Jury Duty Yay!!!

[Alamo]

...

... but in the moment, it feels like you're winning or losing the trial with every question, with every choice of who to select or strike...

So is your first question "Do you have an INGO screen name?" Is that a strike for cause or do you have to burn a peremptory challenge?


I turned 18 while still a senior in high school, registered to vote right away. Right after graduation I got called for jury duty and lost a week's pay, but it was worth it. Especially to watch the befuddlement of the out of town lawyers when they figured out that half the jury knew each other, and some were neighbors. The lawyers decided they could live with it.

 

[RyanGSams]

In Lake County, we started using juror numbers years ago and we never see their names....I wonder why.

When this first started, during voir dire I was asking questions and I turned to a juror and said: "juror 15, if that is your real name,...." I mean it's not hilarious, but not even a mercy chuckle.

I would have cracked up laughing no matter where I was. The judge has cracked some jokes and lightened the mood a few times. Is it normal to not be able to talk to the other jurors about the case at all until deliberation? I'm guessing it is just never knew.

 

[Woobie]

We were almost sent to a hotel for the night when we finally came back with a verdict. Our instructions for that stay, as well as lunch breaks were no discussion at all. All discussion was to take place in the deliberation room with all jurors present. No exceptions. And we abided by that. We really did take it very seriously, and it gave me a new-found confidence in our system.

 

[T.Lex]

I would have cracked up laughing no matter where I was. The judge has cracked some jokes and lightened the mood a few times. Is it normal to not be able to talk to the other jurors about the case at all until deliberation? I'm guessing it is just never knew.

We were almost sent to a hotel for the night when we finally came back with a verdict. Our instructions for that stay, as well as lunch breaks were no discussion at all. All discussion was to take place in the deliberation room with all jurors present. No exceptions. And we abided by that. We really did take it very seriously, and it gave me a new-found confidence in our system.

Yeah, when jurors discuss the case before them, it is called "deliberations." We don't want that until all the facts are in.

In opening statements, often (probably all the time, if the lawyers are doing it right) it sounds like 2 different cases. There's a structure, and even a kind of rhythm to how the evidence comes in. We don't want jurors discussing just part of the puzzle without seeing all the pieces. Too easy for them to think they fit together 1 way, only to realize it isn't like that.

There's a certain commitment once people discuss something. It is human nature that, once you decide something, you defend it. In trials, that's a dangerous thing to do without all the evidence.

There are some situations where the jurors have to decide part of a case before getting the rest of it. Capital trials are one example - guilt phase, then sentencing. But mostly we don't want jurors talking to each other about the dead horse until the lawyers are done beating it.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Yeah, when jurors discuss the case before them, it is called "deliberations." We don't want that until all the facts are in.

In opening statements, often (probably all the time, if the lawyers are doing it right) it sounds like 2 different cases. There's a structure, and even a kind of rhythm to how the evidence comes in. We don't want jurors discussing just part of the puzzle without seeing all the pieces. Too easy for them to think they fit together 1 way, only to realize it isn't like that.

There's a certain commitment once people discuss something. It is human nature that, once you decide something, you defend it. In trials, that's a dangerous thing to do without all the evidence.

There are some situations where the jurors have to decide part of a case before getting the rest of it. Capital trials are one example - guilt phase, then sentencing. But mostly we don't want jurors talking to each other about the dead horse until the lawyers are done beating it.

In part of our jury selection process, the prosecuting attorney asked "How many people think he's guilty?" and no one raised their hand.
He then asked "How many think he's innocent", and only one other person but myself raised our hands. I almost pulled it back when I saw most everyone else had not raised their hands also, thinking maybe I had misunderstood the question.
Lastly, he asked "How many people think he might be guilty, but need more information to be sure?". Everyone else raised their hand.
His only caveat was that he preferred the idea that everyone was innocent UNLESS proven guilty (because UNTIL insinuated that guilt was prevalent). I can't really disagree with that thought.

 

[T.Lex]

That's a kinda risky set of questions from the prosecution, but a significant part of jury selection is building a rapport with the jurors, making a connection. Being reasonable is a good style to have.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I kind of agree that it's risky from a prosecutor's standpoint. It's one of the other things that made him stand out in my opinion.
But it's along the same lines of what you had mentioned... predetermining (or looking for) guilt.
We didn't have any issues in our case with such discussion, until deliberations... and the aforementioned juror who 'just felt it in his gut'.

 

[calcot7]

I've been called three times within five years and was selected initially once. It was a case where two Hispanic males got into a fight over a girl and one of them stabbed / cut the other guy several times. When I was interviewed while sitting in the jury box, I indicated that I was a supervisor for a design / build contractor and worked closely with many Hispanic tradesmen. I must not have carried myself too well because I think I was dismissed with prejidice.

 

[KJQ6945]

I got called for jury duty Tuesday. Didn't make it through voir dire, released by noon.

 

[inav8r]

I've been selected for 2 juries over the years. The first was a he-said/he-said battery case. Prosecutor did a horrible job and the defense attorney exposed the prosecutions star witness in a bold face lie. We felt he was guilty, but since the prosecution didn't prove his case we acquitted. The 2nd one was an insurance malpractice case that was supposed to go 7 days. On the morning the trial was to start I was mysteriously excused (Jury selection was the day before) and an alternate was seated. I believe it was because they had verified my family had sued the same Dr. for malpractice (and won) a couple of years before.

My advice is to any perspective juror is this: 1) Watch "12 Angry Men".

 

[RyanGSams]

4th day done. Judge said we will not go over the 7th day, but may be done on Monday. We have a former Tennessee native on the jury with us. He has lived in Indiana for atleast a few years i guess. I got to inform him and a U.S. Marshall of the new plastic LTCH which made my day. He also holds a carry license for Tennessee and that looks much more legit than even our new one does.

 

[RyanGSams]

So today being the 5th day, us Jurors figured we had the court room things down. Well I guess we have been going into the courtroom wrong every time we walked in and nobody decided to tell us until today. Now I know i have seen Judge TV shows where everybody stands when the Judge comes in. Well I have never saw any thing with a jury in it so I didn't know what we were supposed to do when we walked into the courtroom and got to our chairs. The past 4 1/2 days we have been going in and sitting immediately down. We figured since the Judge was already in the court room and sitting we were supposed to sit. Today one of the Marshalls informed we are supposed to stay standing until the Judge tells everyone to sit down. So we joked with the Marshall saying they should have said something at the beginning instead of on one of the last days there.

We all thought it was funny and laughed about it.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

So today being the 5th day, us Jurors figured we had the court room things down. Well I guess we have been going into the courtroom wrong every time we walked in and nobody decided to tell us until today. Now I know i have seen Judge TV shows where everybody stands when the Judge comes in. Well I have never saw any thing with a jury in it so I didn't know what we were supposed to do when we walked into the courtroom and got to our chairs. The past 4 1/2 days we have been going in and sitting immediately down. We figured since the Judge was already in the court room and sitting we were supposed to sit. Today one of the Marshalls informed we are supposed to stay standing until the Judge tells everyone to sit down. So we joked with the Marshall saying they should have said something at the beginning instead of on one of the last days there.

We all thought it was funny and laughed about it.

It certainly is far more light hearted than everyone expects it to be the first time around. Fact is, it's a job... and an everyday occurance for all involved (except for most jurors). And the bottom line is, despite the 'light hearted appearance', the evidence and decision making is still serious.

It took me a while to accustom myself to how everyone (court people) seemed to be much more carefree than I was perceiving it at first.
Deliberations get serious... no easy or light hearted decision is made there, despite the attitude leading up to that point.
Glad you are participating, and bringing your viewpoint to the jury & process btw!

 

[RyanGSams]

It certainly is far more light hearted than everyone expects it to be the first time around. Fact is, it's a job... and an everyday occurance for all involved (except for most jurors). And the bottom line is, despite the 'light hearted appearance', the evidence and decision making is still serious.

It took me a while to accustom myself to how everyone (court people) seemed to be much more carefree than I was perceiving it at first.
Deliberations get serious... no easy or light hearted decision is made there, despite the attitude leading up to that point.
Glad you are participating, and bringing your viewpoint to the jury & process btw!

I totally understand that under all the laughing and joking done by the jurors everything is serious especially in the court room or deliberations. We are not that far yet so I can't say for sure how heated it is. I will be able to comment on that by Tuesday night I am guessing.

 

[HoughMade]

We'll be waiting to hear...the rest of the story.

 

[RyanGSams]

End of Trial was today. We were instructed we had to be Unanimous of our decision.

The Trial was between the School Town of Munster and Joseph Hunt.

Joseph Hunt accused The School Town of Munster and 4 school officials that they had allowed Hazing to be carried out in the boys swim program while it didn't happen in the girls swim program.
The hazing he said to have happened was his freshman year (2010) at a swimmers house for a pre-sectional hair cutting and dyeing party held only by the team. He said was dragged into a bathroom and had his hair forcibly shaved against his will. This wasn't reported for over a year so about early Feb 2011.

His sophomore year, he didn't go to the same party as the previous year. So the next day at school 3 boys on the swimming team was alleged to have grabbed him and attempted to shave his head while being held horizontally about 3 feet in the air. He was able to wiggle free and fell to the ground. He alleged his back and neck have been injured since then which was Feb 2011 when the event occurred. He didn't see a medical professional about the incident for about 6 months after the event. He did see a doctor in between then to have a athletic physical done.

Here is an article from Friday in the NWI Times. Munster schools hazing trial continues | Northwest Indiana Crime and Court | nwitimes.com

Joseph Hunt described the types of hazing he experienced, including having his head forcibly shaved by another swim team member at a party in 2009 when he was a freshman; being struck with a plastic bat by swim team upperclassmen and being covered in a waterproof ointment that caused skin blistering.

The waterproof ointment that caused skin blisters is Icy Hot ointment for sore muscles.

Here is a case review that I believe the Judge or his assistants put together before the case ended up in trial.

J.H. v. SCHOOL TOWN OF MUNSTER by PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge | Leagle.com

PHILIP P. SIMON, Chief District Judge.
It's often been said that high school is the best four years of your life. But for one young man, Plaintiff J.H., high school was anything but. J.H. was a student at Munster High School and a member of the high school swim team during his Freshmen and Sophomore years. J.H. soon discovered, however, that hazing was rampant on the team and much of it was directed at him. After enduring this physical and emotional mistreatment for two years, J.H. ultimately quit the team and left Munster High School early. He brings this § 1983 action against both the school and various school officials in their individual and official capacities, for the following claims: discrimination based on gender under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX; retaliation under the First Amendment; and a negligence claim under Indiana state law. Defendants now seek summary judgment on all claims. (DE 73.) For the reasons discussed in this Order, that motion will be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.

There is more to this case, but most of the information is contained in the two links above. Take the NWI Times link with a grain of salt.

Like this paragraph is wrong in the article.

Another incident involved being picked up by an upperclassman in the school locker room and held 2 or 3 feet in the air while his head was shaved with clippers.

His head was attempted to be shaved, but the boys were unsuccessful in doing so.

The deliberation process wasn't quite as bad as I thought it might be. The judge did a great job outlining what the rules of laws were and how they were to be used in this case. Most of the jurors were basically on the same page. Took us about 2 hours to deliberate and get a verdict.

If you have any questions I would be happy to try to answer them to the best i can remember.

 

[HoughMade]

and your verdict was....

 

[Ericpwp]

Cue the suspenseful music

 

[RyanGSams]

and your verdict was....

i guess i left that out. we ruled for the defendant on all charges.

 

[HoughMade]

Now I can tell you this.

Kathleen Maicher, representing the school, is a former partner of mine. I practiced at Spangler, Jennings and Dougherty, where she is, from 1999 to 9/2015. I filled in for her from time to time doing Munster Community Schools work. I never officially worked on this case, but as partners do, we talked it over several times. You are probably more familiar with the facts now than I was.

Oh, and Ivan Bodensteiner was one of my law professors.

I knew what case you were on the whole time.