There's a story for the grandkids. "We met at a murder trial."
Hey baby, what do say we, uh, retire for deliberations?
I was under the impression that about 25% of people who are called for jury duty try the "pretend to be prejudiced or insane" scam. It's like being declared 4F, but without the treason.
On another note, the freeze-dried rambutans at Trader Joe's are pretty cool. My experience has not included anything like them until now.
Roy Black, the lawyer for William Kennedy Smith in his rape trial married one of the jurors from that trial.
A woman from BC ended up getting about 5 years for obstruction of justice for having an affair with the accused while she was a juror at his murder trial.
I find it disturbing that people would find deliberating about rape or murder leading them to thoughts of love.
5, when your only objections are obstruction of justice and blocking of cock, it's so hard to make the right decision.
I was picking a jury once and this guy was using every excuse in the book as to why he shouldn't be on the jury - he had a bad back, he had to get home to make meals for his grandkids, he had doctor appointments, etc.
He was getting nowhere with the judge, who was getting a bit exasperated with him.
Then he says, in perfectly understandable, but accented (he was Vietnamese) English: "I can't understand English". The judge is now furious, and says: "We've been having a conversation in English the last 5 minutes! You speak English just fine!"
"Yes, but I speak much better than I understand"...
That's a really cute story, and proof that people will find the damndest ways to meet in NY.
Re: racism
In Canada we generally know nothing about our prospective jurors, except their name, occupation and address. We almost never get to interview them in court, except when there is possible pre-trial publicity or when there is a visible minority on trial, in which case we are limited to a 1 or 2 question challenge for cause (eg. "can you try the case fairly knowing the accused is black and the complainant is white"). That's it.
By the time we get to the challenge for cause (on race) stage, the judge has already canvassed issues of hardship or other reason why the person can't be on the jury. You'll get potential jurors up for the race-based challenge for cause questions, and by now they've had their chance to talk their way out of sitting. I certainly notice a higher percentage of those who tried, but failed, to be excused for other reasons expressing a difficulty in trying the case fairly. Amazing what indignities people will submit to to avoid jury duty (ie. admitting to being a redneck).
There are exceptions - and you can tell in advance how they'll answer: civil servants, teachers, nurses, and professionals; no matter how badly they want off the jury, they won't ever admit to being racist - in part because it would be entirely unacceptable. That's why we have to use our peremptory challenges on them, 'cause you can't trust their answers.
6: B you buzzkill, they weren't deliberating. They weren't allowed to discuss the case until after closing arguments, so they had to find other things to talk about, like who enjoyed long walks at the beach and so on. If you're spending all day listening to people talk about murder, and then somebody is able to cheer you up, well, how romantic!
On the other hand the fact that the judge noticed that the whole jury was smiling and cheerful during the trial is a little disconcerting.
I hadn't looked at the second story. That lede is heinous.
It just seems wrong to me. Call me a prudish bleeding heart liberal.
B hates love. She thinks it's necessarily misogynistic.
Of course, it's really difficult to get out of being on a jury even if you should be allowed to do so--my mother, who has lost her (previously normal) vision over the past two years, was not allowed a medical exemption for jury duty, even though since she can't drive or even find her way around on foot in an unknown neighborhood or find her way through an unknown building. (She's not someone who grew up blind and can cope with it; she's someone who lost her sight at age 60 and is really struggling).
You can fall in love over my dead body.
That's not all I'll do over your dead body.
No wonder you don't have a girlfriend, creepy.
14: everyone with any sense hates love.
I'm awarding B. a biscuit. Good Bitch!
Careful, I'm known for biting the hand.
I'm tossing it over the chain-link fence, of course.
It's like your proposal regarding the eruv, B: we fenced ourselves in, and you out.
I thought that proposal was rejected as smartassery. And we all know that teasing a junkyard dog is dangerous.
Occasionally I will also toss her a small child.
I categorically deny raping small children.
Which nation's age of consent? Also, what does "categorically" mean in that context? What is an uncategorical denial?
I'm starting to worry about your excessive curiosity on these matters, John. Is there something you need to confess?
Your artfully-hedged denial in 29 raised some red flags. However, have another biscuit.
That's ok, B. After parturition, many women find it difficult to restore their bodies to the prior state of tautness. The best way to recover the biscuits your child "stole," is simply consistent exercise and responsible diet.
Let's just keep giving her biscuits for now.
Seriously, what is the difference between categorical and uncategorical denial?
John, obviously she's just saying that she denies raping all small children, not just the ones who were asking for it.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CATEGORICALLY DENY THE RUMORS THAT I HAVE RAPED ALL SMALL CHILDREN
NOT ONLY WOULD I LIKE TO DO SO, I AM HEREBY DOING SO
Hard to find enough time in the day, eh gram? And they just keep making more! It's enough to drive one to categorical distraction.