posted on June 5, 2001 08:01:01 PM new
I'll tell you, the dumbing down thing is a myth, at least here. I don't think I'm "dumb" but I was on jury duty and one of the questions we were asked was if we read any newspapers or magazines. This wasn't a high profile case, it was some guy who was picked up by the feds for drug smuggling. His lawyer had each person among us who acknowledged reading newspapers dismissed (both the prosecution and the defense are entitled to summarily dismiss a certain number of people without having to justify it to the judge). Further, here's how jury duty works here. I live in Manhattan and I got called for federal jury duty in a place called Happague. Happhauge is way out in Suffolk County and not having a car at the time, I saw that I'd have to leave before 5 AM rto catch the proper trains to get there by 9 AM. Unbelievable, right? There wasn't a chance I'd do that so I called up and told them so. I said I'd be happy to serve on a Federal jury, but it has to be in New York City. What's wrong with the Federal court house in Brooklyn that's less than 15 minutes away by subway?? So I got my deferrment and was told something interesting. Apparently the racial composition of Federal juries is too homogenous so they mix it all up. If you live in NYC, out to Long Island you go to color the jury "better" and the opposite. I don't know, that's what I was told. Anyway, eventually I was called again and this time it was to the courthouse in Brooklyn. Like I said, apparently I and others were penned as "too smart" to sit on a jury.
posted on June 5, 2001 09:03:39 PM new
I've served on 2, both drug dealing cases. We convicted them both in record time. Was just excused from duty 2 weeks ago because I knew one of the parties.
My husband, unfortunately, ended up on a capital murder case where the jury was sequestered. Horrible case where the murder victims were a man, his fiance & the fiance's 2 small daughters under the age of 7. Four 17-18 year olds (led by the son of the male victim) were involved.
Our daughter was around 9 at the time, so it was especially difficult to see the video of the crime scene & the autopsy photographs & detailed description of the murder of the children.
Three of the boys were convicted & the fourth cut a deal for his testimony.
But, for the average case...take a good book, or two or three.
posted on June 5, 2001 10:27:04 PM new
I think some people should re read my post. I dont recall saying I was above anyone. I said I dont want any part of jury duty and cant afford to take off work for it. Why this seems to bother some people is beyond me, nor how some people think they know what a complete stranger thinks or feels. Or why even care enough to comment on it. Shows what kind of person some people are just by reading theirpost.
Helen, no, I dont mind at all.
Some people need to keep their opinions to themselves.
posted on June 5, 2001 10:29:57 PM newMe, I dont want any part of it. They dont pay enough for me to miss work and I wont be stuck for days on end that could turn to months.
I must be blind. Does anyone else see where I said I was "above" myself? Maybe too much fuzz is in some peoples eyes.
posted on June 6, 2001 10:02:17 AM new
Hepburn, Many people are not able to be part of the jury process, because of loss of pay from the job & that is a noble reason.
I, in my life time, have served the process many times. Had not, my Company made up for the loss of pay, I would not have been able to do so.
Posted by lotsafuzz on June 5, 2001 08:02:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HJW: No need to expound upon your answer. Your posts have made it very clear what kind of person you are.
lotsafuzz
posted on June 6, 2001 11:25:39 AM new
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
blind allegiance
That is the stupidest thing I've seen you post in a long time, and considering most of your posts that is saying quite a lot.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Re: Your posts above in this thread.
I know your motive in harassing me, Lotsafuzz. And, if it continues,
I will let everyone know your motive.
I am so sorry that I have failed to dazzle you with my brilliance.
I have not been overwhelmed by yours either.
Helen
ed to address my note to Lotsafuzz.
[ edited by Hjw on Jun 6, 2001 12:41 PM ]
posted on June 6, 2001 12:43:53 PM new
I've served twice. I live in a small town and everyone knows everyone, if not by name then by face, so I wasn't excluded from service the first time even though the prosecutor was my boss's son, nor was I excused the second time even though the prosecutor and I went to high school together. (As it happened, I didn't like either one of them, but that didn't taint my objectivity insofar as the defendants were concerned.)
Both trials lasted one day; the first was for breaking and entering (conviction; the thief was caught with sterling silver taken from several local homes - I knew all the people from whom he stole), and the second for drug dealing (conviction; the dealer owned a clean-and-wax-your-car place that I had used a few months before).
Serving on a jury is a worthwhile experience. It's far less dramatic than television makes it appear - lots of hurry up and wait, lots of being excused from the courtroom. I spent a lot of time sitting on the courthouse stoop. And attorneys are not as articulate and clever as they are on "Law and Order" - at least, they aren't in this neck of the woods.
My fellow jurors were the real education. It was fascinating to see who took charge and who receded into the background. Two of them in my first trial were illiterate; when we did our first round of voting they had to use an "x" for guilty and an "o" for not guilty.
In the first trial, we got a conviction by hammering away at several jurors, both of whom felt he was guilty but didn't want to convict him because they had relatives in jail and "knew what it was like there."
We had to do the sentencing, too. The prosecutor wanted us to give the man life (for breaking and entering) - he was a real throw the book at 'em man. He became enraged at us when we handed down a five-year sentence.
This lawyer was later disbarred for making inappropriate advances to female clients. It was the best scandal to hit this town in 100 years and made the press all over the country.
You've gotta love a small town!
I'd never try to get out of jury duty. I feel about it the same way I do about voting for elected officials: don't complain to me if you don't vote. It's a responsibility that we all must share.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:18:29 PM new
Toke, I'm sure you know the email address for the mods very well.
Hjw: I know your motive in harassing me, Lotsafuzz. And, if it continues, I will let everyone know your motive.
1. I am not now, nor have I evre harassed you. Although, since you've claimed just about everyone around here has harassed you, I guess it was just my turn.
2. However, your 'explanations' are always good for a laugh, so feel free to 'expose my motive'.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:30:23 PM new
Actually, Lotsa...I have never emailed a moderator in my life. What I have to say, I say in public. I dislike petty board games, intensely.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:35:28 PM new
Toke, that suprises me. I guess you are just a natural.
I guess since the, ... the most blatant example of selective non-moderation I've seen in a long, long while. doesn't spur you to action, someone else will have to trot off and whine.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:36:56 PM new
Sorry. That's my new favorite gif. I thought the mood needed lightening. I have no idea how that posted twice at the exact same second.
You are harassing me, no doubt about it. I don't email moderators. But I will straighten you out, if you continue to harass me as you have in this thread.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:45:41 PM new
No one needs to run off and whine, Lotsa. There's your comment for all to see. If the mods continue to ignore it...it only speaks to the quality of the moderation here. As you speak to your own, of course.
posted on June 6, 2001 05:46:28 PM new
Oh for God's sake! My last message had NOTHING to do with you! How is THAT harassing?
However, if you insist on playing this game I have to point out that you have threatened me TWICE now. How exactly do you think you are going to, But I will straighten you out? You gonna, expose my motives?
posted on June 6, 2001 05:55:07 PM new
Lotsafuzz, the fact that you have insulted me not once but twice, speaks volumes for the moderation that is being practiced here.
I can only guess what is going on here. I will make it perfectly clear if you continue to harass me.
posted on June 6, 2001 06:11:01 PM new
Worst 2 weeks I ever spent -- One thing I learned though -- If you are guilty - elect a jury trial -- If you are innocent pick trial by judge -- The jury was facscinating -- I don't know how anyone ever gets sent to jail -- one lady on hte jury voted innocent because the guy looked like her son !!! and her son could never do that!! -- It was bizarre. Fake insanity if you have to -- so anything to get out of it!!
