Jury Duty

[JGD]

32 minutes ago, dominattorney said:

 I'm always happy to hear about a not guilty verdict. 

I’m hoping to hear those words a couple times next week. 

[TheGipper]

2 hours ago, CigarScentedBeard said:

How would you be double deducting?

This is so obvious, I don't even know how to explain it.

You pay taxes on wages you actually made.  Your W-2 won't have an extra line for "Wages we didn't actually pay but we're reporting to the IRS anyway so you end up paying more than you should".

If there was, then you could rightly say you should be allowed to deduct those.  But since your W-2 doesn't have that, trying to deduct them is reducing your tax liability by 2x your tax rate on the lost wages.

[Guest Nekhyludov]

43 minutes ago, dominattorney said:

Don't forget the men and women of the criminal defense bar.  It's a thankless job holding the government to its burden when it seeks to take away the liberty of a fellow citizen.  I'm glad you found the experience rewarding.  I'm always happy to hear about a not guilty verdict. 

I couldn't agree more, and couldn't have said it any better.

[ATGroom]

I was on a murder jury a few years ago. It was a proper whodunnit - two guys went on a week long drug bender, at the end of which their dealer ended up murdered in a very brutal way. The lead witness was one of the guys, who was saying that the accused did it. The defence's case was that the lead witness did it.

It was scheduled to run for 12 days, but after 5 we were discharged when the lead witness mentioned off-hand that the accused had been in prison before, which the jury wasn't allowed to know as it might have prejudiced our verdict. Before the retrial could happen the accused changed his plea to guilty.

I received my full salary from work while I was serving. I'm not sure what the law is strictly speaking, but I think in salaried full time jobs in Australia at least it is considered poor form to not pay people while they're serving. I also got a small amount from the courts - it was something like $40 a day for first week, then $75 a day for the second week, and $110 after that. Plus at the time I was working 60 hour weeks at work, whereas jury duty was 10am - 3pm with an hour for lunch and a lot of time sitting around drinking tea in the jury room. It felt like a vacation.

I found the whole thing fascinating. We heard from fingerprint, DNA, coroner, and other expert witnesses, along with a whole cast of characters from a world of drugs and criminality that is very distant from my everyday life.

So, all in all, I highly recommend jury duty. The typical experience may differ though.

[CigarScentedBeard]

10 hours ago, ATGroom said:

I was on a murder jury a few years ago. It was a proper whodunnit - two guys went on a week long drug bender, at the end of which their dealer ended up murdered in a very brutal way. The lead witness was one of the guys, who was saying that the accused did it. The defence's case was that the lead witness did it.

It was scheduled to run for 12 days, but after 5 we were discharged when the lead witness mentioned off-hand that the accused had been in prison before, which the jury wasn't allowed to know as it might have prejudiced our verdict. Before the retrial could happen the accused changed his plea to guilty.

I received my full salary from work while I was serving. I'm not sure what the law is strictly speaking, but I think in salaried full time jobs in Australia at least it is considered poor form to not pay people while they're serving. I also got a small amount from the courts - it was something like $40 a day for first week, then $75 a day for the second week, and $110 after that. Plus at the time I was working 60 hour weeks at work, whereas jury duty was 10am - 3pm with an hour for lunch and a lot of time sitting around drinking tea in the jury room. It felt like a vacation.

I found the whole thing fascinating. We heard from fingerprint, DNA, coroner, and other expert witnesses, along with a whole cast of characters from a world of drugs and criminality that is very distant from my everyday life.

So, all in all, I highly recommend jury duty. The typical experience may differ though.

For the most part here in America, most employers do pay you while your there minus what the courts give you. There are some circumstances where you aren't paid. Usually independent contractors. Some jobs here even pay you 40 hours a week if you get deployed as a reservist, I wish I had that while I was in!

[soonerwings]

I’m hoping to hear those words a couple times next week. 

Good luck man. My only cases right now are a few open/shut DUIs. I’ll have 3 clients entering guilty pleas this month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JGD]

7 minutes ago, soonerwings said:

 

Good luck man. My only cases right now are a few open/shut DUIs. I’ll have 3 clients entering guilty pleas this month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks, man!

I have a second offense DUI on Tuesday which could go either way. I have an A&B on Wednesday that could get tricky if the right witnesses show up. And finally, I have two A&B’s on Friday that I expect to be dismissed. After that I’ll start to worry about the following week ( 2 DUI trials scheduled and countless pre-trial hearings...).

[dominattorney]

54 minutes ago, JGD said:

Thanks, man!

I have a second offense DUI on Tuesday which could go either way. I have an A&B on Wednesday that could get tricky if the right witnesses show up. And finally, I have two A&B’s on Friday that I expect to be dismissed. After that I’ll start to worry about the following week ( 2 DUI trials scheduled and countless pre-trial hearings...).

Best of luck. 

[FOHrty9er]

I completely flaked on my recent summons.  Never been selected.  Have no problem with civic duty.  In fact, I am largely involved in my community.  I hope there is no bench warrant our for my arrest due to my mind fart!  Good thing I'm a prefect citizen ?

[Diabolicalpherpher]

I was summoned three times but only got to be on the jury once while I was in grad school. One was for a federal court but I didn’t have to go in as I was not needed. Another one was a civil case for an auto accident but I was dismissed by a Nicolas Cage looking lawyer during jury selection.

The third one which went the whole distance was a case of three attempted murders with gang enhancement.  The defendant was going around his hood asking people where they were from. Apparently that’s how they go around protecting their gang territory and if you answered wrong or looked like you were from another gang, they shot you.  He was arrested by a cop doing exactly that and found a handgun under his seat.  A guy was shot earlier with similar scenario and the police attributed it to the defendant since the gun matched the caliber slug taken out of the guy.  The guy who got shot survived and there were two others in the vicinity so they charged the guy with three counts. And since they could show he was affiliated with a gang, they slapped the gang enhancement charge.

In the end though, we did find him guilty but I was on the fence about the other two counts. However the way the law was written, I had to find him guilty for the attempted murder of the two bystanders who were technically not harmed.

 I actually enjoyed going through the whole process which took two weeks. Got to see the real inner workings of the judicial system. However, it also made me aware how much bias there were in other jurors during deliberations. They insinuated stuff as facts and tried to convince me that they were. 

[Islandboy]

On 3/2/2019 at 7:20 AM, rcarlson said:

Have you considered the "costs" you impose through your defiance?  

I realize you know nothing about me, nor the reasoning for my choices, so fair question. The short answer is yes. Here’s the long answer:

For the first 20 years of my adult life I responded to every jury summons, serving for nearly 2 years on a Grand Jury, serving on a trial jury the one time I was chosen, and showing up on no less than 3 other occasions for jury selection. It certainly seems here in Hawaii, the more you serve, the faster your name comes back around for summons. But after hearing directly from a criminal how the best chance of getting away with a crime one has committed and been accused of is to request a jury trial, I started considering the “costs” being imposed on me through this exploitation of the system. So I’m taking a time-out.

As far as the costs I impose on society, I’d rather take a wholistic view of costs versus benefits. Please consider that I’ve voted in every election since I was 18, have been gainfully employed and paid my taxes each year without question since I was 17, I’m college-educated, partially funded by student loans that were paid off in full, I’ve never filed for unemployment or public assistance benefits, never filed for bankruptcy, never defaulted on a loan, never seen the inside of a jail cell, never stood before a judge accused of a crime, have never been a party to a lawsuit, and my profession, or more specifically my position at work is one in which my actions directly help create employment for hundreds. My conscience is pretty clear.

I have several acquaintances who are attorneys, and It’s not my intent to go around bashing others for what they do, but the line of your questioning does raise one of my own:

Do those defense attorneys who fully know a client has committed the crime they are accused of and yet advise them to request a jury trial as the best means of going free consider the “costs” they impose on others?

[JGD]

9 minutes ago, Islandboy said:

Do those defense attorneys who fully know a client has committed the crime they are accused of and yet advise them to request a jury trial as the best means of going free consider the “costs” they impose on others?

To be frank, no, I don’t consider the “costs.” Why? Because, that’s not my job. My job is to zeolously advocate for, and defend, my client to the best of my abilities. To do that, I also often need to hold the government to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s because of that that I often advise my clients to go to a jury trial. 

[rcarlson]

1 hour ago, Islandboy said:

I have several acquaintances who are attorneys, and It’s not my intent to go around bashing others for what they do, but the line of your questioning does raise one of my own:

Do those defense attorneys who fully know a client has committed the crime they are accused of and yet advise them to request a jury trial as the best means of going free consider the “costs” they impose on others?

The nature of the adversarial system demands that they don't.  Really can't think of a bigger disservice.  I'm pretty certain that if you do find yourself in civil or criminal action you wouldn't be too thrilled with a lawyer that did.  It'd be plain old wrong and unethical.     

[Bri Fi]

23 hours ago, dominattorney said:

Don't forget the men and women of the criminal defense bar.  It's a thankless job holding the government to its burden when it seeks to take away the liberty of a fellow citizen.  I'm glad you found the experience rewarding.  I'm always happy to hear about a not guilty verdict. 

Are you really always happy to hear about a not guilty verdict? Even when the defendant is clearly guilty but the state failed to meet the burden? Or when cases take a turn due to victim/witness intimidation? Is it really justice when a defendant walks free after committing a crime just because a standard wasn’t met? Can you really ALWAYS be happy to hear not guilty, or am I looking into your statement too much? 

[TNT009]

Well, sounds like the DA didn't put the best assistant DA on the job, what a shame. Im glad here in San Diego we have a unit of DA's that work exclusively on assaults on Law Enforcement Officers. Just hit the 25 year mark and I'm glad to see guilty verdicts on those that are/were guilty. It seems like there's a green light to assault law enforcement here in the US. So, Ill leave it at that and thanks for doing your civic duty, glad I ant have to do it.

[HarveyBoulevard]

Once heard the District Attorney...not an Assistant District Attorney or Deputy District Attorney, but THE District Attorney say..."It takes a good DA to put a guilty person in jail, but it takes a great DA to put an innocent person in jail".  It was said it in a jovial manner so maybe he was joking...but that is not something I joke about.

I protect a system and a Constitution.  If the cops do their job, and if the DA does his/her job, and the Judge does his/her job, and IF my client did it, good chance a conviction ensues.  But, if cops, DA, Judge don't do their job, my job is to hold them accountable.  I tell everyone "there but by the grace of (insert deity of choice) go I.  No one believes it can happen to them until it does.  If you, your family or a loved one ever ends up on the wrong end of prosecutorial machine with limitless resources and manpower, I guarantee you will thankful for those that come to your defense and the jury that hears your case.

No one thinks cops lie.  No one thinks DAs hide evidence.  No one thinks Judges are politically motivated.  I have audio and video of cops fabricating and planting evidence (no, not just one :), I have proof of evidence hidden and destroyed by DA's (one altered confession even :), and Judges run for office and are politicians.

I do my job with pride and vigor.  I hope you never are in need of services like mine or a jury I'd pick, but if you ever are, you will be more thankful than you could ever imagine.  So will your wife, kids, parents, etc.

Some criminals do go free.  Better a hundred criminals go free than one innocent man be wrongly incarcerated.

[Guest Nekhyludov]

46 minutes ago, TNT009 said:

Well, sounds like the DA didn't put the best assistant DA on the job, what a shame. 

Sadly, it was the County Attorney himself, and his Senior Deputy, who tried the case. They just didn't have remotely enough evidence to support the charges they brought, and did a sloppy job of presenting what they did have. In my inexpert view, they should have filed entirely different - and more appropriate - charges. 

[HarveyBoulevard]

Mom and dad getting a divorce.  Mom claims dad molested child.  Child too young to confirm or deny.  Dad arrested and charged with sex crimes.  Mom gets kid, house, etc.  Can't even tell you how many times this has happened.

Neighbors hate each other.  Get in argument.  Neighbor has son who is cop.  Calls son and says other neighbor 'threatened' him.  Cop son arrests neighbor.  Good thing arrested neighbor had video (with audio) that showed otherwise.

Two friends shopping.  Friend 1 stuffs something in jacket.  Two friends exit store.  Two friends get arrested and charged with petty theft.  How dare one of them request a jury trial.

Guy get ride from friend.  Friend has gun in car.  Guy getting ride is a felon.  Friend gets pulled over.  Guy getting ride gets charged with felon in possession of a firearm.  How could he NOT know there was a gun under the driver's seat.

Guy drinks 1 beer.  Guy gets pulled over for speeding and won't do field sobriety tests or submit to a blood or breath test.  Guy gets arrested and charged with DUI.

I could type for days...

These are not fictional.  These are not made up.  These are not isolated instances.  They are daily calls and cases.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Some people are guilty but some are not.  The system's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[JGD]

I had a case last week where my client was accused of violating a restraining order. The “victim” went to the police and reported that my client had charged at her car while they were each stopped at a red light. My client was arrested. Luckily for her, she pulled out her cell phone when she had stopped at the red light and saw the “victim” running towards her. I showed this video to the ADA. Their response? “Wow that’s not good. Mark the case up for a jury trial and hopefully the “victim” will take a 5th so the case will be dismissed.” 

Did the ADA have the power to dismiss the case upon seeing the video? Yes. Would it have been the right thing to do? I think so. Do they ever dismiss cases on days that the case is not on for a trial? Not in many counties in MA. 

[Islandboy]

Okay, we've all justified our respective positions on the matter, and I know I learned stuff. Who's up for a cigar?

[JGD]

Just now, Islandboy said:

Okay, we've all justified our respective positions on the matter, and I know I learned stuff. Who's up for a cigar?

Man, I would love one. But the second snow storm of the week just rolled in and despite the requests of both me and my four-year-old (“Dom, go tell Mama that I can smoke a cigar I can smoke a cigar in the basement”) - my wife refuses to let me smoke in the house! 

[HarveyBoulevard]

2 minutes ago, Islandboy said:

Okay, we've all justified our respective positions on the matter, and I know I learned stuff. Who's up for a cigar?

Me!!! Headed out back in 5 minutes. Good suggestion!! 

[Islandboy]

5 minutes ago, JGD said:

Man, I would love one. But the second snow storm of the week just rolled in and despite the requests of both me and my four-year-old (“Dom, go tell Mama that I can smoke a cigar I can smoke a cigar in the basement”) - my wife refuses to let me smoke in the house! 

Yeah, we can pull the world back from the brink all day long, but when we get home, we all know who the boss is, right??

[JoeyGunz]

Got summoned for Jury Service at the Royal Courts of Justice was informed it would be at least 2 weeks and to make arrangements at work if it was to be a longer case.

 

I run my own business, I put a lot of preparation to clear my desk and have everything run as smoothly as I could in my absence. I do work with my father so I do have cover to an extent.

 

Provisionaly book 2 weeks off, head in on the Monday for my first day on Jury Service, they present a deck of playing cards, each card to represent one of the members of the jury and my card never came out the deck. So I was sent home. I took the Tuesday off work to reward myself.

 

Still it was a nice day out and a beautiful building to visit.

[dominattorney]

14 hours ago, Bri Fi said:

Are you really always happy to hear about a not guilty verdict? Even when the defendant is clearly guilty but the state failed to meet the burden? Or when cases take a turn due to victim/witness intimidation? Is it really justice when a defendant walks free after committing a crime just because a standard wasn’t met? Can you really ALWAYS be happy to hear not guilty, or am I looking into your statement too much? 

Probably reading a little to much into it, but the general sentiment stands.  There aren't a great many cases that actually "take a turn due to victim/witness intimidation," and when a defendant is clearly guilty and the state fails to meet its burden, that should fall on them.  In a perfect society, there would never be a not-guilty verdict because the government would only charge people who they could prove were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Since I'm 3-0 on felony trials in 2019 so far, I'd say we live in far from a perfect system.