First-time jury duty

I was on a criminal trial jury for a guy accused of trying to buy meth from a police informant (his former hookup, who testified against him). The cops had a video from their unmarked car of the deal supposedly going down, but there was a gap of 10 seconds or so. We knew he was guilty, but the gap gave him just enough wiggle room for probable cause, and we found him not guilty. I would bet gambling money that he got busted again and spent time in jail. He wasn't the brightest bulb.

The first round of voting was, like 10-2 to convict, with me being one of the holdouts. It took about four rounds of voting for us to reach a unanimous verdict.

The prosecutor was pissed when the verdict was read.

 

They only called one round. I wasn't included. I kinda wanted to be. When they announced that there would be no more calls, the room broke out into a rather impolite applause, I thought.

I really don't get why people hate this so much. I spent time on SJ.com and read a book. It was very relaxing.

I understand if people don't get paid for it, I guess, but I'm going to guess people just like to bitch about stuff.

 

Not worst thing in the world, but still a drag.
I have work I'd like to get done, and if I don't have to work I'd rather be doing something else.
Getting picked is even more of a drag because the trials are usually boring and it may involve more than one day.

It's just a drag, but no one said it was supposed to be fun. It's just something that has to be done.

 

Probable cause? Or do you mean reasonable doubt? Curious to what the defense attributed the gap in the tape.

 

I was on a civil jury about 10 years ago and enjoyed the experience, though it was a dental malpractice trial that took up two and a half weeks. It killed me not to be able to dig up info on who the parties were during the case. In the end, we found the dentist not liable, and a walk through Lexis Nexis that night showed that the plaintiff had sued several people in her life, never successfully.

When I was ok the grand jury, the tough part was and still is NEVER being allowed to look up the parties involved. Every now and then I'll see something about a trial or sentencing and think, hmm.

 

I served two days of jury duty last week. A lot of filling out questionaires, and a lot of walking from the conference room they had us in to the courtroom and back. Five juries selected for four criminal cases and one civil. I was not selected for any. Still, it was interesting to see the selection process.

 

Can’t believe you are proud of that, that’s reprehensible. We knew he was guilty but...? There is no but. Maybe he did get busted again. What if it was murder? Or another violent crime? Still feeling glib!

 

The question is not whether jury "knew" the defendant was guilty, whatever that means. The question is whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was.

 

JFC I hope you're never on a jury. If you want to argue the 10-second gap inspired "unreasonable doubt" I might be able to buy that.

But get out of here with this "there is no but" nonsense.

 

I'm confused though. The defendant had wiggle room for probable cause?

It's always difficult. The standard is not beyond doubt; it's beyond reasonable doubt.
I was on jury for assault trial. Perps and victim - everyone involved was completely despicable.
There was doubt, but in the end it was not reasonable.

On a murder trial I covered, community was convinced defendant was guilty. Jury acquitted and I thought they did a good job.
Defendant may have done it, but doubt was reasonable.

 

Unless you had knowledge of the case beforehand, which is improbable, the only reason the jury’knew’ the defendant was guilty was based on the evidence. You and your jury apparently looked for a reason to acquit, therefore, for reasons beyond the evidence, the law and the instructions the judge gave you. You “Knew” the defendant was guilty because the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You chose to ignore what you knew for other reasons