Ruby Buzz Forum - Juror #2436

Articles |
News |
Weblogs |
Books |
Forums

Artima Forums | Articles | Weblogs | Java Answers | News

Sponsored Link •

Ruby Buzz Forum
Juror #2436

1 reply on 1 page. Most recent reply: Jul 19, 2006 8:17 PM by fear couurt

Welcome Guest
Sign In

Back to Topic List

Reply to this Topic

Search Forum

Threaded View


Previous Topic		Next Topic

Flat View: This topic has 1 reply on 1 page

Daniel Berger

Posts: 1383
Nickname: djberg96
Registered: Sep, 2004

Daniel Berger is a Ruby Programmer who also dabbles in C and Perl

Juror #2436

Posted: Jul 6, 2006 8:21 PM

This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Daniel Berger.
Original Post: Juror #2436 Feed Title: Testing 1,2,3... Feed URL: http://djberg96.livejournal.com/data/rss Feed Description: A blog on Ruby and other stuff.	Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Daniel Berger Latest Posts From Testing 1,2,3...

I was called up for jury duty today for the first time in my life. It turned out to be a third degree assault case. For those unfamiliar with third degree assault in the state of Colorado it basically means "punching someone in the face in an unplanned sort of way".

This wasn't a bar fight, but an ex-employee who beat up his boss after hours at his place of work in a dispute that arose over (ultimately) money. It was a "He said, He said" situation (no witnesses), but the defense's (bad) strategy of self defense worked against him, and the visual evidence was just too overwhelming. His face had been pretty badly bruised up, and the defendant's explanation of events. This isn't to say that the prosecution's case was flawless. I suspect that we didn't get the whole truth from either witness, but we got enough. I also think the Sheriff's office could have done a better job with some evidence collection.

Anyway, I ended up the foreman, and it took us about 90 minutes to reach a verdict. We talked about a lot of things, but we ultimately had to filter out the crap that didn't matter and ask ourselves two fundamental questions (given to us by the judge). Was it self-defense? And, if it was self defense, was the response excessive? We came to the conclusion that it almost certainly wasn't self defense and, even if it was, the response was excessive.

I should say that I played Devil's advocate and tried for most of the 90 minutes to find a way to side with the defendant. I mean, you don't want to fuck this up and return a guilty verdict for an innocent man, right? There were a couple things that bothered all of us, but nothing that added up to reasonable doubt. I also wondered why neither the prosecution nor the defense submitted the hospital report into evidence. We asked for it while in deliberation, but the judge refused, since it had not been entered. Odd.

Anyway, it was all a very educational experience that I'm glad I was involved in, but which I hope to avoid for at least another few years. :)

Read: Juror #2436

fear couurt

Posts: 1
Nickname: fearofcour
Registered: Jul, 2006

Re: Juror #2436

Posted: Jul 19, 2006 8:17 PM

I just had my first experience in jury duty, it was not pleasant, but I did learn something I would like to pass on.

It was a personal injury case involving a car striking a pedestrian, in which most of the jurors were in agreement that the responsibility should be shared, and all but 1 were at least willing to compromise.

The one holdout was a juror who had previously struck a pedestrian with his car, and his insurance rates had been raised as a result. This had not been brought out during jury selection, and he was unwilling even hear out the rest of us, and was adament that the driver should not be held at fault. I believe his intent was to deadlock us, in which case, the plaintiff--the pedestrian, would not recover even medical expenses, much less any damages.

The rest of the jurors tried to talk to him for almost 8 hours, but he wouldn't budge. Finally, the judge called us back to ask whether we felt we were close to a verdict. At this time, as jury foreman, I told the judge, "no", and asked the baliff to give a note I had prepared for the judge to advise him of the undisclosed bias of the one juror. The judge told us he would consider my note, and told us to deliberate for one more hour.

When we returned to the jury room, I advised the 1 holdout of the contents of my note to the judge--that I felt he had been dishonest in not disclosing his inability to be impartial due to his past accident involving a pedestrian. I also advised him that I felt that if he was not able to put aside his bias, and at least try to keep an open mind during the course of the next hour, the judge most likely would question the remaining 11 of us to determine whether or not he had been dishonest in answering the questions regarding his own personal bias during jury selection, and who knows?

This strategy worked, and when the juge called us back after the hour expired, I was able to tell the judge we were close to agreeing on a verdict, 1/2 hour later, we all concurred.

I wasn't 100% happy with our final verdict, but felt we did finally manage to work together as a team, and reach an agreeable consensus, to bring the case to a close.

Flat View: This topic has 1 reply on 1 page

Previous Topic

Next Topic


	Web Artima.com