Exactly. But we must remove bias from the jury pool. What cost is too high for the removal of that bias? Is any bias bad? Are judges more concerned about their verdict being overturned that they go overboard to eliminate bias in the jury? Does it cripple the system? Is there a line or is it a broad brush stroke? One man‘s lack ridiculousness is another man’s means to overturn.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Jury duty questionnaire seems intrusive and odd.
- Thread starter XMil
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
You can’t remove bias from the jury. I think instead, what lawyers would like to do is to seat jurors sympathetic to their side. Or at least seat ones who aren’t sympathetic to the other side. So I think that sort of becomes a compromise. Someone both sides can accept.
Being sympathetic is a byproduct of bias.
Being sympathetic is a byproduct of bias.
Most frequently, I am a defense attorney in civil cases. What I view as one of my biggest challenges is getting people on a jury who can reserve judgment.
The plaintiff gets to do everything first. First in jury selection, first for opening statement, first to present their case and first AND last with closing argument.
The primacy effect- "The primacy effect is a cognitive bias and refers to an individual's tendency to better remember the first piece of information they encounter than the information they receive later on."
That's a tough one. This bias is so well known that it was recognized thousands of years ago in the bible:
Proverbs 18:17- "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
The plaintiff gets to do everything first. First in jury selection, first for opening statement, first to present their case and first AND last with closing argument.
The primacy effect- "The primacy effect is a cognitive bias and refers to an individual's tendency to better remember the first piece of information they encounter than the information they receive later on."
That's a tough one. This bias is so well known that it was recognized thousands of years ago in the bible:
Proverbs 18:17- "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
Interesting. I’ve been on two civil juries where the lawyers came to me afterwards to ask about deliberations.
One was a hung jury and the assistant defending lawyer caught me on the outdoor stairwell in the rain at 2 AM, so I wasn’t real eager to have a long conversation with him. I did have the pleasure of telling him that the only thing the jury unanimously agreed on was that his boss, the lead defending lawyer, was a liar.
On the other the plaintiff‘s lawyer called me (foreman) at home a couple days later. I refrained from telling him that the jury agreed 6 to 0 that they would never ever hire him as a lawyer because he was so awful. We (the jury) talked about this and did explicitly agree that we would try to give his client a fair shake despite his lawyer, and in fact the client did technically win. Technically. Do you know how you said you counted a $50 thousand dollar judgment against your client in the win column? This guy got $300. Basically the cost of his ER visit.
In the Air Force I was on a panel pool (military jury pool) for a little while until I got bounced after I told the lawyers in voir dire that I knew a woman who had been raped, and the bastards also carved on her body with a knife. Interestingly none of us who were deselected knew which side had struck us off. They would bring a few of us in, ask her some questions, then send this out and discuss things with the judge. Then the bailiff came out and told us who was free to go.
I was ok with that in this case because they had already explained to us that a black male airman was accused of raping a white female airman, and there were no witnesses. It was basically going to be he said/she said. I was just as happy not to have to make a decision on that.
Last edited:
In my few dozen jury trials, about 1/3 of the juries are willing to talk to the lawyers. Usually, they like to stick together as group. When i lose and its obvious why, I don't want or need to talk to them.
It is particularly important to talk to a jury when it is hung. I have only had one of those.
It was a weird one, though. I was a young associate, uninvolved, when it was tried the first time, med mal, our client allegedly let the decedent leave the urgent care and then he had a heart attack and die. Our client said that he wanted to admit the decedent, but he refused because he didn't like the hospital and promised he would immediately go to a different local hospital. He never made it.
Anyhoo, the jury found for out client in the first trial. However, the judge did not like the verdict, so he ordered a new trial.
I was involved in the second trial as less-young associate (before the same judge, more on that in a bit). Hung jury resulted. Some on the jury thought our doc was smarmy and didn't want to believe him. The judge ordered a third trial. When that happened, I asked whether there was a reason we shouldn't take a change of judge because the rules say that you can take an automatic change of judge any time a new trial is ordered. The 2 partners involved looked at me, then at each other....wondering why they didn't remember that after the first trial....and told be to draft the motion.
Third trial, different judge and a very thoroughly prepped client- defense verdict. We held onto that one. 2-0-1 on a single case.
When I was a young man I was on a jury in a case of armed robbery. It got dismissed after lunch, because in earlier testimony, defense attorney got the key witness to admit she could not pick out the defendant in a lineup of all black men about the same build, until they put a hat and sunglasses similar to what the perpetrator wore on the defendant. Without saying the exact words, she effectively said she could not identify the person without the hat and sunglasses; they all looked the same. 
The only person interested in talking to the jurors after the case was dismissed was the bailiff. He wanted to know if we would have convicted the defendant given the testimony that we heard so far. One loud mouthed juror had gone on all during lunch break about how guilty that guy was. We were instructed by the judge not to talk about it. But he did anyway. And then after the case was dismissed he told the bailiff he "know'd" that guy wasn't guilty.
I was thinking, well that guy's full of ****. He shouldn't have been speculating out loud in the first place, and then changes his tune after the case is dismissed. And he wasn't really right about that either. He didn't know the guy wasn't guilty. All we knew is that the state couldn't prove he was. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, which would be quite odd coincidences. Maybe he did it. We don't convict on odd coincidences. If I went by feelings, I think I'd have convicted him. We hope we don't convict on feelings either.
The only person interested in talking to the jurors after the case was dismissed was the bailiff. He wanted to know if we would have convicted the defendant given the testimony that we heard so far. One loud mouthed juror had gone on all during lunch break about how guilty that guy was. We were instructed by the judge not to talk about it. But he did anyway. And then after the case was dismissed he told the bailiff he "know'd" that guy wasn't guilty.
I was thinking, well that guy's full of ****. He shouldn't have been speculating out loud in the first place, and then changes his tune after the case is dismissed. And he wasn't really right about that either. He didn't know the guy wasn't guilty. All we knew is that the state couldn't prove he was. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence, which would be quite odd coincidences. Maybe he did it. We don't convict on odd coincidences. If I went by feelings, I think I'd have convicted him. We hope we don't convict on feelings either.
This is what scares me a little about our system. Being "smarmy" without knowing the person is incredibly interpretive. I think projection is a real problem in interpreting people's behavior. I think the average person probably sucks pretty bad at it. You identified the worst problem though, and thoroughly prepped your client so he doesn't come off as a smarmy dick. It shouldn't matter.
Being a smarmy dick makes him at worst an annoying person, but it doesn't mean he did the thing he was accused of doing. And it certainly does not mean he deserves to lose just because he's a smarmy dick. I don't think as a juror, it's my job to bring Karma to people whose behavior I don't like. Did he do what he's being sued for or not?
In this case your client told the guy he wanted to admit him right then, told him the risks. The guy didn't take his advice. I don't think he's responsible.
Had jury duty today. It was an interesting experience. Actually got to hear some things about the case during the process and got some idea of how much or how little evidence would have been presented. Could have stayed and watched the trial and almost did (should have went and got a quick bite to eat and come back to watch).
When the judge said this early on when we were in the actual courtroom, I'll admit I was cool with if I had gotten selected:
He said, "there are 3 boxes that keep us free. The ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box".
I had previously filled out a survey late last year which I don't recall being anywhere as intrusive as some here have mentioned, and the questions asked during the process were not nearly as intrusive as some have mentioned they encountered on their surveys. That may ramp up depending on what's at stake, but it was a criminal case. They also just out and asked if anyone didn't want to be there.
I wasn't struck, I just wasn't selected. We were all asked the same questions, etc, but there was an order to who would be serving if those at the front of that order would have been struck (several were, it just didn't get down to me).
When the judge said this early on when we were in the actual courtroom, I'll admit I was cool with if I had gotten selected:
He said, "there are 3 boxes that keep us free. The ballot box, the jury box and the ammo box".
I had previously filled out a survey late last year which I don't recall being anywhere as intrusive as some here have mentioned, and the questions asked during the process were not nearly as intrusive as some have mentioned they encountered on their surveys. That may ramp up depending on what's at stake, but it was a criminal case. They also just out and asked if anyone didn't want to be there.
I wasn't struck, I just wasn't selected. We were all asked the same questions, etc, but there was an order to who would be serving if those at the front of that order would have been struck (several were, it just didn't get down to me).
Last edited:
manifest destiny
Master
This seems like a 'wow' statement from a sitting judge. I'm glad to hear it though.
Mallomar v State 2023.
Maybe.
Might be on boneless chicken wings.
Last one I was involved a child who was 7 when she was "molested and penetrated" by her uncle (a former Marine).
That was not a fun one.
By the end of day one, there was plenty of doubt. By noon on day two, all doubt was removed based on the defendents own statements.
I expected jury deliberation to last 15 minutes. Instead it went on for 3 hours as two jurors leaned towards "guilty" but were more concerned about what would happen to the child molester.
Eventually it was unanimously guilty. Given the age of the child at the time and certain other details involved, the sentencing required a minimum of 40 years with no opportunity for parole. Given the age of the *******, I expect he will live off of taxpayers until he is dead.
Footnote: There were several times throughout the trial where the jury was removed when certain matters came up. Later, we were told the parents of the daughter in this case had two other children who were also molested with the parents willing to press charges. The prosecutor wanted to ensure nothing in this trial tainted potential later cases should the jury decide "not guilty" in the trial at hand.
The molester, based on his own testimony when he took the stand, was an absolute piece of ****. I slept well that night.
If I get put on one this time, I hope its something malum in se...an opportunity to show the jury box has more of a role than what state tells.
Will it be after 1 July? Per Diem rates go up 1 July.
Hope it's something interesting and not a snooze-fest.
Per diem will be donated....Keeping money plundered from my neighbor by state would be an act malum in se in my code.
Highly unlikey I will get drawn, but if I do I am hoping for a malum prohibitum case and an opportunity to share the principle jury nullification.
On another jury selection process, shortly after the summer of peace and love, some *** in the pool of potential jurors kept chirping fully audible comments to the court despite two advisories from the court that he would be held in contempt.
The selection process ran through a mid day break.
First action of the court after the court reassembled following the mid day break was to haul the guy away for a jail visit.
The selection process ran through a mid day break.
First action of the court after the court reassembled following the mid day break was to haul the guy away for a jail visit.
We will disagree on per diem, I'll just leave it at that.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Mr24g
- Scuba591
- Hawkeye7br
- Super Bee
- farva118
- patience0830
- Horsetrader
- littletommy
- 9teen56f100
- ArevaloSocom
- crookcountygo
- TLHelmer
- DoggyDaddy
- 2tonic
- lovemywoods
- TacOpsGuy320
- d.kaufman
- Cmustang
- HoosierLife
- Cameramonkey
- Greg1
- sharkey
- El Conquistador
- tmschuller
- Rong
- Crash7
- nhgluff
- derrickgoins
- 42253
- Mgderf
- agreen0170
- EPeter213
- Dean C.
- KLB
- doddg
- drbntm
- Mtn139
- AllenM
- Jerry downey
- bocefus78
- Johnhammel13
- whoismunky
- Twinsen
- mbkintner
- CheeseRat
- Magyars
- Huntinghabit
- BeDome
- gregr
- Pin
