Guility/Innocent

[cabforward]

rrman,

what are you charged with? is it civil or criminal?
what is the evidence?

even perry mason wouldn't take a case w/o knowing what it was all about..

[cabforward]

rrman,

what are you charged with? is it civil or criminal?
what is the evidence?

even perry mason wouldn't take a case w/o knowing what it was all about..

[edblysard]

Hi Kev,
Sorry for what?
You correctly pointed out that you had not seen or read enough to make a decision, and that to do so you would have to be on the jury and hear the evidence first.

Fantastic!

That was the whole point, in that we are quick to form opinions based on limited information.
And if that information has been edited to show a bias, we often follow that bias.

And by the way, I respect you on your statement and question to cabforward.
You guys have locked horns before, as have both he and I, and you showed a great deal of maturity in your statement.

As odd as it may seem, I would be willing to bet the farm that not only would you get a fair trial with him on the jury, but even more, the prosecution would have to have ironclad proof of your guilt before he would convict you!

Heres why.

Our legal system does work on the innocent until proven guilty idea.
And that word you hear in all the TV shows, doubt.

Hollywood has corupted the phrase, and no, it never was,"beyond a shadow of a doubt".
That implies 100% certainity, which the legal system does not require.

This is what the judge will instruct the jury.

The prosocution must prove its case, the defendant has no legal obligation whatsoever to mount a defense, in fact, the defendant isnt required to do anything other than be present during the trial.

If the jury finds the defendant guilty, they must do so based only on the evidence presented in trial, and their finding has to be unamious.

If the jury finds the evidence shows guilt, they must also find the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt means a level of certainity beyond the point which a reasonable adult could find fault with.

If the evidence dosnt show guilt beyond that which a reasonable adult could find fault with, the law states the jury must, and they stress must, find the defendant not guilty.

I have be impanled on one Harris County Grand Jury, and four criminal juries.

When I worked with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, I was involved with hundreds of cases, and testified in most of them.

In each of the criminal cases where I was a juror, during the charge to the jury, the judge went out of his or her way to emphasize the fact fact that the defendant did not have to prove a thing, that any and all proof of anything rested soley with the prosecution.

If the defendant chose to excerise his or her fifth amendment right to remain silent and not present a defense, we the jury could not consider that in our deliberations.

If the evidence dosnt show beyond the legal definitation of reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant, we had to return a verdict of not guility.

What that all boils down to is that there is no requirement that the evidence shows innocence, but that the evidence is required to show guilt, and that the evidence is beyond that which a reasonable adult could find fault with.

If you can fault the evidence, then the defendant is presummed innocent by the court, and released from the charges.

In essence, your judging the evidence, not the defendant.

Of the four cases I sat on, the longest time the jury deleberated involved a case where the defendant didnt testify on his own behalf, and the entire defense was based on the fact that the accuser was a minor, and kids tell lies.

We had to decide the case based only on the evidence presented by the Assistant DA.
Because we never got to hear the defendant questioned, we couldnt judge weather the evidence given did, or did not have any fault, because the DA couldnt ask the defendant his version of the facts, and we had nothing to compare the DAs evidence against.

We had to decide if what we were shown was, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence of guilt.

Its a hard thing to do, convict a person based only on the testimoney from one side of the story.

Took us five day, but in the end, we found him guility.

He was sentenced to 20 years prison on each of four counts of aggervated sexual assualt of a minor, to be served consecutivly, with no possability of parole.
He was 55 years old.
He is never going to get out of prison, ever, except in a coffin.

Once your in that room, and are faced with the fact that you may be sending another person to prison for the rest of their life, it becomes difficult to allow your personal feelings to influence your decision.
You go over and over things dozens of times, because you want to make absolutly sure your doing the right thing.

In abstract, or outside that room, its easy to say "send him away".

Inside that room, its a very, very hard thing to do.

I bet cabforward would nitpick it to death, and force the prosecution to have made sure they dotted evey i, and crossed every t, twice, before he would convict anyone.

And based on what he has posted and the way he replies, he is just exactly the kind of person I would want sitting on a jury that had to judge me.

Someone who will argue every point he can think of, if only to make sure its a valid point.

Someone who will force the other jurors to defend their postion, if only to make sure they are sure of what they are doing.

Someone who dosnt follow the crowd because its the easy thing to do, but is willing to pick a fight if he finds the evidence dosnt meet the reasonable doubt question.

Thats the kind of juror the defense attorney will hunt for, if for no other reason they can result in a hung jury.

I think he would find himself in a position where he had no choice but to give you a fair trial.
I know I found myself in that position on the case I mentioned, and it was a mighty tough thing to do, defend and protect a child molester rights, when every part of me that is a parent wanted to take him out back and beat him to a pulp, I had to make myself look only at what was given in evidence, not consider how I "felt" about the defendant.

I think cabforward could do that, and I think you could do that too!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi Kev,
Sorry for what?
You correctly pointed out that you had not seen or read enough to make a decision, and that to do so you would have to be on the jury and hear the evidence first.

Fantastic!

That was the whole point, in that we are quick to form opinions based on limited information.
And if that information has been edited to show a bias, we often follow that bias.

And by the way, I respect you on your statement and question to cabforward.
You guys have locked horns before, as have both he and I, and you showed a great deal of maturity in your statement.

As odd as it may seem, I would be willing to bet the farm that not only would you get a fair trial with him on the jury, but even more, the prosecution would have to have ironclad proof of your guilt before he would convict you!

Heres why.

Our legal system does work on the innocent until proven guilty idea.
And that word you hear in all the TV shows, doubt.

Hollywood has corupted the phrase, and no, it never was,"beyond a shadow of a doubt".
That implies 100% certainity, which the legal system does not require.

This is what the judge will instruct the jury.

The prosocution must prove its case, the defendant has no legal obligation whatsoever to mount a defense, in fact, the defendant isnt required to do anything other than be present during the trial.

If the jury finds the defendant guilty, they must do so based only on the evidence presented in trial, and their finding has to be unamious.

If the jury finds the evidence shows guilt, they must also find the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt means a level of certainity beyond the point which a reasonable adult could find fault with.

If the evidence dosnt show guilt beyond that which a reasonable adult could find fault with, the law states the jury must, and they stress must, find the defendant not guilty.

I have be impanled on one Harris County Grand Jury, and four criminal juries.

When I worked with the Office of the Attorney General, State of Texas, I was involved with hundreds of cases, and testified in most of them.

In each of the criminal cases where I was a juror, during the charge to the jury, the judge went out of his or her way to emphasize the fact fact that the defendant did not have to prove a thing, that any and all proof of anything rested soley with the prosecution.

If the defendant chose to excerise his or her fifth amendment right to remain silent and not present a defense, we the jury could not consider that in our deliberations.

If the evidence dosnt show beyond the legal definitation of reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant, we had to return a verdict of not guility.

What that all boils down to is that there is no requirement that the evidence shows innocence, but that the evidence is required to show guilt, and that the evidence is beyond that which a reasonable adult could find fault with.

If you can fault the evidence, then the defendant is presummed innocent by the court, and released from the charges.

In essence, your judging the evidence, not the defendant.

Of the four cases I sat on, the longest time the jury deleberated involved a case where the defendant didnt testify on his own behalf, and the entire defense was based on the fact that the accuser was a minor, and kids tell lies.

We had to decide the case based only on the evidence presented by the Assistant DA.
Because we never got to hear the defendant questioned, we couldnt judge weather the evidence given did, or did not have any fault, because the DA couldnt ask the defendant his version of the facts, and we had nothing to compare the DAs evidence against.

We had to decide if what we were shown was, beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence of guilt.

Its a hard thing to do, convict a person based only on the testimoney from one side of the story.

Took us five day, but in the end, we found him guility.

He was sentenced to 20 years prison on each of four counts of aggervated sexual assualt of a minor, to be served consecutivly, with no possability of parole.
He was 55 years old.
He is never going to get out of prison, ever, except in a coffin.

Once your in that room, and are faced with the fact that you may be sending another person to prison for the rest of their life, it becomes difficult to allow your personal feelings to influence your decision.
You go over and over things dozens of times, because you want to make absolutly sure your doing the right thing.

In abstract, or outside that room, its easy to say "send him away".

Inside that room, its a very, very hard thing to do.

I bet cabforward would nitpick it to death, and force the prosecution to have made sure they dotted evey i, and crossed every t, twice, before he would convict anyone.

And based on what he has posted and the way he replies, he is just exactly the kind of person I would want sitting on a jury that had to judge me.

Someone who will argue every point he can think of, if only to make sure its a valid point.

Someone who will force the other jurors to defend their postion, if only to make sure they are sure of what they are doing.

Someone who dosnt follow the crowd because its the easy thing to do, but is willing to pick a fight if he finds the evidence dosnt meet the reasonable doubt question.

Thats the kind of juror the defense attorney will hunt for, if for no other reason they can result in a hung jury.

I think he would find himself in a position where he had no choice but to give you a fair trial.
I know I found myself in that position on the case I mentioned, and it was a mighty tough thing to do, defend and protect a child molester rights, when every part of me that is a parent wanted to take him out back and beat him to a pulp, I had to make myself look only at what was given in evidence, not consider how I "felt" about the defendant.

I think cabforward could do that, and I think you could do that too!
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[wabash1]

I still stand by my statement of he is guilty. I dont need a trial to form my opinion of how guilty they are, the idea was a straw vote In the past the way they operate is what i based my opinion on. bias yes change of heart if they are found inocent, no. Do i want to belong to a union that sells out the guys who are paying the saleries. no. and as far as the teamsters go, we are not joining them at this point. . the ground work is there if the utu tries to take over again. i dont see that happening even though they will be in a money crunch. I guess the utu will raise your dues to get them out of hot water.

[wabash1]

I still stand by my statement of he is guilty. I dont need a trial to form my opinion of how guilty they are, the idea was a straw vote In the past the way they operate is what i based my opinion on. bias yes change of heart if they are found inocent, no. Do i want to belong to a union that sells out the guys who are paying the saleries. no. and as far as the teamsters go, we are not joining them at this point. . the ground work is there if the utu tries to take over again. i dont see that happening even though they will be in a money crunch. I guess the utu will raise your dues to get them out of hot water.

[edblysard]

I agree, not only will the UTU raise my dues, I doubt that Boyd will use one of the DLC in his trial.

Under our legal system, he and Little are innocent.
Right now, at least.

In the court of public opinion, they are guilty as sin!
Regardless if they are accquited.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

I agree, not only will the UTU raise my dues, I doubt that Boyd will use one of the DLC in his trial.

Under our legal system, he and Little are innocent.
Right now, at least.

In the court of public opinion, they are guilty as sin!
Regardless if they are accquited.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[cabforward]

ed,

thank you for your complimentary post about rrman and myself.. i never served on a jury.. it's surprising that you have served on so many, as you were an employee in the a-g office..

maybe the state had a better hand in keeping you than the defense had in excusing you..

wabash said it last and best.. in my opinion, he's guilty.. in his opinion, i don't know, in his expressing it, absolutely right..

the net as become the streetcorner in promoting and discrediting arguments.. in england, hyde park is where the speakers gather to argue the govt., illegal aliens, space aliens, conspiracies, and where elvis is hiding..

it was this way in the 60s, don't know if it still is..
but this is the way ideas will be heard from now on, where opinons are held over vast distances and by millions..

[cabforward]

ed,

thank you for your complimentary post about rrman and myself.. i never served on a jury.. it's surprising that you have served on so many, as you were an employee in the a-g office..

maybe the state had a better hand in keeping you than the defense had in excusing you..

wabash said it last and best.. in my opinion, he's guilty.. in his opinion, i don't know, in his expressing it, absolutely right..

the net as become the streetcorner in promoting and discrediting arguments.. in england, hyde park is where the speakers gather to argue the govt., illegal aliens, space aliens, conspiracies, and where elvis is hiding..

it was this way in the 60s, don't know if it still is..
but this is the way ideas will be heard from now on, where opinons are held over vast distances and by millions..

[edblysard]

Hi Cab,
You know, in a way, it might be better if we did have to actually gather to have discussions.
Quite a lot of a persons meaning is conveyed in their body language, facial expressions, hand gestures.
But the net provides a even greater amount of participation by a vastly larger number of people, so the trade off is most likely greater.
Sure, it sounds funny, but I bet we see the Star Trek communicator badges within our lifetime,.
Devices that allow you to contact and speak to whomever you want, instantly.
With the ability to share information that quickly, decisions, both business and personal, will happen so much faster.
But along with that freedom and power come the ability to abuse, so I get the feeling we will see a lot of new laws showing up pretty quick.
The next two decades ought to be pretty interesting!

As for being picked for jury duty, they start with the As, on the voters roll, and work down, and I keep my voter registeration current, and with a last name that starts with a B, about every three years I get tagged for the jury pool.
Down here, criminal trials are in two parts, the first part is the decision of guilty or not guility, if guility, then the punishment phase starts, sans jury, they are dismissed after the verdict is read.
After being dismissed, you go back to the jury room, and the lawyers get to come and quiz you, sorta a post trial Q&A, to find out why you returned the verdict you did.
It helps both the defense and the prosecution learn what mistakes they made,or what actions they took that helped their position.
I have asked several lawyers on both sides why they would pick a ex AG employee.
Everytime they all say the same thing.
I am familar with the law, and the rules of evidence and procedure.
So they all felt I would judge the case on its merits and the evidence, not on how I felt about the defendant or the accuser.
I have been jury forman twice.
The next to last time, we had to cut lose a punk that I know commited the crime he was charged with, aggervated assualt, he held up a young man at gun point.
I can promise you he did the crime.
But the state failed to prove it's case.
The victim's 911 call describes the perp as wearing a black jacket, and black pants, but when arrested, the perp is wearing a white jacket and white parachute pants.
Now, if you look at the booking photo of the perp, its appearent that the jacket he is wearing is a reversible ski parka, white on one side, black on the other side, ( I know, I have a red/blue one just like it).
The state did a lot of things wrong. The perp lived on the other side of the victims apartment complex, he was arrested withing minutes of the crime, walking out of his apartment. No one ever searched his apartment.
He had exactly the same amount of cash in his pocket as the victim reports was in his wallet, but they never found the wallet.
The state had him at the scene of the crime, at the time the crime was committed, with the excat amount of cash, but never mentioned the reversible parka, nor pointed out the perp was leaving his home, so he certainly could have changed pants, and never presented the pants the perp was wearing because they never searched his home, looking for the wallet or the pants.
When the defense shows you a photo of the defendant in all white, and the victim swears from the stand the perp was dressed all in black, and the state cant offer any evidence to the contrary, its hard to convict.
They just didnt do their job, there was enough of that reasonable doubt to hold 6 of the twelve jurors on that fence.
So we cut him lose.
Because the law says you cant convict him if you think he did the crime, you can only convict him if the prosecution presents evidence that removes the reasonable doubt that he didnt.
Kinda backasswards, but if you think about it, thats the only way it can really work!
I think every citizen should sit on a jury at least once in their life, if only to learn how it really works, instead of the TV shows teaching us how our justice system functions.
Like I said, outside of the room, its easy to judge someone,
but when you are seriously discussing, with 11 other people, putting a person in a 6 by 10 foot room for the rest of their life, it gets tough.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi Cab,
You know, in a way, it might be better if we did have to actually gather to have discussions.
Quite a lot of a persons meaning is conveyed in their body language, facial expressions, hand gestures.
But the net provides a even greater amount of participation by a vastly larger number of people, so the trade off is most likely greater.
Sure, it sounds funny, but I bet we see the Star Trek communicator badges within our lifetime,.
Devices that allow you to contact and speak to whomever you want, instantly.
With the ability to share information that quickly, decisions, both business and personal, will happen so much faster.
But along with that freedom and power come the ability to abuse, so I get the feeling we will see a lot of new laws showing up pretty quick.
The next two decades ought to be pretty interesting!

As for being picked for jury duty, they start with the As, on the voters roll, and work down, and I keep my voter registeration current, and with a last name that starts with a B, about every three years I get tagged for the jury pool.
Down here, criminal trials are in two parts, the first part is the decision of guilty or not guility, if guility, then the punishment phase starts, sans jury, they are dismissed after the verdict is read.
After being dismissed, you go back to the jury room, and the lawyers get to come and quiz you, sorta a post trial Q&A, to find out why you returned the verdict you did.
It helps both the defense and the prosecution learn what mistakes they made,or what actions they took that helped their position.
I have asked several lawyers on both sides why they would pick a ex AG employee.
Everytime they all say the same thing.
I am familar with the law, and the rules of evidence and procedure.
So they all felt I would judge the case on its merits and the evidence, not on how I felt about the defendant or the accuser.
I have been jury forman twice.
The next to last time, we had to cut lose a punk that I know commited the crime he was charged with, aggervated assualt, he held up a young man at gun point.
I can promise you he did the crime.
But the state failed to prove it's case.
The victim's 911 call describes the perp as wearing a black jacket, and black pants, but when arrested, the perp is wearing a white jacket and white parachute pants.
Now, if you look at the booking photo of the perp, its appearent that the jacket he is wearing is a reversible ski parka, white on one side, black on the other side, ( I know, I have a red/blue one just like it).
The state did a lot of things wrong. The perp lived on the other side of the victims apartment complex, he was arrested withing minutes of the crime, walking out of his apartment. No one ever searched his apartment.
He had exactly the same amount of cash in his pocket as the victim reports was in his wallet, but they never found the wallet.
The state had him at the scene of the crime, at the time the crime was committed, with the excat amount of cash, but never mentioned the reversible parka, nor pointed out the perp was leaving his home, so he certainly could have changed pants, and never presented the pants the perp was wearing because they never searched his home, looking for the wallet or the pants.
When the defense shows you a photo of the defendant in all white, and the victim swears from the stand the perp was dressed all in black, and the state cant offer any evidence to the contrary, its hard to convict.
They just didnt do their job, there was enough of that reasonable doubt to hold 6 of the twelve jurors on that fence.
So we cut him lose.
Because the law says you cant convict him if you think he did the crime, you can only convict him if the prosecution presents evidence that removes the reasonable doubt that he didnt.
Kinda backasswards, but if you think about it, thats the only way it can really work!
I think every citizen should sit on a jury at least once in their life, if only to learn how it really works, instead of the TV shows teaching us how our justice system functions.
Like I said, outside of the room, its easy to judge someone,
but when you are seriously discussing, with 11 other people, putting a person in a 6 by 10 foot room for the rest of their life, it gets tough.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[cabforward]

it strikes me very weird that jury selection begins with the alphabet..

i thought it was a random drawing of names from the list(s) deemed proper (voters, drivers, real property owners)..

a lawyer with a list of names could find out who had served on prior jures and dig up what happened with the case.. from that, he could quiz people about how the juror figured in the verdict..

quizzing the person from the list directly is probably unethical, but there are lots of ways to find out info. from public records, neighbors, etc..

once you put together a picture of jurors, you know if they can hurt or help your case, and it wont cost a court challenge..

this all may be impractical in any case, as there are thousands of persons with each letter.. still, it would make a great plot for a movie..

which brings me back to my first argument, the perception is the reality..
a movie which is good enough to make you feel that what you are seeing is possibly true, or could possibly happen in months or years later, is substituting itself for the reality you knew was real before you sat down..

remember what happened at 3-mile island? china syndrome came out a few weeks (or months?) before the accident.. not easy to tell what's real and what's pretend there..

[cabforward]

it strikes me very weird that jury selection begins with the alphabet..

i thought it was a random drawing of names from the list(s) deemed proper (voters, drivers, real property owners)..

a lawyer with a list of names could find out who had served on prior jures and dig up what happened with the case.. from that, he could quiz people about how the juror figured in the verdict..

quizzing the person from the list directly is probably unethical, but there are lots of ways to find out info. from public records, neighbors, etc..

once you put together a picture of jurors, you know if they can hurt or help your case, and it wont cost a court challenge..

this all may be impractical in any case, as there are thousands of persons with each letter.. still, it would make a great plot for a movie..

which brings me back to my first argument, the perception is the reality..
a movie which is good enough to make you feel that what you are seeing is possibly true, or could possibly happen in months or years later, is substituting itself for the reality you knew was real before you sat down..

remember what happened at 3-mile island? china syndrome came out a few weeks (or months?) before the accident.. not easy to tell what's real and what's pretend there..

[JoeKoh]

I was on a jury once.two neighboors didn't like each other. A storm blew the gutters off the house.the owner never picked up the gutter. the neighboor who had a suspended license backed over the gutter in the alley.We just found her guilty of driving with a suspended license.the owner of the gutters was mad but sorry itstheir responsibility to check around their house.all the court time and lawyers(the other lady had a public defender) for what?in our world today there are few people with common sense.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

I was on a jury once.two neighboors didn't like each other. A storm blew the gutters off the house.the owner never picked up the gutter. the neighboor who had a suspended license backed over the gutter in the alley.We just found her guilty of driving with a suspended license.the owner of the gutters was mad but sorry itstheir responsibility to check around their house.all the court time and lawyers(the other lady had a public defender) for what?in our world today there are few people with common sense.
stay safe
joe

[Mookie]

Joe, that last statement is so true. I mourn the demise of common sense!

Jen

[Mookie]

Joe, that last statement is so true. I mourn the demise of common sense!

Jen

[wabash1]

It would seem that as many people that dont like the official in the utu would be joining another union and getting rid of the bs of the utu. or maybe they go under the way of thinking if we git rid of these people we just get somebody worse to replace them.

[wabash1]

It would seem that as many people that dont like the official in the utu would be joining another union and getting rid of the bs of the utu. or maybe they go under the way of thinking if we git rid of these people we just get somebody worse to replace them.

[edblysard]

I always though it was a random process too!
But when talking with the District Clerk, she explained how its done here in Harris County.
All the registered voters list are lined up, everyone whos name starts with A is on one list, B the next, down the line.
On average, they need a pool of 2000 jurors per day.
Of course this is all on computer, not paper list.
The clerks office runs a program that will start at the top of each list, pulling names, the number of names from each list is determined by the volume of the first letter in releationship the the rest of the other lists, in other words, there are thousands of Smiths, but not a lot of Qs in Harris county, so the program has a bias built in that will try to get a even amount from each list.
Which means that the all Qs get pulled every few years, but the odds of the same Smith getting chosen are way lower, there are lots more of them to go through before the list for S is exhausted, and starts over.
You are issued a numbered summons to appear for the jury pool.
Once the program has filled a days pool, it starts the next days pool where it left off.
Once you show up for the pool, the clerks take your summons, reviews the people who are requesting exemption or to be excused from duty, a judge looks them over, and cuts loose the one who qualified to be excused.
The rest of the summons are entered into another program by the summons number, not your name..
Then if a judge tells the clerk he or she needs a panel of 65 prospective jurors, that program randomly selects people, based on the summons number, not the name on the summons.
Sorta of a double blind process, you may get picked for the pool a lot, but you will never have the same summons number, which is how you are selected to sit on a panel, so no one can see your name, review you service and decisions, and try to get you on their jury.
Panels are 35 to 65 people, who go to the court, where the actual selection process is done, each attorney and the judge questioning you, then the strike process begins.
In court, each person draws a number, 1 through whatever.
Each attorney is allowed a certain number of strikes, and the judge has a number also.
The attorneys and the judge will question the jurors.
After striking jurors they feel shouldnt be on a jury, or because they dont think they will be impartial, the first 13 numbers left are the jury for that trial, twelve jurors and one alternent.
Because my name starts with BL, it get hit a lot, there isnt a lot of names with BL as the first initals.
I get picked for the pool about every three years, and then pure chance takes over, and I have gone all the way through the process four times.
The last time I was juror number 58 in a panel of 65, and the last one chosen, they had to strike 45 people to get that deep, so getting a high number in court dosnt make much of a difference.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

I always though it was a random process too!
But when talking with the District Clerk, she explained how its done here in Harris County.
All the registered voters list are lined up, everyone whos name starts with A is on one list, B the next, down the line.
On average, they need a pool of 2000 jurors per day.
Of course this is all on computer, not paper list.
The clerks office runs a program that will start at the top of each list, pulling names, the number of names from each list is determined by the volume of the first letter in releationship the the rest of the other lists, in other words, there are thousands of Smiths, but not a lot of Qs in Harris county, so the program has a bias built in that will try to get a even amount from each list.
Which means that the all Qs get pulled every few years, but the odds of the same Smith getting chosen are way lower, there are lots more of them to go through before the list for S is exhausted, and starts over.
You are issued a numbered summons to appear for the jury pool.
Once the program has filled a days pool, it starts the next days pool where it left off.
Once you show up for the pool, the clerks take your summons, reviews the people who are requesting exemption or to be excused from duty, a judge looks them over, and cuts loose the one who qualified to be excused.
The rest of the summons are entered into another program by the summons number, not your name..
Then if a judge tells the clerk he or she needs a panel of 65 prospective jurors, that program randomly selects people, based on the summons number, not the name on the summons.
Sorta of a double blind process, you may get picked for the pool a lot, but you will never have the same summons number, which is how you are selected to sit on a panel, so no one can see your name, review you service and decisions, and try to get you on their jury.
Panels are 35 to 65 people, who go to the court, where the actual selection process is done, each attorney and the judge questioning you, then the strike process begins.
In court, each person draws a number, 1 through whatever.
Each attorney is allowed a certain number of strikes, and the judge has a number also.
The attorneys and the judge will question the jurors.
After striking jurors they feel shouldnt be on a jury, or because they dont think they will be impartial, the first 13 numbers left are the jury for that trial, twelve jurors and one alternent.
Because my name starts with BL, it get hit a lot, there isnt a lot of names with BL as the first initals.
I get picked for the pool about every three years, and then pure chance takes over, and I have gone all the way through the process four times.
The last time I was juror number 58 in a panel of 65, and the last one chosen, they had to strike 45 people to get that deep, so getting a high number in court dosnt make much of a difference.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[cabforward]

common sense is like quiet in a thunderstorm..

rare, but always welcome..

[cabforward]

common sense is like quiet in a thunderstorm..

rare, but always welcome..

[Anonymous]

Common sense is not all that common, in my experience...

LC

[Anonymous]

Common sense is not all that common, in my experience...

LC

[Anonymous]

Not everyone is born with common sense. For some people it is beyond there standard degree of thinking. Sometimes people suffer from 90 degree angle thinking, anyhting outside those 90 degrees are not visible thought of/ yet people who can think in 360 degree terms can see almost everyhting and can think that way too.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone is born with common sense. For some people it is beyond there standard degree of thinking. Sometimes people suffer from 90 degree angle thinking, anyhting outside those 90 degrees are not visible thought of/ yet people who can think in 360 degree terms can see almost everyhting and can think that way too.

[cabforward]

360* thinking sounds like a nice way to say 'thinking in circles'..

[cabforward]

360* thinking sounds like a nice way to say 'thinking in circles'..