good reasons to dismiss you, but you cannot recuse yourself and you don't want it to look like that's the only reason you're doing it). 

[Maximum Spin]

I'm no lawyer, and I might have gotten some of that wrong, I admit. Please, feel free to correct me, but it's pretty clear that you were wrong in thinking what your purpose as a juror was.

You are wrong; juries in countries with a common-law tradition have an explicit right to decide whether or not the law should be applied in an instance even if they believe that the factual criteria of a crime (or tort) have been met. It's called "jury nullification" and, loosely speaking, the US government really doesn't want you to know about it; however, it's not considered "bad", legally speaking, but is actually a feature.

Do you actually get arrested for that?

No.

[Reelya]

Do you actually get arrested for that?

No.

Don't quote Maximum Spin when you actually get arrested for that:

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/05/18/fresh-look-jury-nullification

It begins with the story of a woman, Laura Kriho, who, while serving as a juror, was horrified to learn of the lengthy sentence associated with the crime before the jury (possession of methamphetamine). She told the other jurors that even if they believed the prosecution had proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (a belief which she did not share), they could acquit for any reason, including the unduly harsh sentence that would follow a conviction. One of the other jurors wrote a note to the judge informing on Kriho, and the latter was subsequently charged with and convicted of contempt of court for her actions, for intentionally serving on a jury with the intent to obstruct justice.

Personally I don't believe the ethical role of a jury is merely to be a cog that determines whether a person before the court matches some technical definition of having commited the crime. That's not the reason people campaigned and instituted layperson juries in the first place.

The legal profession as it's evolved would like you to believe that's all the role is, but if you look at the tradition of jury activism / jury nullification it used to be the norm that juries would throw out cases if they felt the deeds weren't in line with the punishment. It was a form of checks and balances against unjust laws and punishment. So jury nullification is a feature not a bug. (As Maximum Spin mentioned). But they want to stamp it out like a bug and have compliant juries who believe they have a smaller subservient role to play, merely as a "democratic" rubber stamp on proceedings. It's like those nations with one-party elections, basically. A sham.

[Maximum Spin]

Different situation. You don't get arrested for saying you know about jury nullification during selection. You can be arrested for contempt of court once you're actually on the jury, for pretty much any wingnut reason the judge thinks up. Basically, courtrooms are dangerous places and you should stay as far away from them as possible.

Also, don't you just hate when these "think"-pieces on jury nullification always go "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RAPE DEFENDANTS"? Uh, people accused of rapes have Constitutional rights too, and yes, if the jury thinks that nullification is the morally right thing to do in a rape case then I still want them to do it.

[Reelya]

Yeah, those sorts of arguments are appeals to consequence / appeals to emotion by deliberately highlighting some group who are "approved victims" in society. Almost always either "think of the children" or something about how women are delicate snowflakes (which is not in fact a proper feminist attitude. "think of the women" treats women as passive entities with no agency. It's infantilizing to an entire gender).

I picked that article because it had a good short summary of an example of someone being charged for advocating jury nullification (within a jury at least), not because I agree with their conclusion. The argument is "the jury is there to do a job, and only to do that job, and they need to learn their place".

But if that argument was valid, then a panel of professional judges would in fact be better. Trial by "jury of your peers" is not just to "determine the facts of the case". That's not why you have untrained members of the public being in control. It is in fact there as a democratic means to monitor that the entire legal process is fair. The fact that the writer of the article wants judges to overturn not-guilty verdicts on their say-so says it all: they want the juries only as a "rubber stamp" on the democratic legitimacy on the proceedings. If the judge could immediately overturn the verdict then a jury is in fact pointless and serving on a jury would only be giving legitimacy to a non-democratic legal system.

[Sheb]

I still don't know why you'd want jurors rather than professional judges.