Disgruntled Juries
Losing three weeks or more of pay to be on a jury really isn't working for people these days. Yeah, it's a civic obligation -- but what if your familial obligation is making ends meet every month, at a time when that's more difficult than ever? Carol J. Williams writes in the LA Times of juror outbursts before starting a trial -- people apparently trying to disqualify themselves:
The spontaneous outbursts of the reluctant jurors just as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn was about to swear them in emboldened others in the jury pool to express disdain for the case and concerns about their ability to be fair, and to ratchet up the pathos in their claims of facing economic ruin if forced to sit for the three-week trial.In this time of double-digit unemployment and shrinking benefits for those who do have jobs, courts are finding it more difficult to seat juries for trials running more than a day or two. And in extreme cases, reluctance has escalated into rebellion, experts say.
After three days of mounting insurrection, lawyers for both the deputy and the sergeant waived their right to a jury trial and left the verdict up to Dunn.
"We can't have a disgruntled jury," said attorney Gregory W. Smith, who represents Deputy Robert Lyznick in the lawsuit against his former supervisor. He called the panel "scary" and too volatile for either side to trust.
Money woes inflicted by the recession have spurred more hardship claims, especially by those called for long cases, say jury consultants and courtroom administrators. More than a quarter of all qualified jurors were released on hardship grounds last year, according to court statistics. And judges say they have seen more people request such dismissals in the last year.
Perhaps I could synchronize my jury duty with my mandatory furlough days at work, since I won't be getting paid anyway. Just kidding, I'm excused for a couple more years anyway.
Here they even stopped paying for parking. So you have to report, but if there's no space in the parking garage, you're out a bunch of money, if you can even find somewhere to park. Then they wonder why people want no part of it? Pay them, and take it out of fines for white collar crimes.
MarkD at May 12, 2010 8:28 AM
That was my experience in this very jury system in this very recession. With all the other indignities, one is still distressed to remember that one is losing money. And we were hung anyway, though the punk was puhl-laaaaainly guilty. And the judge took a day off for some sort of personal business and said he was sorry but it couldn't be avoided... And my feeling is, if your wife is STILL BREATHING, and twelve people (plus the officers of the court and the accused) are being compelled to surrender their time to these processes, you have no business making people wait.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 12, 2010 8:32 AM
I'm still pissed at that guy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 12, 2010 8:41 AM
In Southern Texas, RGV, most people claim to be bilingual, because it is essential for employment. Yet, when it comes to jury duty, they swear they can't speak English. So,the Anglos get called every year or two.
I wouldn't mind jury duty, because I believe the jury is part of the foundation of liberty. Juries were devised so even if all three branches of government go amok, the jury can save people at the last. And, jury nullification was the whole point of the jury system. Juries are supposed to try the law, which some judges lie and tell them they don't have that right.
In Edinburg, they have a judge who tells the jury about nullification in his orientation session, which is cool.
My problem is, at important points, I can't understand what people are saying. It is not deafness. Scientific American some years ago did an article on this issue.
Older men, seldom older women, develop a brain problem which makes it hard for the brain to decode the sounds.
If someone tells you about an older man who sometimes can't hear when you shout, but when you are whispering a secret to someone, he hears every word, there is a chance this is his problem.
The problem is interference. I can often hear light sounds, but even at normal volume, of someone drops a pencil, I lose all of several seconds. And, in a crowded jury room, there is always someone coughing or squeaking a seat or clomping their feet.
I get humiliated. Someone will tell us something we need to know, and I can't get it, and have to ask someone. It is very humiliating.
I could not possibly sit on a jury if I constantly had to ask, "What did she say?" So, it is frustrating to be forced to go through the procedures.
In two years, I will be 70, and am going to tell them to go pound sand.
irlandes at May 12, 2010 10:16 AM
Irl, you're describing a textbook case of environmental hearing damage. I have it myself, from a career misspent wearing loud headphones in even louder control rooms. I understand all too well how you can't think of yourself as deaf when you have so much hearing left, but the 'swiss cheese' of your perception of the world has a straightforward basis in physics. The problem is not in your brain or the processing, the problem is in the sense organs.
I strongly recommend a visit to a audiologist or hearing aid provider. The cleverness of the electronics in these (cheap!) devices is nothing like what your grandfather had to deal with. Things you can't hear are instantly remapped into the position of things you can hear, and you will BE AMAZED at the restoration of your lost hearing.
Don't be a pissy egomaniac. Get tested. Your wife will be grateful to have someone to talk to instead of this easily "humiliated" grump.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 12, 2010 11:05 AM
A lot of the problem has to do with the way that trials and jury pools are scheduled. Here, it's very common that if you are summoned, you will most likely spend a week sitting in a room in the courthouse and never even be called. And if you are called, odds are you will wind up being dismissed by one side or the other. Only a small percentage of those called actually wind up on a jury. So you give up a week of vacation at work for something that's a total waste of time.
The other thing is that, back in the day, trials rarely lasted more than a few days. Nowdays, lawyers have so many delaying tactics that it's very common for a single trial to drag on for months. Certain civil trials can drag on for years. Judges need to start telling lawyers to prepare their case, present it, and then cut the crap and sit down.
Cousin Dave at May 12, 2010 12:50 PM
BTW, Crid, I've got a bit of that boilermaker's ear too. I tested myself with a synth and a frequency counter and I've got a notch right at 1 KHz. My wife has kind of a sultry voice, so I have no problem understanding her (in either sense of the word!), but picking out conversations in an area with a lot of environmental noise can be tough.
Cousin Dave at May 12, 2010 12:53 PM
So, all they need to do is draw from the pool of unemployed and problem solved.
I R A Darth Aggie at May 12, 2010 12:59 PM
Two scariest words to the courts these days, "jury nullification".
Sio at May 12, 2010 3:24 PM
Around here it is the opposite. I read an article about a month ago about how now so many people wanted to be on juries. They are unemployed and this way get a little money they would not otherwise.
I wonder how the call people up...I know it is supposedly random from registered voters. I know of no local exceptions to the rule that you are called often or never. My brother is called up on average every 1.5 years. I have never been called in 19 years. My Dad has been called many times, my mother never has. Hmmm...
The Former Banker at May 12, 2010 3:50 PM
I live in a small neck of the woods area and was just hit for jury duty, but didn't have to serve. But my boss was dreading me having to serve.
I'm a one deep position in my company at the help desk level. If you're talking to me to you have been through two people already. I troubleshoot and fix the problems so they don't have to go back to the dev staff for the large majority of issues. So if I were to be sucked into a long trial, they would have to go back to the developers instead of me. That would have cost the company substantially in time and effort.
From the sounds of the article, many companies are facing the same situation.
Jim P. at May 12, 2010 6:38 PM
I served on a Jury in '05, and moved out of the county before '08 (you served every three years). We convicted a car thief who didn't even have the cojones to come to court. It took two days.
I suppose you could restrict the jury pool to single people, but other than that, as well as accommodating the problems of age, as explained by irlandes, I certainly don't support ending trial by jury. The Cato Institute has floated the idea of professional juries, but since the jury room is cut off from oustide observation, there is no guarantee that the professional jurors will render better verdicts than people pulled off the street.
mpetrie98 at May 12, 2010 6:41 PM
After going back and reading the whole article, I can offer a better solution to the problem: Fire Obozo and do what needs to be done to let the economy grow again.
mpetrie98 at May 12, 2010 7:30 PM
"And the judge took a day off for some sort of personal business and said he was sorry but it couldn't be avoided...
Of course he did.
Now get back to work; his salary doesn't pay itself, citizen.
Spartee at May 13, 2010 6:25 AM
Banker, exact same experience here... I've only been summoned once in 22 years, and as it happened I was already scheduled to be on business travel that week, so they let me out. I have a friend who has been summoned four times in ten years (and never actually got on a jury).
Cousin Dave at May 13, 2010 7:52 AM
"When you go into court you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty."
--Norm Crosby
Bob at May 15, 2010 4:22 AM
The jury was a good idea in the 13th Century. Its members had walked the boundaries of the disputed land 10 years earlier, as witnesses to the transfer of the property. They knew the criminal and his methods since childhood. There is some wisdom to any crowd. If there is a hard question, there is always someone there who knows something about it, and can get the group started on the answer.
Today, the lawyer has excluded any juror with knowledge. The lawyer wants total ignoramuses so that he can run his fairy tale case in court, and be the sole influence. Usually jury decisions are based on which lawyer they like better after she drops a pencil and bends over to pick it up facing the bored desperate male jurors. Trial lawyers have to be good looking, charismatic, and charming. That is all the jury vote is measuring.
Something can be said for the validity of the first, secret ballot, as a sincere assessment of the case. If no decision is arrived at, the case needs to be dismissed. The other votes reflect the preference of the biggest, loudmouth bully in the room, and the rest of jury who just want to go home.
Jury duty is seen as government imposing servitude to serve a public purpose, and therefore allowed by the Thirteenth Amendment (against slavery). It is similar to the draft, and to the taking of taxes. That means only a constitutional amendment can end involuntary servitude. If a law is passed, the courts will strike it down as an encroachment on the function of the judiciary.
The system is rigged airtight against the ordinary person. There is no recourse.
Supremacy Claus at May 17, 2010 9:10 PM
Leave a comment