Jury duty questionnaire seems intrusive and odd.

[edporch]

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.

Yes, if you're asked that.
In my case, the only question I was asked was if I knew the 2 girls who were the witnesses for the Prosecution.
I told them "I know who they are, but they're not friends of mine".

(it's town about the size of Mayberry, and they both graduated high school a year behind me)

And by the time I stood up and addressed the judge, it was clear to me they were wrapping up selecting the jury and I was on it.
AND I wanted no part of railroading this kid to maybe serving 20 years hard time for a minor drug offense.

If I HAD known about jury nullification, I'd just have refused to vote guilty and hung the jury, but would've been the talk of the town and accused of being in league with the "druggies".

 

[areamike]

I think I'd just skip some questions. And yes, I agree... More info than they need for jury duty. I got a much streamlined version in my area a few weeks ago, without the strange, creeper type speed dating questions you have on yours.

No kidding. I thought the guy was updating his Tinder bio.

 

[Mij]

Been reading from page one, got in on page 5, just came home Wednesday and got my USDA “ Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service” survey. It’s 24 pages, not only do they (.gov) want to know my dogs name and how many I have. They want to know my baby sitters uncles name and his DNA profile. I can’t even type all the info they want. Would take ……. Well more than 24 pages.

 

[mom45]

Been reading from page one, got in on page 5, just came home Wednesday and got my USDA “ Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service” survey. It’s 24 pages, not only do they (.gov) want to know my dogs name and how many I have. They want to know my baby sitters uncles name and his DNA profile. I can’t even type all the info they want. Would take ……. Well more than 24 pages.

I haven't had one of those in several years, but the questions asked are ridiculous.

 

[actaeon277]

Are questionnaires like this standard for an issuing court, or are these questions dependent on the case, or suggested by the lawyers from each side?

 

[KLB]

Been reading from page one, got in on page 5, just came home Wednesday and got my USDA “ Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service” survey. It’s 24 pages, not only do they (.gov) want to know my dogs name and how many I have. They want to know my baby sitters uncles name and his DNA profile. I can’t even type all the info they want. Would take ……. Well more than 24 pages.

We got ours yesterday. I haven't even opened it yet.

 

[MinuteManMike]

- 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.

Wow. So screw the client because the lawyer's a douchebag? Some people...

 

[EPeter213]

Wow. So screw the client because the lawyer's a douchebag? Some people...

More like screw the client because they hired a douchebag for a lawyer.

Not commenting on Hough’s client, but the plaintiff that chose to sue for malpractice.
They got to pick their attorney. They hired a dbag to represent their interests, and the jury called them on it.

 

[jamil]

Was it malpractice or not? Hough said 9 times out of 10 he loses this case. It shouldn’t come down to whether the plaintiff hired a douche nozzle or not. But I understand that’s how people think.

Let’s say a surgeon had to do heart surgery and slipped, and injured the patient’s heart. The person dies. The family sues. Doesn’t matter if the plaintiff is a **** or hires a douche. The just verdict is, it’s malpractice. Not, it’s not malpractice because we don’t like the plaintiff’s attorney.

 

[bgcatty]

You never know what prospective jurors put down on these questionnaires. I’ve seen some pretty weird stuff. Even people stating they are life members of the NRA. Or they were members of PETA. Just amazing.

 

[manifest destiny]

I wonder if any lawyers actually tell their clients they are likely to lose their case 9 out of 10 times?
Martinsville, IN - defense counsel walks in to room of prospective jurors. He calls on random "juror number ____, If the defense proves its case should the defense win?". "Yes." comes the reply. "Juror number _____", same question. after 4 or 5 jurors called on all answered "Yes." the lawyer asked for a show of hands that agreed the defense wins if the defense proves its case. Yeah, those who raised their hand were summarily dismissed. It was a mix of stunning, hilarious, provoking and in a weird way scary. The case involved neighbor dispute, broken car windows, blah, blah.

 

[WebSnyper]

Martinsville, IN - defense counsel walks in to room of prospective jurors. He calls on random "juror number ____, If the defense proves its case should the defense win?". "Yes." comes the reply. "Juror number _____", same question. after 4 or 5 jurors called on all answered "Yes." the lawyer asked for a show of hands that agreed the defense wins if the defense proves its case. Yeah, those who raised their hand were summarily dismissed. It was a mix of stunning, hilarious, provoking and in a weird way scary. The case involved neighbor dispute, broken car windows, blah, blah.

I presume because rather than the defense needing to prove their case, it should be the plaintiff who has to prove their case.

Theoretically the defense shouldn't have to prove anything, though I guess it helps if they discredit the plaintiff's case.

 

[Mij]

I presume because rather than the defense needing to prove their case, it should be the plaintiff who has to prove their case.

Theoretically the defense shouldn't have to prove anything, though I guess it helps if they discredit the plaintiff's case.

Todays world, there’s no burden of proof no presumption of innocence all cases will be tried in the court of public opinion.

 

[MinuteManMike]

I wonder if any lawyers actually tell their clients they are likely to lose their case 9 out of 10 times?
Martinsville, IN - defense counsel walks in to room of prospective jurors. He calls on random "juror number ____, If the defense proves its case should the defense win?". "Yes." comes the reply. "Juror number _____", same question. after 4 or 5 jurors called on all answered "Yes." the lawyer asked for a show of hands that agreed the defense wins if the defense proves its case. Yeah, those who raised their hand were summarily dismissed. It was a mix of stunning, hilarious, provoking and in a weird way scary. The case involved neighbor dispute, broken car windows, blah, blah.

That's bizarre. Did the court ever instruct the jury properly on exactly what they're there to do?

 

[HoughMade]

Wow. So screw the client because the lawyer's a douchebag? Some people...

There was more to it than that. It was a defensible case, but on the surface it looked bad.

Joan Mazurkiewicz, et al. v. George Hodakowski, M.D., et al. (NFP)

Joan Mazurkiewicz, et al. v. George Hodakowski, M.D., et al. (NFP)

law.justia.com

 

[HoughMade]

I wonder if any lawyers actually tell their clients they are likely to lose their case 9 out of 10 times?
Martinsville, IN - defense counsel walks in to room of prospective jurors. He calls on random "juror number ____, If the defense proves its case should the defense win?". "Yes." comes the reply. "Juror number _____", same question. after 4 or 5 jurors called on all answered "Yes." the lawyer asked for a show of hands that agreed the defense wins if the defense proves its case. Yeah, those who raised their hand were summarily dismissed. It was a mix of stunning, hilarious, provoking and in a weird way scary. The case involved neighbor dispute, broken car windows, blah, blah.

Well, first things first- the defense doesn't have to prove anything....

Second, in a civil case, each side only gets 3 peremptory challenges. So, if 4 people were dismissed right away, there were either for-cause challenges in play or both sides struck. There are a lot more factors in striking than the questions asked live. There are the questionnaires, of course, and you may choose to strike based upon something in those alone. I may choose not to ask substantive questions of people I am going to strike because I don't want them spouting off. Jury selection is as much a black art as anything.

The one constant in jury selection is that the priority is not about getting the jurors you want, it's about discovering and getting rid of the jurors who will be the most trouble for your side.

I also always start subtly start arguing my case....sometimes less subtle than others.

 

[Mij]

Well, first things first- the defense doesn't have to prove anything.....

Yup, but I don’t have to tell you that, but it helps if you remind folks now and again.

people have become automatons

Todays world, there’s no burden of proof no presumption of innocence all cases will be tried in the court of public opinion.

I was taught the burden of proof rests with the accuser JMO

 

[Rick Mason]

Served on jury duty back in grad school. Somehow got ramrodded thru as jury foreman. Between the time we walked into the jury room after the trial, and when the bailiff brought us a big pot of coffee to see us thru the deliberations we had already voted not guilty and had a paper poll to prove it. Judge said it was the fastest in and out that he had seen in his legal career.

 

[manifest destiny]

Well, first things first- the defense doesn't have to prove anything....

I understood that. I was frankly surprised how nobody he asked understood the implication to the question. He was very casual in tone but he made clear he was defense counsel. I didn't get asked any questions and I didn't raise my hand. I also didn't get picked for duty. Thus my comment about the experience being scary. I wouldn't ever want to face a jury knowing now what I learned from then. The lawyer was from Somebody, Somebody and Coffey (Cofey?), based in Martinsville I believe.

I may choose not to ask substantive questions of people I am going to strike because I don't want them spouting off.

This is very interesting. I hadn't considered the impact one prospective juror might have on another prospective juror before the trial even started.

 

[HoughMade]

This is very interesting. I hadn't considered the impact one prospective juror might have on another prospective juror before the trial even started.

I have had the curse (or blessing?) of trying a few civil cases that pass for "high profile" in the Region. The last thing I needed was people realizing "Oh yeah, I did see something about that in the paper."