decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 05:50 PM EST

In the small world department, one of Groklaw's members, Dracoverdi, was in the jury pool for the Michael Jackson trial. He was dismissed after several selection processes played out, before the trial began, but I thought you might enjoy to read his experience as a potential juror. It'll give you an idea of what jury selection is like in the US, if you live outside of the States, or if you have never been called to jury duty.

He mentions the potential witness list, and you can read about that here and here.

No, we're not going to be covering the trial, because there is no FOSS connection, but because one of our own was there, I thought you'd find his experience fun to read. Where else but on Groklaw would you read about what kind of laptops everyone had? Or about the sound system? Enjoy.

********************************

(Former Potential) Juror Number 34 Reports
~ by Dracoverdi

somewhat random impressions of the Michael Jackson jury selection process

I arrived early to avoid complications, but mostly to avoid being late, which I was pretty sure would be a mistake. Nobody gets away with being late to court, not even Mr Jackson. Those of us who were told to report at 8:00 am were divided into two groups A-L and M-Z. Some people inevitably got into the wrong room, some people were late and at least one had gotten married with a name change that moved her from one room to the other.

One of the precautions they made for the sake of jurors' privacy was to assign a number, at first it was the jury summons number, a nine-digit number, instead of our name. The idea was that in court we would only be referred to by number, and hopefully this would protect our identity.

Another precaution is passing everyone through a metal detector on the way into the courtroom. Anyone who has traveled by air, gone to a rock concert, or large theme park will be familiar with this kind of screening. The first day they had bags for us to put our valuables, and sharp objects in, to be restored in exchange for a claim ticket after the courtroom visit. Any days after that, we were told, we would be likely to lose any proscribed items uncovered by the scanners.

After being told about the numbers, scanners, bags and seeing the little movie explaining the jury system in general, we walked over to the courtroom. I noticed on the walk over that the cherry trees were in bloom. We were waiting around a lot, so I had time to notice things like the huge press vans which look like Borg RVs; they have three-foot diameter, pop-up dishes on top. They are probably big so that they can transmit, but still I'll bet they'd get really good cable reception. We got to the courtroom though a little fenced off courtyard. I could hear people chanting slogans on the other side of the fence. Try to picture this scene: A courtyard surrounded by a canvas-covered chain link fence. Outside about 300 fans and protestors earnestly wishing they were inside, and on the inside 300 or so of us jurors earnestly wishing we were outside. We had been carefully, randomly selected but they were pretty random in their own right.

On first entering the courtroom, we could see two groups of about six people standing on the other side of a low wooden room divider. Most were obviously lawyers, and there was one person in white with a gold armband and long black hair. I couldn't keep myself from thinking "Hey! That guy looks like Michael Jackson". Well, yes he did, because... he *was* Michael Jackson. Who were you expecting? Remember that this was after hours of processing, and a movie, all with strangers who looked like people I might know, but that turned out not to be.

Judge Melville explained some more about jury service being a responsibility of citizenship and neatly comparing it to the military service that many were performing in Iraq. He then asked if there were any who were willing to serve on the jury and an impressive portion of us were. He said he was pleased at the number that raised their hands, and we were dismissed to go finish processing while the people who didn't raise their hands tried their luck for the rest of the day defending various reasons for being deferred. My way turned out shorter. We went back to the jury assembly building and filled out the questionnaire and were assigned a color group (yellow in my case) and a number (our questionnaire number -- 34 in my case), and were instructed to call after 5 pm to find out when to report next. I got out early enough to meet my wife and daughter at another government building to sign my daughter's passport application. Since she is under fifteen, all of us are required to sign. This somehow prevents kidnapping. I'm just glad neither our cat or dog were required to sign. They are a bit active for a government building.

The next day we found out that the trial was recessed due to a death in one of the defense lawyers' family. We jurors were counted and taken over in groups to the nearby Abel Maldenado youth center for more processing. Most of the morning was assigning us to a letter group (A) and then Judge Melville and a court recorder came and Judge Melville gave us our mass admonition. He explained again how important it was for us not to form any opinions until we had received all the evidence, in the event we ended up on the jury. He told us not to talk to anybody, even other jurors about the case and not to watch or read anything about the trial. He explained that if someone persisted in discussing the trial even after we attempted to avoid the conversation, then we were to report to him. Once we were dismissed, or the trial was concluded in the case of eventual jurors, we would be free to discuss the trial. He recommended having someone save newspaper clippings during the trial for us to read afterwards. Amazingly, food was provided, but I had already eaten. This was the only time that food was provided. Judge Melville had selected a schedule that would have court in session from 8:30am to 2:30 with no lunch but three 10-minute breaks. Good enough if you are a guy, but the ladies restroom typically had a twenty-minute line for each of the ten-minute breaks.

The first couple days, I left the courthouse using the back exit (on to McClelland) but then drove around the block and down Miller to see some of the circus. Everybody outside seemed to be behaving oddly, but the press took the cake. The press had formed a sort of high tech camp from the front gate, and all along the parking lot to the north of the courthouse. Some press vans and the outhouses were clustered around the trashcan enclosure for the courthouse, which bizarrely is the only part of the complex protected by barbed wire. Several scaffold-supported platforms have been erected around the court's parking lots. These are skinned in canvas and contain cameras on dolly tripods and resemble dovecots for hunting very tall prey. Most of the time the cameras were covered in what appeared to be large trash bags. Barbed wire to protect trash, and trash bags to protect the presumably expensive cameras? The first day one, of the local channels had apparently rented a scissor lift platform, just big enough for a brave newswoman and her intrepid cameraman to film a segment with the courthouse as a backdrop. The higher ground is obviously imperative to this sort of reporting.

I can't remember the exact sequence, but sometime this day the two sides read their list of potential witnesses. This process took about an hour and a half. The defense list was more interesting and much longer. Jay Leno, Kobe Bryant! , Ed Bradley, Quincey Jones, Deepak Chopra, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, Uri Geller, Larry King, a lot more I can't remember. I wonder if there is a non-zero group of people that are both on the potential witness list for this trial and on Paris Hilton's cell phone. Whatever the order, we also started jury selection this day. First, eighteen potential jurors were called from a randomized list to fill the twelve jurors' box seats and six additional seats in front of the box. Judge Melville read the charges and explained that Mr. Jackson had pled not guilty and what that meant. He also explained the concept of the presumption of innocence.

Next, Judge Melville asked them a series of general questions intended to consider any undue hardship conditions, weed out various types of juror prejudice, and establish a minimum fitness to be a juror. These questions were asked of the whole group of eighteen being considered, with people asked to raise their hand if the question applied significantly to them. Any who raise their hand are asked for particulars. Some people with sufficiently compelling hardship cases were dismissed at this point, occasionally after consultation with lawyers for the two sides. More prospective jurors ("PJ's") were called to fill up to eighteen.

After the judge's questions, it was time for the lawyers to question. The lawyers for each side asked all of the eighteen a series of questions of their own. All of these are intended to establish whether the potential jurors would be able to consider the facts impartially under a set of conditions posed by the question. We were part-way through these questions on the first group when we recessed overnight.

The next day, we all showed up, some early, some late but all there. PJs, lawyers, bailiffs, Judge, but no Mr. Jackson or Mr. Jackson's bodyguard. It turned out Mr. Jackson had the flu and had driven directly to the one legally unassailable refuge -- the hospital. Once admitted by the medical profession, he could negotiate to the legal profession. I don't think he could have done anything to make the case of being sick at the courthouse. Barf on the judge? Probably not. The doctor said it would take 3-4 days to recover. Judge Melville decided if he took the longer period, four days, he would get two weekend days and the President's day holiday for free. Time enough for Mr. Jackson to recover and for the jurors to get sick. He's not a judge for nothing.

In the intervening week, they replaced half the seats in the jury box and put in a new sound system. The new seats look like theater seats, complete with drink holders in the handles. I don't suppose they will ever offer popcorn -- probably better if they didn't. They fiddled with the new sound system at every break. Apparently the people in the overflow room couldn't hear properly. At one point the microphone for the lawyer's podium needed to be moved closer. When they put it on the podium, all the lawyerly hand gestures were amplified as thumps, so they rigged a sound isolation base out of a roll of masking tape and a piece of foam rubber. Later, when the prosecutors were trying to hold the press-to-speak button on their desk mike in the down position, I suggested the masking tape from the roll might help, pointing out that duct tape would be more appropriate for this task (general agreement on this point). The new sound system already had at least two hacks on the first day.

One thing I didn't notice until I was in the front of the courtroom was that the bailiff has a jar of cough drops on her desk. This is brilliant because, like most public gatherings, somebody always has a cough going, especially in the winter.

After both sides have asked their questions, any jurors who have said they couldn't be impartial for some reason are dismissed "for cause" -- any number of jurors may be dismissed this way for obvious cause. After that, each side has a certain number of "peremptory challenges" (ten I think) that they can use to dismiss PJ's without stating the reason. (It was one of these, by the defense, late in jury selection that released me later to write this in a timely fashion). There are limits on the reasons for peremptory challenges. You can't, for instance, dismiss a prospective juror for race. I think a few of the discussions following challenges in this case might have been to verify a challenge wasn't just on the basis of race. Any PJ dismissed from the jury box is replaced from the six extra seats. Every time they empty seven seats they call seven more random PJ's to fill the gaps, the first going into the empty seat in the box and the next six filling the extra seats. (My number was called twenty-fifth, the last called for first seven replacements). Either side can accept the jury as constituted at any time, and the prosecution had done this twice before I was dismissed.

When I was first called up I was in seat eighteen (yet another numbering system). This seat is the closest geographically to the prosecution lawyer handling jury selection. Close enough that he ran over my feet twice. However, having failed to run over me, he made no attempt to dismiss me. Later after the Juror in seat number six was dismissed, I moved up to take that. They filled a second time and had started questioning by the time we recessed Monday the 21st. The next day they finished questioning the new group, and I noticed that the defense attorney asked the new person in seat eighteen what should have been a follow-up question for me from the day before. I think he must note by seat number and must have missed the follow-up somewhere in questioning.

I'm pretty sure I was dismissed for not displaying evidence of reasonable doubt at the propositions that it was unlikely for a celebrity to get a fair trial and that a teenage witness would be likely to be influenced to lie by their parents, which were two defense questions.

I was asked if I thought children (teenagers) made reliable witnesses. I said that it depended on the child, the situation, and the question. The lawyer (Mr. Mesereau I believe) asked me to explain. I said some children would be more honest than others, that although children lie, they would know the difference between a tall tale to a friend and being under oath in court, and that they might respond differently depending on the wording of the question.

Then I was asked if I thought a parent might influence their child to lie. I said that I had never known anybody to do this. That most parents I know wouldn't do this for fear of the damage it would do to their child.

Finally, I was asked if I felt the tremendous media attention to the case was damaging Mr. Jackson's chances of getting a fair trial (and more generally if the media attention to high profile cases was distorting the whole legal process).

To the specific question about Mr. Jackson, I said that media attention does have an influence on a potential juror's "knowledge" of the case. But that this negative effect was somewhat offset by a famous (and presumably rich) person's ability to command superior legal representation (this last was probably too smart alecky). In general I said media coverage ahead of jury selection undoubtedly has some effect. But that the sort of extra precautions taken for this case to provide a big jury pool and protect the prospective jurors during the trial help offset the effect during the trial.

Whenever Mr. Jackson goes out on a break on come the lights and the cameras are rolling. But when we come out, the deputies call "Juror!" and the camera lighting is turned off, and the cameras are pointed at our feet. They must have a lot of good "juror shoe" footage. It's a good idea for Jurors to wear shoes that aren't too shiny. Any time we went out to the bathroom a deputy went in ahead of us to make sure nobody was there. I know why they did this, but I'm still amused by the concept of "securing the bathroom".

In court, before I was called up, I was sitting near the assigned seven press seats when I overheard a conversation between two reporters. One said that he lives within blocks of the courthouse, close enough to walk to the courthouse in the morning or go home for lunch. He pointed out that when he moved to Santa Maria a few years ago, he had no idea he would be living at the center of the media universe. If that is where we are, then it is a moving center. It reminds me more of the Eye of Sauron and I'll be more comfortable when it moves on.

At least for jury selection, the press have been assigned seven seats in the front row, but way off to the left, as seen from the gallery. Some are actually behind the jury box from the judge where he is sitting in the witness stand. It's as if somebody demanded the press get front row seats and so they were assigned the most remote possible front row seats.

Mr. Jackson always had interesting stuff to wear: colorful clothes, watch chain with crowns, medallion on the lapel, armbands -- everything you would expect. But the coolest person in court by a large margin is Mr. Jackson's bodyguard. Everything about him says cool, professional, in charge. Don't get me wrong, the court security people are well-equipped and know what they are doing, but this guy has a job that allows (demands?) a fashion statement as well. If you saw him in a movie, you would say he was too cool to be real.

On a technical note, I noticed that the Judge and prosecutors all had IBM and HP laptops, while the defense had at least one large screened Sony Vaio. I know it's a small sample group, but I wonder if the county is constrained to purchase from US companies.

I'm surprised by how effectively the Jury selection questions can be used to precondition jurors. As an example the defense attorney asked two or three questions that undeniably aided in weeding out biased jurors but also planted the seed for reasonable doubt to grow. Can a person in Mr. Jackson's situation get a fair trial? Are children reliable witnesses? Could a child witness be influenced by their parents to lie? It reads like a scaffold for their case.

The best advice I can give someone reporting for jury duty is: bring a book. There is a lot of waiting in the process of preparing you to serve. Even in court, although you have to pay attention to the proceedings, there are extended periods when the Judge and lawyers are discussing things in private. You learn a lot of interesting things about your fellow PJs because you have lots of time to talk but you are not allowed to discuss what is happening in the court.

When I was leaving the courtroom after being dismissed, a friend sitting on the aisle quietly commented "back to work". It reset my mind. "Exactly" I thought. This is now somebody else's job.

A few minutes later, in the parking lot, a reporter - from CBS I think ‚ approached me and asked if I wanted to share my experiences in court. I declined. He commented that there would be a lot of other people asking me (was this intended as a threat?). I don't think there will be much interest. The Eye of Sauron will follow Mr. Jackson.


This article is released under a Creative Commons licence, Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike.


  


A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial | 130 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please, if needed
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:22 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here Please
Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:24 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:35 PM EST
Jeez, PJ.

If groklaw becomes the clearing-house for the Jackson-case, I fear that you'll
be permanently slashdotted.

It would be cool, though, to have some commentary running circles around trhe
kind of coverage you'll find on the amateur media of broadcast networks, FOX,
CNN, Court-TV, etc. Seeing how the trade press have botched the SCO press, I
bet groklaw would be able to run circles around the rest as usual.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:45 PM EST
He then asked if there were any who were willing to serve on the jury and an impressive portion of us were. He said he was pleased at the number that raised their hands,

A jury pool I was in saw 3/4 of the pool claiming hardship or bias for a projected 30 day trial.

Thank you for the story Dracoverdi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 06:58 PM EST
My reaction is that we are doomed. Doomed I say.

What possible reason is there for prospective jurors to know the list of
potential witnesses?

Why should the media be allowed any contact with prospective or dismissed jurors
at all?

Wouldn't the process work better if the prospective jurors were isolated, and
the questions and answers submitted indirectly? At least until much farther into
the selection process, why do the jurors, the accused, the attorneys, and the
judge need to know who each other are, and why do they need to be in physical
proximity?

It just seems to me that a process with anonymity and isolation would work much,
much better in cases where the victim, or the accused are well known, or where
there is substantial press interest, or where there is a high likelihood of
large numbers of disqualified jurors for any other reason.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:05 PM EST
I had to read "PJs" about three or four times before I realized it
meant "Potential Jurors" and not paralegals/journalists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aaahhhh, Jury Duty
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:06 PM EST
This makes me think about my own two jury selection (and one actual jury) experiences, one in Philly and one on Brooklyn. Both times were absolutely fascinating. The one time I served was a short (three days, but the second day we had off -- the judge let us take the day off from work anyway) personal injury case in Philadelphia, the other time I got voir dire'd twice, but never selected. I'm pretty sure that at least one of those times it was because I had a big book (Heroditus) -- the advice about bringing a book in the article is KEY, by the way, ignore it AT YOUR PERIL!

The judge in the case in Philly (which was held in the top floors of a venerable old department store across from City Hall, which I found amusing; like "while shoppers browse the store oblivious justice is decided above") was also noticably respectful of the jury, and thanked us graciously afterwords. And this case was, needless to say, small time compared to the Jackson case!

In Brooklyn they had a special line for people who thought that they didn't speak english well enough to follow a trial. There were a few polyglots at a table to talk to the people and determine if their english was up to the task.

It's interesting having been through the process in two cities, and invites comparisons (which I'll refrane from making here) of the cultures. As Dracoverdi observed, jury duty provides an excelent oportunity for even the most socially reticent of us <ahem> to mix it up with a fairly random cross section of our neighbors. (still, don't forget the book.) And, you know, it is important and all that, too, IMHO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allowing laptops in the courtroom
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:19 PM EST
Are PJs / Js allowed to bring laptops to court (instead of a book)? I can just
see all these jurrors playing quake...

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:30 PM EST
I think it's pretty amusing, in a way, that this story should be posted today.
Yesterday, I was stuck in the jury selection process myself, at the behest of
the 3rd Circuit Court of Pasco County, Florida.

All things considered, my day was far more normal than his, though probably just
as mundane (the book idea was one that I thankfully already knew of).
Considering what I was interviewed for at my last jury summons (capital murder
trial of a child), yesterday was a cakewalk (insurance liability suit).

Of course, I couldn't help but chuckle to myself when the judge asked us whether
or not we had any predisposition against lawyers. "No", I thought,
"just a few select ones in Utah".

Tim

[ Reply to This | # ]

Celebrity Witness List
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:38 PM EST
This can really backfire. They can all be asked about the extent of their
familiarity with the Defendant. No doubt they will all answer no when asked if
their children or grandchildren ever spent the night with the defendant and no
other adults at Neverland.

If they testify as character witnesses, then they get to answer questions about
other incidents. If it affects reputation then it affects their testimony. It
allows the Defense to attack his character as much as the celebrities bolster
it.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Defense? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:43 PM EST
Frequency of jury summons
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:46 PM EST
I doubt GL's UK and other non-US readers appreciate how frequently jury duty
summonses are sent out to people living in the USA (or at least in CA).

In all my years living in the UK, I only once received a summons for jury duty.
The first I knew of it was when my parents told me that they had got me excused.


Here in CA, I seem to get a summons about every 3-6 months, despite not being
eligible.

Furthermore, jury duty can be a nightmare. A friend of mine was on a grand jury
for 2 years! Fortunately, he had an employer that had generous policies
regarding jury duty.

Furthermore, I often wonder how many non-citizens actually sit on juries. Do
they really check for citizenship when the jurors sign in? Here in CA, I think
the DMV records are used as one source of potential jurors. Of course, many
people own and drive cars without being citizens.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:46 PM EST
I was up in Santa Maria for work last week, and it was a total zoo around the
courthouse. Sadly, it's like a train wreck, you just have to drive over there
and see it (my stuff was nowhere near, but hey, what else was I going to do for
lunch?).

I've been called for Jury Duty twice, and actually got selected as an alternate
initially for one. I was stoked because it was a drive by murder trial, and I
was planning on a nice vacation from work. Unfortunately, it turned out that I
graduated high school with the defendants, so I got removed for conflict of
interest (go figure).

The best part of the last time was the judge asking, "Who has a hardship
that they can't perform for a three day trial?" and then anyone who
answered his next question was, "So when can you come back." He
wouldn't let anyone who raised their hands initially off, he made the lady take
down all their names and reschedule them. Those of us who didn't raise our
hands and got dismissed were done. Heh, suckers!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury Duty: Those who reason need not apply
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 07:49 PM EST
I've been on several juries (jurys?), and I can say without a doubt that it's
one of the most boring processes I've ever had to endure. Bringing a book is a
good idea. But once you arrive in the actual courtroom, everything changes.
For those who don't frequent courtrooms (most of us), the experience can seem a
bit surreal.

I was a prospective juror on a murder trial, and I was one of the last in the
first round of jurors to get questioned. The one memory that stands out most
is that the lawyers mostly refused to reject any jurors with blue-collar jobs
(i.e, service jobs, or any non-white collar job). When it came to those with
more professionally ranked jobs, they were thrown off in rapid order. It seemed
like the lawyers wanted people they could easily sway with argument, even in the
face of hard evidence to the contrary (think OJ). Of the people they retained,
I recall that one was a grocery clerk, another was a bank teller, and yet
another was a retail camera salesman.

At the time I was highly-ranked programmer with a well-known airline. They
didn't go much beyond the "what do you do for a living" question.
After about 1 minute of questioning by the defense attorney, he moved to have me
dismissed. The other side agreed, and so ended that particular juror
experience.

Perhaps some seasoned lawyers who read this site can comment further on this
type of juror selection strategy.


---
Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unreasonable Searches
Authored by: jldill22 on Tuesday, March 01 2005 @ 08:26 PM EST
I find it interesting that prospective jury members must submit to a scanning
search. In every other case, at least in so far as I can currently think of,
the scanning search is a result of some, at least, arguably voluntary choice (or
perhaps the person forced to undergo it is under arrest.) Are jury members (and
perhaps subpoenaed witnesses) then the only people who cannot avoid such a
search, since they must appear in court. Why, then, is this not an
unreasonable search?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: PJP on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:31 AM EST
Interesting read, mainly to be able to compare how thing differ between a big,
civilised city in a big, civilised state and my own experiences in a county
court in Oregon.

First, there were no metal detectors, just signs reminding people that weapons
are not allowed in the court building.

We all had juror numbers, and registered using them (a nice lady checked off our
names on a sheet of paper and greeted us by name). Then we waited in a different
court while ours sorted things out - we just sat in the public gallery seats and
watched another case unfolding - it was boring. I agree about the need to bring
a book.

Eventually we were called into the court, and took seats in the public gallery.
The court clark called out our names (not numbers) and seated those called in
juror seats.

The judge asked if anyone needed to be exceused for any reason - a few made
somewhat feeble excuses and were sent home. The prosecuting lwayers and defense
lawyers were introduced, and the judge painted a rough outline of the case, and
went through the witness list to see if any of us knew any of the lawyers or
witnesses - a few did, but were allowed to remain when they said they were not
known well, and that knowing them would not influence their judgement.

The prosecution then started asking questions - from the questions it was
possible to pretty much guess how the prosecution case was going to unfold. Each
(potential) juror was questioned individually on most of the important points.
Each juror was addressed by name, and asked where they lived, what they did for
a living, details about family etc.

During this questioning a couple of detectives wandered into the court room.
They looked like they had watched a few too many episodes of NYPD Blue - with
badges tucked in their waistbands - probably to avoid being harrased by the
sherrif's deputies because of the guns they were carrying, and seemingly trying
to "accidentally" display to everyone present. They got some dirty
looks from the judge, and when they walked over and sat in the public gallery
amongst the juror pool the judge called a halt to the proceedings and told them
quite sharply to NOT sit with the jurors. They muttered and grumbled, and
eventually left.

When the defence lawers began questioning they too pretty much laid out the case
they were going to use.

After a while, the judge and layers retired to consider which jurors to dump -
since it was mostly obvious what answers they were looking for, I was able to
give some truthfull, but generally unacceptable answers and got to go home early
:-)

You know, I kno which court I would prefer, no matter what side of the case I
was on...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bringing books
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:36 AM EST
The best advice I can give someone reporting for jury duty is: bring a book.

Before she passed away, my mother always told the story about being called for jury duty. She always took the same book, she was always asked what book she was reading, and she always answered by handing the book to the attorney.

She was always dismissed.

The book was "The Republic" in Greek. (And yes, she could read it.)

I guess lawyers don't want eduicated people on the jury.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deselected because your too smart?
Authored by: tce on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:39 AM EST
I wonder if you were removed from the trial because of the *way* you answered
your questions? That is, you showed an ability to decompose the topic, look at
it from different perspectives and methodically analyze the elements. If the
lawyers are trying to sell a story... you are no help.

- tom

[ Reply to This | # ]

peremptory challenges
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 01:22 AM EST
My wife has been called for jury duty twice in the last few years. Both times,
it was the same thing: they call her name, the defense attorney takes one look
at her, and she's out of there on a preemptory challenge.

The first time, she thought maybe it was the way she was dressed, or the fact
that she works for the government. But after the second time, I saw a common
element that I think is more likely the cause.

Both cases were criminal assault cases, and both times she said the defendant
looked *so* *guilty*. My guess is that it showed on her face, and the defense
lawyer did his job: he used a preemptory challenge to exclude a juror who was
prejudiced against his client.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens if one refuse?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 02:17 AM EST
I live in norway and we do not have jurys in our courts. All is decided by th
Judge(s).

Let us say that I was told to report for jury duty (in USA).
So, what happens if I refused to be a jury member?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A pessimists view...
Authored by: muswell100 on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 03:52 AM EST
I sat on a jury some months ago. Given that this was by no means a case
deserving media coverage and that it was a British court this may not be a fair
comparison, but I don't recall ever being asked questions of the kind mentioned
in this posting (virtually 'Do you believe the defendents to be guilty or not
guilty?', etc.) although given my opinion of how the law operates today, it
doesn't surprise me much.

A good many years ago, my wife started taking a course in law with a long-term
view to moving into the legal profession. After 5 months she gave it up, having
decided that she could have no part in a profession where - in her view -
justice played very little part in the proceedings. In her view, the legal
system was mostly about point-scoring and finding ways to manipulate the law to
the best advantage of the lawyer. Sadly, this is how the SCO's of this world get
a foothold to begin with. If they believed the system was truly just, they
probably wouldn't have bothered trying to extort money from IBM and the Linux
community in the first place.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Justice and the Law are mutually exclusive.
But the presence of one certainly does not imply the inclusion of the other.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Knock knock...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:33 AM EST
"Knock knock"
"Who's there?"
"Michael Jackson."
"Michael Jackson who?"
"You're on the jury, then..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Knock Knock...
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:45 AM EST

Who's there?

Michael Jackson.


Michael Jackson who?





Great! You're on the jury!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: zzeep on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 08:32 AM EST
Sorry for the troll, but when I read:
"Then I was asked if I thought a parent might influence their child to lie. I said that I had never known anybody to do this. That most parents I know wouldn't do this for fear of the damage it would do to their child."

I just could not help but think: You don't get out much, do you?
And to be more polite: You are just plain wrong. Alot of people do that. It starts with the small lies; wait about 10 meters in front of entrance line at a fun park, where children below age 4 can get it free and older children have to pay full entrance price. Listen how many parents tell their 4 year old kids: "When they ask you how old you are, you have to say you are 3 years old OK?"
The kids then say, holding up 4 fingers, "But mommy, I am 4 years!"
"Just say you're 3 years old. When you do I will buy you an ice cream once we get in the fun park"

Now exchange the lie about age to the lie about being molested, and then also change the reward of an ice cream to a reward of many million dollars...

So again I can't resist: You don't get out much, do you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Signatures on Passport application
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:42 AM EST
I got out early enough to meet my wife and daughter at another government building to sign my daughter's passport application. Since she is under fifteen, all of us are required to sign. This somehow prevents kidnapping.

It does prevent kidnapping -- in the admittedly rare case where one parent intends to remove the child from the country without the other parent's knowledge. Imagine yourself divorced from your wife. Would you want her to take your daughter out of the country without your knowledge?

Don't be snarky about risks you can't preceive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:46 AM EST
I remember it was very interesting being questioned as a potential juror in a
murder trial. The middle aged, professional appearing prosecuting attorneys
compared to the young, nervous sounding defense attorney. The man sitting next
to me, who when aksed if he knew any police officers, said "only the ones
that arrested me" for something to do with a loaded shotgun (that's one way
to get out of jury duty).
The prosecutors kept asking everyone if they thought that a man's fists could be
considered lethal weapons. (the defendant was a very large, muscular man, and
had apparently beaten someone to death, it seemed like the defense was going to
claim self-defense with no intent to kill)
The really interesting thing, though, was that the defense attorney kept asking
potential jurors if they understood that the defendant was not guilty unless
proven guilty in a court of law - and the prosecutors kept jumping up and
objecting, noting that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, but that
he was not "not guilty" until acquitted in a court of law. The judge
upheld those objections, and eventually got kind of mad at the defense for
makeing the same mistake again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MJ's Jury Selection
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 10:14 AM EST
Ohh yea they forgot to ask the ultimate question.

Question: What do you think of a defendant who's been previously accused of
several child molestations all settled out of court under hush hush agreement?

BRAAaaap!! Wrong answer! Next juror!!

P.L.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PEOPLE! CHECK OUT "FIJA"!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 12:17 PM EST
I didn't read them all, but I saw no main body comments referring to FIJA in their titles, so here it is.

FIJA is the "Fully Informed Jurors Association", and the info at their site should be a *must read* for every American citizen who is called to Jury duty (and even for those who aren't, but might be!). FIJA

Please, visit the website and learn some valuable information about your Rights and your Duties as a Citizen sitting on a jury. This is stuff that the legal system *WILL NOT TELL YOU* (and even scarier, don't have to, per a decision by the Supreme Court which allows them to keep their silence), but which you really should know.

Just *don't* tell the Judge or the lawyers about what you learn at the FIJA site - or you will be passed over like someone with body odor, bad teeth, and an air-vectored STD, and silenced from sharing your knowledge by order of the law. I share this from my own experience.

When the Judge asked the jury pool if we would swear to decide on the case based only on the evidence and how it pertained to *the law as only interpreted to the jury by the judge*, and *NOT* whether we felt the Law itself was proper or right, or whether it was being applied in a fair manner to our fellow Citizen, I was one of those who raised my hand in objection to the concept. Why? I felt, and feel, that a Juror has the Right and Duty as a Citizen to decide whether or not some law passed somewhere by some entity is proper or not, and I felt/feel that I am intelligent enough to use my "vote" to keep other Citizens from wrongful application of unjust laws, if need be. (Does anyone who reads Grok think that all of our laws are unquestionably right, all of the time? I'd bet not! :) ).

After a brief private conference down and center with the Judge and the lawyers from both sides, I was put under a bench order which kept me from sharing what I knew with any other Citizens in the juror pool, under penalty of fines and/or jailtime up to 6 months. The Judge also restricted me from being empaneled, and made me stay in the courtroom anyway. She said she wanted to talk to me privately after the jury selection, but she never did. I would have loved to speak with her on the subject.

Anyway, in light of such experiences, ask yourself this - Why doesn't the legal system want us to know what Jury duty is really about? What harm is there in a fully informed jury? Is a vote cast while on a jury not one of the most effective votes that you can cast as an American Citizen? Where else, how else can those of us who are the "common man" participate in the judicial process?

I am not affiliated with FIJA in any way, shape or form, but in educating myself about the Jury process before serving as a Juror, theirs was one of the sites I read. I didn't really think that what is there could be true, it seemed too tin-foil-hatish, too conspiracy-theory oriented.

But it all turned out to be exactly as described. Scary, very scary, and quite eye opening. Ever since my experience, I have regarded our whole system with a different viewpoint than what I had before.

Please at least take the time to check it out, and then you can make up your own mind the next time you get called to sit.

Here is the link again. It's important. Share it, please. FIJA

Thanks, and good luck! :) KR

PS - PJ, I think a discussion on this topic might be a great thing to have on Groklaw sometime. Thanks in no small part to your efforts on this site, it is obvious that there are some serious deficiencies in our current legal system, and Juror education would go a long way towards correcting some of that, perhaps. YMMV of course, I just wanted to help my fellow Grok'ers know that they aren't being told everything that they should. (BTW - Thanks for looking out for yourselves and your cronies, Supreme Court, and making our legal system all that it is... :/ ).

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 02:41 PM EST
I got called for jury selection years back. Here in Arizona, jury pools are
taken from the voter registration lists, so for anyone in Arizona trying to
avoid jury selection, don't vote. :)

Anyhow, I had to drive 196 miles to the courthouse (I was on the extreme edge of
the court's jurisdiction) and stay overnight. The state would eventually pay me
back a certain amount per mile and a set amount on the hotel, but it took months
for them to do so. In the meantime, it all came out of my pocket.

Another annoying aspect of jury duty in Arizona is that the impact of your
serving on your place of employment was not a consideration of serving. At the
time I was called, I was an irreplaceable member of a major project our company
was developing. Getting saddled with an extended case would have bankrupted the
company. This was of no concern to the state.

The funny part of it all was that after all the time and trouble and money, I
was never even called as they filled the jury long before reaching me. I chalked
it up to a long, unpaid, mid-week trip to scenic Prescott. The scenery was nice
at least.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 04:39 PM EST

Jury duty is a vital part of a free society. If you want to "get off" jury duty because it's inconvenient, boring, etc you don't deserve to live in a (relatively) free country.

But - that does not mean the government should be able to get away with treating jurors like shit. 6 hours (8:30 to 14:30) with no meal breaks. 10-minute breaks to go to the toilet when there's a 20-minute queue for the toilet. Reimbursement of expenses that falls far short of actual expenses necessarily incurred (this was in some of the responses, not the main article). The jury has the power to restrain injustice by the government and the legal system, so I suppose it's natural for bureaucrats and judges to hate them. Somehow, we've let them get away with it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Groklaw Member Reports on Jury Selection at the Jackson Trial
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 02 2005 @ 09:03 PM EST
When I was called up for an served on the Jury in a
criminal case we were told to forget everything we knew
about the case. We were to assess the case on the evidence
and testimony presented only. Feelings and intuition were
to play little part.

Unlike many people, I wanted to serve. We all have a duty
to our country, and to our brother and sister citizens to
ensure that our legal system is strong, fair and reliable.

I say to you, do not look on Jury service as an
inconvenience, but a chance to contribute to your
country's welfare.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This saddens me
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 05:42 PM EST
> Anyone who has traveled by air, gone to a rock concert, or
> large theme park will be familiar with this kind of
> screening.

Sometimes I want to scream. This is one of those times.

The country that I come from (I'm antipodean) does not engage in these kinds of
activities. I have never in my life been screened (meaning in this context,
searched, scanned by a machine or quizzed), for any activity other than to leave
the country. Even then, my baggage was x-ray'd, but I personally was not. The
police in my country do not carry guns. Neither do criminals.

Honestly, I would not go to any place that chose to treat me in this way. As I
result, I will never see America (amongst other reasons, since i reverse
engineer MS software for interoperabilty purposes, now essentially forbidden
under the DMCA). But something within me feels that I don't really want to go
there anyway. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

It saddens me to think that already the citizens of the US feel that invasive
searches are the norm, just to be entertained. If George Orwell were alive
today, he would be shocked.

<breath>

To bring this back vaguely on topic, MJ will never have a fair trial. A fair
trial is impossible given the amount of media attention to this case, and the
intrusive, sensationalist nature of commercialised corporate news reporting.

The alledged victim will also not have a fair trial, **for exactly the same
reasons**.

Justice should be done, and should be seen to be done.

Why can't they televise the trial once it's finished?

Answer: Because by then, its old news... Kind of like the tsunami. That was an
event big enough for Groklaw to deviate from its regular programming for. Does
MJ's trial deserve the same attention?

Just some food for thought.

Jon (TaoBoy)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )