Jury Duty

[Lily Valley]

wait, is it CDC or tulane & broad?

Tulane and Broad.  The new bike lane on Broad is awesome.  I'm as fast as cars.  What is CDC  and how is it different than Orleans Criminal?

[sologdin]

civil district court, loyola & poydras.

[Astromech]

Good to hear it went smoothly for you, Lily. It's interesting to learn how other jurisdictions handle their jury selection. Sounds like NO is pretty professional. I find it interesting you are assigned to cases later in the month if selected. In Milwaukee, we serve the day we are selected or the following day if voir dire lasts too long into the afternoon. However, the Milwaukee Public Museum is free for jurors and prospective jurors when serving.

[Lily Valley]

civil district court, loyola & poydras.

Civil would be much easier and much less depressing.

 

[ThinkerX]

Congrats!

 

8:30 am to 5:30 pm.  I hope you remembered to bring the book.

 

And NO does seem far more streamlined than the system around here.  I would dearly like to have set dates for showing up; that would make it far easier to secure a replacement at work.

[Lily Valley]

I found some stuff here that I didn't know about.  US education sucks.  High School Civics definitely didn't cover this.

[Tears of Lys]

Was it as cold as a welldigger's arse in the courtroom, Lily?  When I worked in court, I used to have a little space heater under my desk.  I pitied the fool jurors who showed up in tank top and shorts.  (This was L.A. )  The courtrooms always felt like you could hang meat in them.  I used to theorize that they did this because they wanted to keep the jurors awake. 

When I've actually served on a jury, it was interesting seeing it from the other side, but not nearly as interesting as seeing what goes on behind the scenes .  I was an alternate on one civil trial jury, actually impaneled on a criminal case, and just sat around reading another time.  I figure I've done my share.    

 

I took a little break from this post and read that link.   I'd never heard of the "Fully Informed Jury Association."  There ARE a lot of unjust laws, and believe me I saw some of them in full force and effect in L.A. County, but there also were a lot of mother-fuckers who deserved to go DOWN too. 

[Lily Valley]

ToL,

I hadn't heard of that organization either.  I was just poking around on the internet trying to understand why some of the jurors were struck.  Some were obvious.  One fellow actually said he didn't think someone would be arrested in the first place if they weren't doing anything wrong.  This caused a small uproar from our panel.  We thought it must be nice to live in his universe.  Terrifying that he might serve on a jury.  Several admitted that they wouldn't be able to convict because they felt the law was unjust, these were also excused.   The defendant was a young man, everyone with young adult children and all the young adults were struck.  I wondered how they worded those challenges.  

Due to my own circumstances, I had to answer some of the court's questions, I was uncertain how much information I had to give so I kept my answers as brief as possible.  I figured they could ask more questions if they needed more information.  It's rather unpleasant to disclose such personal things to a room of strangers.  Also, we were not instructed not to discuss the proceedings during voir dire. 

Will the judge disqualify a juror because of open bias?  Does this enable the lawyers on each side to save some of their challenges?

 

[Tears of Lys]

I've forgotten more than I ever knew about the particulars of how jurors are stricken, plus it can depend somewhat on the venue and the judge who's reigning over the particular courtroom.  Just some thoughts... 

As for somebody spouting off and shocking everyone else, when I worked in LA County courts, every single trial (and believe me, there were a LOT)  someone will invariably stand up and say something really inflammatory just to get booted. Nine times out of ten, the judge will sneer a bit and kick their ass out.  The person still can get impaneled on a civil case, though, so their ploy doesn't work. 

When it comes to peremptory challenges and challenges for cause, THAT'S when it gets interesting.  The prospective jurors are sitting in the jury box but haven't been sworn in yet.  The judge (or worst case scenario, the attorneys ***) will ask each person a series of questions that have been agreed upon by the attorneys in advance.  The attorneys have an unlimited number of challenges for cause, but a defined number of peremptory challenges.  (peremptory roughly meaning "I just don't have a good feeling about this yahoo."  A challenge for cause, for example, would be booting the Grand Wazoo of the Ku Klux Klan.)  And, yeah, any open, obvious bias, if they can't agree to put it aside, would qualify as a challenge for cause and not count against the attorney's challenges.  This goes both ways, of course.  If your prospective juror is a nihilist who won't agree to abide by laws, thinks all cops are crooked, yada-yada, that would qualify as a cause challenge - at least in my experience.

I was always looking at folks who'd agree to put their biases aside with an extremely jaundiced eye.  I figured to myself, here comes ANOTHER hung jury! 

Obviously, when the attorneys go up to the bench and huddle with the judge, they're going over who they want to boot and for which reason.  It's left to the judge to thank and excuse Prospective Juror #so-and-so.  The person then is supposed to return to the original room from whence they came and wait to be called for some other courtroom.

 

 

*** - When the attorneys could ask the questions of the prospective jurors, it went on a lot longer - something the court reporters and the rest of court staff needed like another hole in the head. 

 

 

ETA: Was yours a drug case, Lily?  Just a WAG.

I worked in LA Superior Court, which handled murders, rapes, and the occasional civil case would slip in.  Which brings to mind the sting operation into a brothel.  Loved that one - the defense lawyers wanted daily copy and paid all in cash!   Our court clerk wasn't too thrilled about handling the exhibits, though! 

 

[Lily Valley]

ToL,

Yes.  A drug case.  An extremely frivolous one.   The whole panel was totally shocked.  Fifty people, three attorneys and a judge taking at least one day on this.  About 15 jurors said they wouldn't be able to convict and were stricken for bias.  Several others stated that they assumed there were extenuating circumstances and worried that they wouldn't be able to make an informed decision because of that.  This bias was introduced by leading questions from the State which led to statements by the jury (about gun crime and distribution on school property) which I found really distasteful.  If either of those things had happened in this case, there would have been gun charges and charges relating to minors.  It seemed that the State was trying to have it both ways.  Either we judge just the facts of the case or we don't.  Period.  All of the jurors who mentioned gun crime and drug trafficking on school grounds were struck, but the damage to the rest of the venire was done.

Louisiana has a 10-2 law majority rule for juries in effect.  Hanging a jury is really hard here, you need 3.  In addition, we have to swear to take the law AS PRESENTED BY THE COURT into account for our deliberations.  It made the entire thing extremely sordid for our pool and we all felt awful for the jurors who were selected.

Voir dire was 6 1/2 hours.  Three separate panels.  The court and both sides were permitted to ask questions.  The reporter crossed himself when the judge said he was wrapping it up and excused the last of us.  They ended up accepting juror 49.  I have no idea what I said to get struck, but I am sure it was done by the State.  The defense really liked our group and only asked 3 people direct questions.  Two of them were struck.  I think his questioning of the third was rather clever, his answers made the juror look like a wild card.  

ETA

Solo,

CDC, Criminal District Court or Civil District Court or the Center for Disease Control?  You guys suck at acronyms

Also, colder than a witch's tit.  The judge flat out said it was to keep us awake.  I brought a coat and a wool scarf.  I will bring a blanket and a cushion next time.  The benches are harder on your ass than an old Church's pews and FREEZING doesn't begin to describe the temperature.

[The guy from the Vale]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

[Deedles]

As someone who's from a country that doesn't have a jury system, but who graduated from law school, I'm interested in what you guys and gals who sat on the jury think of how the system is set up. Does it seem just? Do jurors fully commit and deliberate before reaching the verdict? Or is it a case of "let's not really bother all that much about this thing so we can go home as quickly and painlessly as possible"?

I'm reminded of the great Sidney Lumet movie 12 Angry Men, where all the jurors except one carry all kinds of baggage that interferes with their judgment until awesome Henry Fonda sets them straight.

when I served on a jury we deliberated for 2.5 days before being declared hung. Convicted on the minor charge, let go on the major. Trial was every day for 9 days so 13 days in total . It was a good experience and I'm glad I did it.

[Tears of Lys]

The juries that I've observed have really impressed me with how hard they work to do it right.  There are probably some folk who just want to get it over with and go home, but I'd say that's the exception rather than the rule. 

 

 

[Lily Valley]

I'll agree with Deedles.  It's a suck job.  Out whole pool seems really conscientious.  This seems to be frustrating all of the attorneys.

I'm just learning about what can and cannot get you struck from a jury for bias.  I've been struck twice now.  I think in New Orleans it's pretty easy to get a juror struck for bias.  

Today I was called for vior dire for a murder trial.  The pool called was 85 people for 12 jurors and 2 alternates.  I was lucky enough to be in the second panel.  I got out of there at 5:00.   The case required mandatory life sentencing, this requires every juror to be questioned about whether or not they can do their job in the face of a guilty verdict requiring a mandatory life sentence.  Mandatory life or death cases are the only times we are instructed to think about sentencing and answer questions of conscience and morality about the sentence in the case.  This is really disingenuous, many other things require mandatory minimums, only an idiot is not going to think about that.

  Other details about the case were revealed due to some objections raised over (grandstanding) leading questions raised by the defense attorney.  The attorneys sucked at jury selection in this case.  This was really disheartening, because the attorneys in the last case were much better at it and they weren't dealing with such serious charges.  By the time I left today I was hostile towards every attorney in the room.

  I have one day left.

 

[Ravenhair]

Lily, CDC here stands for Civil District Court. Yes, the acronym could also be used for Criminal District Court, but it isn't in NO.  CDC refers only to Civil District Court. 

[Lily Valley]

Lily, CDC here stands for Civil District Court. Yes, the acronym could also be used for Criminal District Court, but it isn't in NO.  CDC refers only to Civil District Court. 

Why?  Lawyer version of secret acronym code.  This is just ridiculous.

[sologdin]

just say tulane & broad!

[Fragile Bird]

Lily,

Federal Court or local State court?  My last jury duty notice was for Federal Court.  I had to drive to Florence, about an hour from my house, sit in the Courthouse all day and not get picked.  I can't be called for Federal Jury duty for another 3 years.

That was my experience.

<thread derail>

You got called for jury duty and served?  Holy smokes!  In Canada, as a member of the Law Society I'm ineligible to serve on a jury, as it's assumed my influence might be too great.  Law professors and law clerks are not exempted (who listens to a professor or a clerk, right?).

I did see on the internet, though, that in 2003 the Brits ended the exemption for barristers and solicitors, which took me by surprise.  I always think that if you have a lawyer on the jury the risk is you'll have a trial by lawyer, not a trial by jury.

A lawyer did write about the experience of being on a jury, though, saying it was like being in kindergarten, with very basic instructions being given and nothing explained in depth.  It was like having surgery explained as "This man will come in with a knife and cut that man open and do things and then he'll sew him up."

<end thread derail>

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

Yup, no exemption for attorneys on Juries in SC.  I don't know if that is universal for the US.

[sologdin]

attorneys can be jurors in louisiana, too.  woe to any employer or carrier whose attorneys let me slip onto the jury.