This is the kind of thing people might expect law students to know despite it not being taught in my law school, nor I would think in almost any other: what are the juror confidentiality rules?
I was called for jury duty a couple years ago but was dismissed and didn't actually serve on a Jury.
During the questioning of the jury another prospective juror who had said, essentially, "if the defendent is guilty I will be annoyed by the fact that he didn't plead guilty and forced us all to go through a trial for no reason." I responded that, while we might believe that someone pleading guilty when they are, in fact, guilty, is comendable we shouldn't condemn someone who is guilty who decides that they want to make the state prove its case. I think that's really at the heart of our justice system.
I assume I spooked the lawyer for the prosecution.
I've been called for jury duty a bunch of times but each time when I've called the phone number for instructions my juror number has not come up. They consider this service - meaning I'm free of being called again for 12 months - so I can't complain. One day I'll actually go down to the courthouse, I guess.
Are you asking about something more complicated than "you can't talk about it to anyone but other jurors and solely inside the jury room while the case is ongoing, but there's no restraint after the trial is concluded"?
I'm not sure I have the proper names for the various stages in the process, but (IIRC) post-summons and post-empanelment, the judge excused me when I told him how much work I had due that month. There were something like 40 of us in the courtroom; he wasn't hurting for prospective people.
They were pretty awesome in SCMTville, I have to say.
I've got a feeling that anyone with more than a semester's worth of philosophy could get themselves excused from jury duty in less than five minutes. Click your heels, say "epistemic" a couple of times and wait patiently.
Much as I don't want to serve, I do feel obligated not to try to duck it. Plus, I'm looking forward to the moment when they poll the jury for the verdict, and I can say in my deepest, most rumbling voice, "Guilllltyyyyy."
17: I hope so. I was summoned and I've deferred it (the problems of maintaining home-state residency whilst attending school). I like the civic-duty aspect, but it's expensive to go home just to be turned down.
Faced the possibility many times, meaning read a book all day in a room with 500 others. Spent a whole month on a Federal Grand Jury callup, which means I got paid about $200 to sit in a much nicer room. Have gone thru voir dure(?) maybe a half dozen times, maybe more.
Got selected once, a civil dispute involving a landlord and a black minister(plaintiff). I actually think I got selected because I was an atheist and not rich, which means I would be equally biased against both parties. We sat down, the plaintiff started testifying and was completely incoherent, we were sent back after ten minutes while they reached a settlement. My exciting jury duty.
A friend of mine said that he talked to a judge at his church who was scared out of his mind, because one of the jurors serving had been his law professor. The particular professor taught civil procedure and had been instrumental in drafting the current California Code of Civil Procedure. The judge was terrified that he would mess up and that the professor would tell the jury that he had gotten everything wrong.
Jury duty's great. I was on for this assault case. It seemed like the dude had probably done it, but that there was reasonable doubt. That was the consensus in the room. So someone proposed that instead of letting a probably-guilty guy go free, we compromise by convicting him of simple assault but letting him off on the aggravated assault charge. I said I didn't think we were supposed to do that. So the foreperson made a query to the judge who confirmed that, no, we were not supposed to compromise like that -- we had to actually decide whether or not he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So then we pondered that a bit more and decided to go with the compromise verdict. I contemplated protesting 12 Angry Men style, but decided against it. So simple assault it was. Law's majesty.
The Scottish plea of "not proven" has certain virtues, arguably (the counter-argument is that you're tarring someone's reputation, with nothing proven).
For 17 and 18: when I served, my job description was "instructor in Logic and Rhetoric."
And what was remarkable was that the 12 men and women on the jury were, without exception, smarter and generally awesomer than the plaintiff and both attorneys. (I'm not counting myself; I was just an alternate.)
My jury duty was a white-trash neighborhood dispute. My guess is that 6 of the 7 witnesses were lying or willing to lie. No third-party witnesses, all connected either with the defendant or the victim (who had previously been prosecuted for an offense against the defendant). At one point in the trial, the wife of the defendant accused the wife of the victim of stealing her panties off the clothesline. I ducked down and bit my lip to avoid causing a mistrial with roars of laughter.
ha! it's good to hear a funny jury duty story. the only jury duty story i have heard before first-hand was deeply sad -- told to me by a good friend who served in Washington DC on a drug-dealing trial. One of the defendants was not able to come to the second week of trial because he had died by then.
Not intimidation by a fellow defendant, apparently - but an unrelated dispute - part of the usual death rate in certain specific neighborhoods of DC.
no-one was convicted, because a middle-aged woman kept arguing to other members of the jury (majority black in this case) that the defendants could have been any of their brothers or sons. that was the full extent of the defense she made. my friend, a deeply logical-minded serbian economist, was infuriated and kept them arguing for at least two extra days before the eventual acquittal.
I was hoping that being a PhD student would disqualify me (too smart), but if a law professor can get jury duty, anyone can.
Of course, it's possible that a lot of the people selecting juries read blogs and therefore assume that all law professors are either idiots (Instapundit) or sociopaths (Volokh).
Of course, it's possible that a lot of the people selecting juries read blogs and therefore assume that all law professors are either idiots (Instapundit) or sociopaths (Volokh).
Don't forget Hugh Hewitt! But even law professors who are bloggers need not be idiots, e.g. Jack Balkin, Michael Froomkin and other non-wingnuts.
I think that Cass Sunstein is the exception that proves the rule in two ways: he's only been a guest blogger, not a blogger properly so called, and he's neither an idiot nor a sociopath.
We could probably rehash a discussion of the common idiom that I used above, or else perhaps someone could link to the last discussion.
Cass Sunstein is the exception that proves the rule in two ways: he's only been a guest blogger, not a blogger properly so called, and he's neither an idiot nor a sociopath.
I would've agree with that a few days ago, but since then Sunstein has apparently said that it's legal and constitutional for Dubya to conduct warrantless wiretaps.
This is the kind of thing people might expect law students to know despite it not being taught in my law school, nor I would think in almost any other: what are the juror confidentiality rules?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:20 PM
It would be super-cool if ogged blogged from sequestration.
Although I suppose that would probably be a violation of the juror confidentiality rules that I, also, know nothing about
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:24 PM
Despite always voting, I have never once been called for jury duty in the 19 years I've been eligible. I'm a little hurt, really.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:31 PM
Exciting! I've always wanted to be on jury duty. For the same civic geek reason I love voting, I guess.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:36 PM
I was called for jury duty a couple years ago but was dismissed and didn't actually serve on a Jury.
During the questioning of the jury another prospective juror who had said, essentially, "if the defendent is guilty I will be annoyed by the fact that he didn't plead guilty and forced us all to go through a trial for no reason." I responded that, while we might believe that someone pleading guilty when they are, in fact, guilty, is comendable we shouldn't condemn someone who is guilty who decides that they want to make the state prove its case. I think that's really at the heart of our justice system.
I assume I spooked the lawyer for the prosecution.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:40 PM
If oggedville is anything like SCMTville, it is possible to get out of jury duty without major machinations.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:45 PM
All of you who've never served clearly do not live in New York. I was an alternate three years ago and have just been called up for January 4th.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:50 PM
Q: Do you think you would be a good juror?
A: Why yes, in fact I think I would make and extraordinary juror.
Q: Why do you think that?
A: Because I can tell if people are guilty just by looking at them.
Q: Dismissed.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 12:57 PM
I've been called for jury duty a bunch of times but each time when I've called the phone number for instructions my juror number has not come up. They consider this service - meaning I'm free of being called again for 12 months - so I can't complain. One day I'll actually go down to the courthouse, I guess.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:03 PM
"what are the juror confidentiality rules?"
Are you asking about something more complicated than "you can't talk about it to anyone but other jurors and solely inside the jury room while the case is ongoing, but there's no restraint after the trial is concluded"?
5: "during the questioning of the jury "
I'm assuming you're referring to voir dire.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:36 PM
is this real jury duty, or "show up and get struck in voir dire" jury duty?
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:37 PM
I've only been summoned, not empaneled, so, like eb says, I might not even have to go to the courthouse.
What are these non-major machinations, SCMT? Seems like a good thing to know, although I'm not going to try to get out of it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:49 PM
10 -
For a petit jury, it could be as simple as that, plus the penalty (if any) for violation. Do you know if it's just a mis-trial, or what?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:49 PM
Don't know anything else about it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 1:55 PM
Scene from the voir dire process:
Prosecutor: Prospective juror #7, do you know the defendant?
Ogged: Um, it depends. What online pseudonyms does the defendant go by?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:02 PM
I'm not sure I have the proper names for the various stages in the process, but (IIRC) post-summons and post-empanelment, the judge excused me when I told him how much work I had due that month. There were something like 40 of us in the courtroom; he wasn't hurting for prospective people.
They were pretty awesome in SCMTville, I have to say.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:13 PM
I've got a feeling that anyone with more than a semester's worth of philosophy could get themselves excused from jury duty in less than five minutes. Click your heels, say "epistemic" a couple of times and wait patiently.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:18 PM
I once sat in on the first few lectures of a class on the jury system. The professor said his jury duty always went along the following lines:
Q: What do you teach?
A: Courses on the jury system.
Q: You may leave now.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:19 PM
Much as I don't want to serve, I do feel obligated not to try to duck it. Plus, I'm looking forward to the moment when they poll the jury for the verdict, and I can say in my deepest, most rumbling voice, "Guilllltyyyyy."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:23 PM
My rather incomplete notes from serving on a jury recently are blogged here. Second jury duty in my life, first time serving on a jury.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:27 PM
17: I hope so. I was summoned and I've deferred it (the problems of maintaining home-state residency whilst attending school). I like the civic-duty aspect, but it's expensive to go home just to be turned down.
Q: Are you good at logical argument?
A: Probably better than the defense attorney.
Q: Oh hell no.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:30 PM
Faced the possibility many times, meaning read a book all day in a room with 500 others. Spent a whole month on a Federal Grand Jury callup, which means I got paid about $200 to sit in a much nicer room. Have gone thru voir dure(?) maybe a half dozen times, maybe more.
Got selected once, a civil dispute involving a landlord and a black minister(plaintiff). I actually think I got selected because I was an atheist and not rich, which means I would be equally biased against both parties. We sat down, the plaintiff started testifying and was completely incoherent, we were sent back after ten minutes while they reached a settlement. My exciting jury duty.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:31 PM
A friend of mine said that he talked to a judge at his church who was scared out of his mind, because one of the jurors serving had been his law professor. The particular professor taught civil procedure and had been instrumental in drafting the current California Code of Civil Procedure. The judge was terrified that he would mess up and that the professor would tell the jury that he had gotten everything wrong.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:35 PM
Jury duty's great. I was on for this assault case. It seemed like the dude had probably done it, but that there was reasonable doubt. That was the consensus in the room. So someone proposed that instead of letting a probably-guilty guy go free, we compromise by convicting him of simple assault but letting him off on the aggravated assault charge. I said I didn't think we were supposed to do that. So the foreperson made a query to the judge who confirmed that, no, we were not supposed to compromise like that -- we had to actually decide whether or not he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So then we pondered that a bit more and decided to go with the compromise verdict. I contemplated protesting 12 Angry Men style, but decided against it. So simple assault it was. Law's majesty.
Posted by Wehttam Saiselgy | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:37 PM
Not clear to me that compromise verdicts are always bad policy. Who says the DAs and defense attorneys should have all the fun.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:40 PM
I can say in my deepest, most rumbling voice, "Guilllltyyyyy."
Just use the air horn.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:40 PM
"Much as I don't want to serve, I do feel obligated not to try to duck it."
Think of it as an improv performance of Twelve Angry Men. But, you know, with women as well.
I thoroughly disapprove of anyone who tries to get out of jury duty, save for those assholes you'd never want on your jury. But if one has to: chinks.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:47 PM
I contemplated protesting 12 Angry Men style, but decided against it.
Good call. There'd be no way you could get a switchblade into the jury room these days.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:47 PM
The Scottish plea of "not proven" has certain virtues, arguably (the counter-argument is that you're tarring someone's reputation, with nothing proven).
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:49 PM
For 17 and 18: when I served, my job description was "instructor in Logic and Rhetoric."
And what was remarkable was that the 12 men and women on the jury were, without exception, smarter and generally awesomer than the plaintiff and both attorneys. (I'm not counting myself; I was just an alternate.)
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 2:57 PM
My jury duty was a white-trash neighborhood dispute. My guess is that 6 of the 7 witnesses were lying or willing to lie. No third-party witnesses, all connected either with the defendant or the victim (who had previously been prosecuted for an offense against the defendant). At one point in the trial, the wife of the defendant accused the wife of the victim of stealing her panties off the clothesline. I ducked down and bit my lip to avoid causing a mistrial with roars of laughter.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 3:10 PM
ha! it's good to hear a funny jury duty story. the only jury duty story i have heard before first-hand was deeply sad -- told to me by a good friend who served in Washington DC on a drug-dealing trial. One of the defendants was not able to come to the second week of trial because he had died by then.
Not intimidation by a fellow defendant, apparently - but an unrelated dispute - part of the usual death rate in certain specific neighborhoods of DC.
no-one was convicted, because a middle-aged woman kept arguing to other members of the jury (majority black in this case) that the defendants could have been any of their brothers or sons. that was the full extent of the defense she made. my friend, a deeply logical-minded serbian economist, was infuriated and kept them arguing for at least two extra days before the eventual acquittal.
good luck -- in general -- with it, ogged.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 6:10 PM
Just talk about jury nullification a lot.
If you do get empaneled you should interrupt the proceedings to ask a lot of questions.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-30-05 6:44 PM
I was hoping that being a PhD student would disqualify me (too smart), but if a law professor can get jury duty, anyone can.
Of course, it's possible that a lot of the people selecting juries read blogs and therefore assume that all law professors are either idiots (Instapundit) or sociopaths (Volokh).
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 10:44 AM
Of course, it's possible that a lot of the people selecting juries read blogs and therefore assume that all law professors are either idiots (Instapundit) or sociopaths (Volokh).
Don't forget Hugh Hewitt! But even law professors who are bloggers need not be idiots, e.g. Jack Balkin, Michael Froomkin and other non-wingnuts.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 12:31 PM
I should've added "or sociopaths" after "idiots."
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 12:31 PM
I think that Cass Sunstein is the exception that proves the rule in two ways: he's only been a guest blogger, not a blogger properly so called, and he's neither an idiot nor a sociopath.
We could probably rehash a discussion of the common idiom that I used above, or else perhaps someone could link to the last discussion.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 2:22 PM
Lessig?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 2:28 PM
Oh, I don't even know anymore. I'm just jealous because I'm not a law prof.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 2:33 PM
Cass Sunstein is the exception that proves the rule in two ways: he's only been a guest blogger, not a blogger properly so called, and he's neither an idiot nor a sociopath.
I would've agree with that a few days ago, but since then Sunstein has apparently said that it's legal and constitutional for Dubya to conduct warrantless wiretaps.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 7:01 PM
agree = agreed
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-31-05 7:02 PM