Jury duty questionnaire seems intrusive and odd.

[Cameramonkey]

the government.

so if we shouldn’t have a juror that goes to the same church as the defendant, should an Atheist juro be allowed if the defendant is Atheist? Trying to understand the extent we are required to go to say the jury is acceptable. Did trial juries in the 1800s exclude based on church affiliation? If not, does that invalidate those jury decisions? I think we are going too far by micro managing who is on a jury. We need a judicial system that is willing to ignore the insignificant whining of unfairness. I’m curious if during the days of using horses everyday did courts exclude horse owners on juries for people accused of being a horse thieves? I can’t imagine a horse owner being able to be impartial knowing the costs involved in owning and caring for a horse as important as they were in those days. How would a horse thief ever get a fair trial?

Thats apples and oranges. Same church means you probably know each other. So the potential bias is high. So in your example its no different than both being a member of the same Elks lodge, both being employed at the same company, etc.
Well, considering the jury is supposed to be made up of your peers, why not? Heck, if I told my attorney I wanted nothing but Methodists in my jury pool, its my prerogative. (I may not get it but if I feel it will help my case... )

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I can’t imagine a horse owner being able to be impartial knowing the costs involved in owning and caring for a horse as important as they were in those days. How would a horse thief ever get a fair trial?

This is bordering on ridiculous. Do you think only people that don't own cars should be allowed on a jury in a car theft case? Not sure where you're going with this.

 

[HoughMade]

Thats apples and oranges. Same church means you probably know each other. So the potential bias is high. So in your example its no different than both being a member of the same Elks lodge, both being employed at the same company, etc.
Well, considering the jury is supposed to be made up of your peers, why not? Heck, if I told my attorney I wanted nothing but Methodists in my jury pool, its my prerogative. (I may not get it but if I feel it will help my case... )

This. What a person believes religion-wise or not is pretty much irrelevant. It's whether people run in the same social circles.

Personal beliefs (from whatever source), to the extent relevant, are fair game. I am in the civil realm, so questions about whether people should sue and whether there is an amount of money above which a person would never consider are allowed. Questions in that vein are allowed in criminal cases about punishment, including beliefs about the death penalty.

 

[Mij]

This is bordering on ridiculous. Do you think only people that don't own cars should be allowed on a jury in a car theft case? Not sure where you're going with this.

JMO

 

[edporch]

If you don't want to serve on a jury, just give a subtle impression in some way that you can't be unbiased.

Back when I was about 20 or so in the 1970's, I was called for jury duty for a minor drug offense trial for a college kid about my age.

The judge said the jury would have NO SAY on the sentence and we were told the guy could get up to 20 years.

After the rounds of questioning was over, it was clear to me that I would be on the jury.
So I stood up in the jury box and said "your Honor, may I speak?".

He said I could.

I then said "Your Honor, I can't be unbiased in this case because I don't believe the punishment for this charge fits the crime. AND I could never give this man a guilty verdict and live with myself".

I believe he was guilty of doing what he was charged with.
(there was no way this college kid should've had to serve up to 20 years for this)

I was let go.
I read in the local paper a few days later that this guy ended up getting sentenced to 6 months on the Indiana State Farm with a plea deal.
A MUCH more reasonable sentence for what he was accused of.

I felt at the time that maybe what I did helped bring some common sense to this.

 

[Mij]

If you don't want to serve on a jury, just give a subtle impression in some way that you can't be unbiased.

Back when I was about 20 or so in the 1970's, I was called for jury duty for a minor drug offense trial for a college kid about my age.

The judge said the jury would have NO SAY on the sentence and we were told the guy could get up to 20 years.

After the rounds of questioning was over, it was clear to me that I would be on the jury.
So I stood up in the jury box and said "your Honor, may I speak?".

He said I could.

I then said "Your Honor, I can't be unbiased in this case because I don't believe the punishment for this charge fits the crime. AND I could never give this man a guilty verdict and live with myself".

I believe he was guilty of doing what he was charged with.
(there was no way this college kid should've had to serve up to 20 years for this)

I was let go.
I read in the local paper a few days later that this guy ended up getting sentenced to 6 months on the Indiana State Farm with a plea deal.
A MUCH more reasonable sentence for what he was accused of.

I felt at the time that maybe what I did helped bring some common sense to this.

I don’t have any idea what Indiana law says on jury nullification but I have to wonder?

 

[Rookie]

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Indiana case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Court of Indiana decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

 

[JettaKnight]

the government.

so if we shouldn’t have a juror that goes to the same church as the defendant, should an Atheist juro be allowed if the defendant is Atheist? Trying to understand the extent we are required to go to say the jury is acceptable. Did trial juries in the 1800s exclude based on church affiliation? If not, does that invalidate those jury decisions? I think we are going too far by micro managing who is on a jury. We need a judicial system that is willing to ignore the insignificant whining of unfairness. I’m curious if during the days of using horses everyday did courts exclude horse owners on juries for people accused of being a horse thieves? I can’t imagine a horse owner being able to be impartial knowing the costs involved in owning and caring for a horse as important as they were in those days. How would a horse thief ever get a fair trial?

Do they attend atheist meeting together?

 

[gunrunner0]

I have been a trial attorney for the last 24+ years.

The forms are usually sent out and collected by the County Clerk's office. When a trial is scheduled, they will summon a certain number of people to show up when needed. At that point, the forms are sent to that court. Then, the judge and both sides get a copy. Once the jury is picked, the forms are gathered up and destroyed by the court. They use a secure shredding service just like my law firm does. You would be surprised how many jurors want to hang around after the trial has concluded and talk to the lawyers.

I can confirm Elkhart County does similar. Here they go to the bailiff for whatever court, get scanned in and then destroyed. I believe if you're selected the lawyers and judge get a copy, that as you stated, is collected and destroyed at the end of the trial.

 

[edporch]

I don’t have any idea what Indiana law says on jury nullification but I have to wonder?

If it had gone to trial and I was on the jury, I would've likely hung the jury, simply because the potential sentence was so unjust under the circumstances.

The case was in the mid 1970's.
Two local small town druggie girls in Rensselaer that I knew who they were but wasn't friends with, got arrested for drugs, and were given the chance to get somebody else in trouble so they could get out of trouble.

So they went to the local college in Rensselaer, and went to the dorm room of a kid they knew there.
They each got one hit of "microdot" (a VERY weak type of acid that kids I saw in the IU dorm I lived in who took it, just laughed for some hours til it wore off) from him, and went outside to the Rensselaer police, who then busted this college kid as some big drug dealer.

At the time, I myself was a student at IU Bloomington, lived in the dorm myself, and knew this kind of thing was common all over campus in the mid 1970's.

YES, the guy got arrested and he was guilty.
BUT 20 years in prison was absurd under the circumstances and I just couldn't have gone along with it.
Plea bargain 6 months on the Indiana State Farm, which in those days meant 3 months with good behavior was a just sentence.

(If you'd seen him, he was just some naive college kid, and not some hard core drug dealer type that should serve hard time)

As to Indiana jury nullification, if memory serves the early juries were informed that besides judging the guilt or innocence of the defendant, they also have the power to judge the rightness or wrongness of the law itself.
Which is a check and balance against tyrannical unjust laws.

 

[thompal]

Where were these fed trial at if you don't mind me asking. If D.C. I could understand that kind of jury pool, elsewhere not as much.

Indy. It was in the mid 80s.

 

[thompal]

Did trial juries in the 1800s exclude based on church affiliation?

That would have been a problem in small towns, where EVERYBODY went to church. And they all went to the same church.

 

[thompal]

If you don't want to serve on a jury, just give a subtle impression in some way that you can't be unbiased.

You will undoubtedly be asked if you believe that the fact that a person was arrested means they are guilty. Just say "yes." The defense lawyer will boot you immediately.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

the government.

Hate to break it to you, but the govt questions the legitimacy of a religion on a regular basis. Usually for tax exempt purposes but occasionally for other reasons as well. Including whether something that would be generally illegal is legal under religious freedom. Such as American Indians use of certain hallucinogenics during ceremonies vs the Church of Cannabis use of MJ during theirs vs the use of Ayahusca in some religions. Two out of the three are legal at the federal level.

so if we shouldn’t have a juror that goes to the same church as the defendant, should an Atheist juro be allowed if the defendant is Atheist? Trying to understand the extent we are required to go to say the jury is acceptable. Did trial juries in the 1800s exclude based on church affiliation? If not, does that invalidate those jury decisions? I think we are going too far by micro managing who is on a jury. We need a judicial system that is willing to ignore the insignificant whining of unfairness. I’m curious if during the days of using horses everyday did courts exclude horse owners on juries for people accused of being a horse thieves? I can’t imagine a horse owner being able to be impartial knowing the costs involved in owning and caring for a horse as important as they were in those days. How would a horse thief ever get a fair trial?

Does the atheist juror go to the same atheist club with the defendant on a weekly basis? Or any of the attorneys involved? Then yeah said atheist is probably going to get cut.

Don't think those that owned horses were excluded, just like those that own cars aren't excluded now in a car theft trial. If the person has had a car stolen, then they might get excluded. Or we'll go with rape, just because the person is the same sex as the victim or the accused is not reason to cut them from the jury. Now if they had been raped or convicted of rape then that might just be. Same goes for most other crimes as well.

 

[04FXSTS]

Around 20 years ago I was called for a federal jury in Urbana Illinois. That was about 35 miles in the dead of winter early morning cold and windy. The Judge was pretty cool, had coffee and donuts in the jury room for everyone to say thanks for coming out on a miserable day. He came in ahead of the trial time and gave us a life history, where he grew up etc. Said he felt it was only fair since he would be asking us this kind of question during jury selection.
Several people were kicked out for various reasons and some with no explanation. I was one kicked off with no explanation but it was an interesting day.
I have been called several times in Vermilion County Illinois when I lived there and it was always horrible. Well at least the first day was horrible. They would split the jury pool into three groups but the first day we would all have to show up. The room was way too small for that many people and I thought about talking to the Fire Marshal about too many people. They always seemed to treat everyone like so many cattle so first day always a bad day. Jim.

 

[jamil]

When this type of thing comes up, my generally unpopular advice is:

"Be the type of juror that you would want if you were on trial."

That includes filling out the surveys, IMO.

So always not guilty?

 

[jamil]

Thank you!

I don't find that surprising. I love talking to people in other professions.

Wait. Lawyers are people?

 

[MRockwell]

You would be surprised how many jurors want to hang around after the trial has concluded and talk to the lawyers.

wait...so you're saying lawyers have groupies!? Man, I am in the wrong profession.


I got called here in Hamilton Co, once. Made it into the courtroom and was I think #36 in line for questions. They had the jury picked within the first 24 people. I got the questionnaire beforehand but the only question I remember from it was if I had ever been a victim of theft.

 

[JettaKnight]

Wait. Lawyers are people?

Nope. Lizards in disguise.

 

[HoughMade]

wait...so you're saying lawyers have groupies!? Man, I am in the wrong profession. ...

Sometimes the jurors just want to get something off their chest. I get it. It would be torture to me to have to sit quietly with virtually no opportunity to comment (the only thing being written questions). Some "short" examples:

- I had a med mal case where my client missed a twisted testicle diagnosis, thinking it was an infection. The guy ended up losing the testicle. We were trying it primarily to set damages. They wanted $300,000. We wanted to pay no more than $75,000. The verdict was for $55,000. I put that in the win column. 2 jurors sought me out in the parking lot afterwards and apologized for their verdict, kinda, saying they thought my client was a good doc, but made a mistake. I asked how they came up with the amount. They said that they thought $50,000 seemed right for the pain and suffering and one of the other jurors had seen a show on Discovery Channel where a cancer patient had silicone "testicle" implants for $10,000, so since he only needed 1, they added $5,000.

- After another trial, a trip and fall which we won, 3 or 4 jurors were aching to tell me that they thought the elderly plaintiff was overstating her injuries and they could tell that the plaintiff's attorney, was "holding her back" and making it look like she couldn't walk well when she took his arm for him to escort her to the witness stand. I never saw that and know the plaintiff's attorney be a good guy and a straight shooter. That wasn't the main issue in the case, though.

- A third example is where I tried a med mal case I probably would have lost 9 times out of 10, but actually won. All of the jurors wanted to tell my client (heart surgeon) how bad they felt that he had to be put through a trial. The foreperson then stated: "we knew the plaintiff's attorney was a douchebag from the moment he opened his mouth." All I'm going to say is that I understand how they came to that conclusion.