Troubling Jury Duty Experience -- You Decide

[Bob B 103]

Troubling Jury Duty Experience

Have you ever heard the phrase,

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Was this for town/county or federal?

[Bob B 103]

Mercer County Petit Juror.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

I did both Federal (up in Newark) and County (Middlesex) within the past year. I don't recall being told anything like that. The videos didn't say anything like that either.

[Bob B 103]

I did both Federal (up in Newark) and County (Middlesex) within the past year. I don't recall being told anything like that. The videos didn't say anything like that either.

 

Interesting.

[sirsloop 1]

I did jury duty in New Brunswick about a year ago. I believe in it, but its a complete waste of time for me. I sat through like 200+ people getting called up and dismissed... after the 2nd day of sitting for 8 hours straight I was the LAST person to get called. Then I got dismissed.

 

On the 2nd day I went to friggin Harvest Moon... had a beer sampler and a big fat burger for lunch. Man that was sweet

[GRIZ 3,369]

[jeff47 30]

I served on a county murder case for 7 weeks about 2 years ago. It was both really cool and really painful. When it came down to the final decision (one was up for murder in all of it's 12 degrees and the other for assault, simple vs aggravated vs. some other craziness and there was a host of weapons related charges all applying to a single knife) we spent literally days trying to determine the appropriate degree of the 4 charges applied against the defendants and a lot of that was listening to the breakdowns of the charges over and over again. Everytime we'd walk back into the jury room we'd start to discuss and someone would say "wait I thought the difference between murder 1, 2 and 3 was this..." and we'd all argue and usually head back out to hear the same thing at some point. The laws are so insane and the definitions so difficult to understand (These are all oral, you're not allowed to have a 'definition sheet' with you and you can't write a damn thing down, why I have NO IDEA) that attempting to even remember them much less apply them is a challenge. If you want to rehear the definitions or testimony you write down your request on a slip of paper, pass it to the judge and wait while everything (and everyone) is brought out to the ready.

 

I guess long story short the proccess is about 100 times more complicated than I would ever have imagined and you need to judge the case based on things that your have heard, and sometimes ignore things you've heard if requested as it wasn't admissible. If chosen you will spend more time in the jury room as the judge, DA and defense guys argue 10,000 points of law than you will actually witnessing the case.

 

I thought the experience was awesome but I was damn glad to get the hell out of there after 7 weeks. Good luck.

[Urban Grunt 44]

I get called every year without fail,i used to fill out the card and send it back saying i'm not eligible but now i don't even waste my time doing that anymore.Record keeping isnt a strong point in the court system.

[GoNRA 12]

When I did jury duty in Freehold, I don't remember any of that, but I didn't make it as a juror.. the lawyer for the defendant picked me to go.

[DirtyDigz 1,811]

I hope that some day I get called for jury duty on a marijuana possession case and I get to introduce the concept of

 

Jury Nullification

 

to my peers.

[KpdPipes 388]

I hope that some day I get called for jury duty on a marijuana possession case and I get to introduce the concept of

 

Jury Nullification

 

to my peers.

 

Depending on which county expect to face a charge of Contempt for bringing it up. I was involved in a case where I had to be present for Jury Selection, and one potential juror brought it up, the Judge looked like he was going to have a stroke.,,,of course it was afor an arson/homicide not a narcotics or weapon charge, so that MAY have been what set the Judge off.

[djg0770 481]

I was called for JD in the 90's in Monmouth County. At the time I knew (well) the gentleman in charge of the evidence room in the courthouse. I was consistently excused from ANY case, but I still had to sit there for 4 or 5 days.

[KpdPipes 388]

I was called for JD in the 90's in Monmouth County. At the time I knew (well) the gentleman in charge of the evidence room in the courthouse. I was consistently excused from ANY case, but I still had to sit there for 4 or 5 days.

Last time I was called it was in the County i work in. I got called for probably a dozen criminal cases over the 3 days..EVERY SINGLE ONE of them I knew either the ORI Detectives, Prosecutor's Detectives, Asst Prosecutor, and in ONE..the Defendant..from arresting him myself..Judge laughed at that one.

[Malsua 1,422]

I served on a trial in Newark about 12 years ago.

 

It was a Heroin possession case.

 

A woman(Hispanic) had 60 packets of CDS Herion in her apartment. Cops showed up looking for this woman's boyfriend on a warrant and the cops said she pointed at the heroin on a shelf..they went over, found it, charged her with possession. Also tons of burglary tools were found there too.

 

She claims it was her boyfriends herion, he had stopped by earlier to go to courthouse, and she was unaware he put the heroin there while he went to the courthouse on a different charge.

 

By the law, as we were instructed, she definitely had possession of it. In her house, in plain sight. Not even slightly hidden. On an open shelf, eye level but not directly in sight of the door, sorta around the side.

 

I think the cops lied about how they found it. She said that BF had left door unlocked, cops entered, and she woke up in bed with guns pointed at her. Cops claimed they never entered until she invited them in. The cops couldn't get their story straight. One even said as they entered and proceeded to the bedroom he saw the drugs. The Defense asked, "If she pointed to the drugs around the corner, why were you proceeding to the bedroom?". Dead silence, excused.

 

I voted to convict her as she knew her BF was doing drugs, was legally guilty of possession and keeping criminal tools at her place. Two hispanic women on the jury would not have convicted her under any circumstance. She was acquitted.

[Malsua 1,422]

Just for giggles, I googled the BF name. Jose Miguel Ramos and Newark NJ and got this..

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/fre ... 1loc=FCLOW

 

heh, he became a drug mule at one point swallowing heroin.

[Frank Jack Fiamingo 58]

Bob, it just emphasizes the fact that "they" are in charge, and we are there simply to give the illusion of justice. "Well.... he *WAS* after all, convicted by a jury of his peers". :-(

[KpdPipes 388]

I served on a trial in Newark about 12 years ago.

 

It was a Heroin possession case.

 

A woman(Hispanic) had 60 packets of CDS Herion in her apartment. Cops showed up looking for this woman's boyfriend on a warrant and the cops said she pointed at the heroin on a shelf..they went over, found it, charged her with possession. Also tons of burglary tools were found there too.

 

She claims it was her boyfriends herion, he had stopped by earlier to go to courthouse, and she was unaware he put the heroin there while he went to the courthouse on a different charge.

 

By the law, as we were instructed, she definitely had possession of it. In her house, in plain sight. Not even slightly hidden. On an open shelf, eye level but not directly in sight of the door, sorta around the side.

 

I think the cops lied about how they found it. She said that BF had left door unlocked, cops entered, and she woke up in bed with guns pointed at her. Cops claimed they never entered until she invited them in. The cops couldn't get their story straight. One even said as they entered and proceeded to the bedroom he saw the drugs. The Defense asked, "If she pointed to the drugs around the corner, why were you proceeding to the bedroom?". Dead silence, excused.

 

I voted to convict her as she knew her BF was doing drugs, was legally guilty of possession and keeping criminal tools at her place. Two hispanic women on the jury would not have convicted her under any circumstance. She was acquitted.

 

If her attorney had done his Job, from what you posted the Heroin SHOULD have been supressed... Yes she had the Heroin in her possession..HOWEVER, if it was discovered in an improper manner, it becaosed the "Fruit of the poisonous Tree", and inadmissable as evidence.. you guys should have literally been istructed by the Judge to treat it as it it never existed.

[KpdPipes 388]

Just for giggles, I googled the BF name. Jose Miguel Ramos and Newark NJ and got this..

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/fre ... 1loc=FCLOW

 

heh, he became a drug mule at one point swallowing heroin.

 

2003...Want to be he's either dead of an overdose or is sitting in some CF right now??

[Malsua 1,422]

If her attorney had done his Job, from what you posted the Heroin SHOULD have been supressed... Yes she had the Heroin in her possession..HOWEVER, if it was discovered in an improper manner, it becaosed the "Fruit of the poisonous Tree", and inadmissable as evidence.. you guys should have literally been istructed by the Judge to treat it as it it never existed.

 

That was sorta the he said/she said part of it. She claims the cops entered, woke her up and found the Heroin, the cops claimed she opened the door and pointed to it. The cops either didn't rehearse, didn't care or whatever, but I found this drug dealer's girl friend to be more credible than the cops. Their stories contradicted each other. There were 3 that testified if I recall correctly, but when the one guy completely flubbed it and was called on it, it rang false to me. Shrug.

 

The prosecution's claim was that they never entered until they knew about the Heroin and that when they arrived at the door she pointed right to it and said "there's the heroin". This would mean she was guilty of possession as she had it, knew about it and it was not discovered improperly. The defense was that she was asleep when the cops arrived. She worked nights at a club so to be asleep at 11am is credible to me. The door being unlocked was also an issue...she said the the cops had entered on a warrant damaging the door a week prior(no one home at the time) and the door had not been fixed and opened easily..something like that. It would explain why they didn't have to force entry this time...the prosecution just rolled her eyes at her and said "so you expect me to believe that you live at and went a week without getting your door fixed?". The girl said "They all know Miguel is my BF, no one would come in". I find that VERY credible, lol.

 

I guess in the end, she was just a girl who wasn't very smart and dated the wrong guy and probably didn't deserve to go to jail for his heroin. I had no doubt then or now it was his drugs but sometimes you are judged by the people you frequent with so you have to expect consequences on occasion.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Troubling Jury Duty Experience

...but the judge is not superior to the jury, right?

 

Bob:

 

Kind of an unfair advantage - not being informed of Jury Nullification and what it is, but to answer the question posed, yes the judge is superior. Maybe superior is not a good choice of words, but the judge does have the last word. Remember, whatever the jury decides, the judge has the right to set aside the verdict.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[Bob B 103]

Bob, it just emphasizes the fact that "they" are in charge, and we are there simply to give the illusion of justice. "Well.... he *WAS* after all, convicted by a jury of his peers". :-(

 

That's what bothered me about the whole thing. I had never heard of Jury Nullification, had no idea of the concept. What rang the alarm bells for me was the oath to support the US and NJ Constitutions, then the subsequent warning that we had to rule according to the judges instructions. What if the judge gives instructions that are contradictory to my understanding of the Constitution? What if the crime in question is clearly at odds with, well let's say, the Second Amendment? My oath must take priority. There is no law that says a juror must rule one way or another based on any instructions from anyone, including the judge. That's what being tried by a jury of your peers is all about.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is that there were about 20 jurors that went in and out of that jury box during jury selection. Not one of them even asked asked about question 17. They just accepted it -- or maybe some knew about Jury Nullification and purposely didn't ask?

 

At any rate, it answers a lot of questions about how NJ's laws got so convoluted. There's no check on unjust laws from the jury.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

All I learned at Jury duty was that most of my "peers" were idiots.

 

The foreman said, "who am I to say if this guy is guilty or not"?

 

Enough said!

[KpdPipes 388]

Bob, it just emphasizes the fact that "they" are in charge, and we are there simply to give the illusion of justice. "Well.... he *WAS* after all, convicted by a jury of his peers". :-(

 

That's what bothered me about the whole thing. I had never heard of Jury Nullification, had no idea of the concept. What rang the alarm bells for me was the oath to support the US and NJ Constitutions, then the subsequent warning that we had to rule according to the judges instructions. What if the judge gives instructions that are contradictory to my understanding of the Constitution? What if the crime in question is clearly at odds with, well let's say, the Second Amendment? My oath must take priority. There is no law that says a juror must rule one way or another based on any instructions from anyone, including the judge. That's what being tried by a jury of your peers is all about.

 

The thing that bothers me the most is that there were about 20 jurors that went in and out of that jury box during jury selection. Not one of them even asked asked about question 17. They just accepted it -- or maybe some knew about Jury Nullification and purposely didn't ask?

 

At any rate, it answers a lot of questions about how NJ's laws got so convoluted. There's no check on unjust laws from the jury.

 

Our laws are written with DIRECT INPUT from the Trial Lawyers Assn..they're made to be convoluted as possible to leave gaps and loopholes for the attorneys to "Work With". As far as the Judges Instructions...he IS right to a certain extent, A jury is supposed to make it's ruling on a VERY narrow set of Criteria, based on the applicable law, and the testimony and evidence given. Those boundaries are usually set by the Judge

[Bob B 103]

Troubling Jury Duty Experience

...but the judge is not superior to the jury, right?

 

Bob:

 

Kind of an unfair advantage - not being informed of Jury Nullification and what it is, but to answer the question posed, yes the judge is superior. Maybe superior is not a good choice of words, but the judge does have the last word. Remember, whatever the jury decides, the judge has the right to set aside the verdict.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

 

I have been reading about that also. It's called judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or judgment non obstante veredicto (JNOV) or motion for judgment as a matter of law (JAMOL). It seems that it is often submitted, but very rarely approved, and a couple of sources I read said it can't be use to overturn an acquittal. I don't know how accurate that is though, but, I am still reading.

 

Interesting stuff.

[unclenunzie 3]

AFAIK, The Judge instructs the Jury but the individual Jurors decide for themselves if the evidence presented meets the standards for conviction.

 

Now if a Juror decides for himself that the law is unjust, is harmful to society and votes that way, I don't see a problem with that. We're in it for justice, not slavish obedience. I'm not saying harmful criminals should go free, I'm saying we should not grind up people who are otherwise clean through this vague notion of "everyone in the group or house is guilty".

 

I have a hard time with the finer points and technicalities which result in someone's "guilt" just because they live with a POS who breaks the law. Even if she knows about the dope in the house, if she's got nothing else to do with it is she really expected to turn him in, or to insist he move out with his criminal products? A guy like that is by definition dangerous, and I can't see how justice is served or society is made better by criminalizing via association and constructive possession.

[Bob B 103]

I found this article. It is the best one I have read so far on the subject.

 

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/131jur.pdf

[jokerman 2]

To the original poster: Every trial has disputed facts (Did the defendant run the red light or not? Was the defendant the guy with the red shirt and glasses who sold the heroin?) and disputed legal issues (Should the witness be allowed to testify about something someone else said outside of court (hearsay)? Is the defendant's old conviction for drunk driving ten years ago relevant to the heroin charge and something the jury should know about?) There are usually laws and legal rules that have developed over centuries dealing with answering the legal questions.

 

Under our system, no one but a jury can or should answer the factual questions.

 

What you heard on the tape or from the judge is said in every courtroom in American everyday when juries are selected or charged before deciding a case. All that it means when the judge or the video says "I am the judge of the law, etc..." is that it's the judge's job to decide the legal questions, and it's the jury's job to decide the factual questions. Granted, the line between the two isn't always crystal clear, but when the system works (a judge who does his or or her and doesn't care who wins, a lawyer on each side who does his or her job as best as possible for whoever their client is, and a jury that listens and discusses and decides the questions they are asked based just on what they heard in the courtroom), it's the best system.

 

And if it ever breaks down, well, that's what 2A is for! Cheers.

[Bob B 103]

To the original poster: Every trial has disputed facts (Did the defendant run the red light or not? Was the defendant the guy with the red shirt and glasses who sold the heroin?) and disputed legal issues (Should the witness be allowed to testify about something someone else said outside of court (hearsay)? Is the defendant's old conviction for drunk driving ten years ago relevant to the heroin charge and something the jury should know about?) There are usually laws and legal rules that have developed over centuries dealing with answering the legal questions.

 

Under our system, no one but a jury can or should answer the factual questions.

 

What you heard on the tape or from the judge is said in every courtroom in American everyday when juries are selected or charged before deciding a case. All that it means when the judge or the video says "I am the judge of the law, etc..." is that it's the judge's job to decide the legal questions, and it's the jury's job to decide the factual questions. Granted, the line between the two isn't always crystal clear, but when the system works (a judge who does his or or her and doesn't care who wins, a lawyer on each side who does his or her job as best as possible for whoever their client is, and a jury that listens and discusses and decides the questions they are asked based just on what they heard in the courtroom), it's the best system.

 

And if it ever breaks down, well, that's what 2A is for! Cheers.

 

I don't have a problem with any of that, as long as the judge is giving good guidance. 90% of the time, that will be the case. The other 10% is when the judge makes a mistake, or when the law itself is unjust, or when there are mandatory sentencing requirements that don't fit the crime (think 2 1/2 years for a bb gun). That's when a jury can assert their right to disregard the instructions from the judge and vote according to conscience. My point is that the jurors are told that they must follow the instructions of the judge, whether they agree or not. This is not true. And, in my case, the jury questionnaire was specifically designed to filter out potential jurors who knew that. If that is what is happening, then some people are not getting fair trials (think Joseph Pelleteri).

 

Some places have figured this out. Consider the Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 23:

Art. 23. In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

 

In other words, in Maryland, the jury can acquit if they don't like the law, if they don't like the sentencing requirements, or they don't believe the facts hold up. But if the jury convicts when the facts don't hold up, the judge can overturn the conviction. I think that's exactly how it should be, and the intent behind the 6th Amendment.

 

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

I don't see anything in there about the jury being limited to only judging the facts and if they are, I don't see how they can maintain impartiality.

 

The great thing about this is that no laws need to change in order to correct the situation. We only need to act accordingly when we serve as jurors.

[sirsloop 1]

I imagine I would be the biggest pain in the ass juror ever.... I don't think like most of the sheep in this state and I'm dead set once I make up my mind. If there is something in grey, and I'm on the unpopular side... hope everyone has a lot of patience.