I got a notice today....

[Tom W.]

I got a notice from the city that I was selected for jury duty. That in itself isn't a problem.

I called the number on the notice, identified myself, and told the lady that I have colon cancer and chronic diarrhea since my last surgery, but I'd show up as expected.

She promptly told me that I was excused.....

[LUCKYDAWG13]

is that all it takes I have been called 2 times in the last 4 years

[NyFirefighter357]

I wonder if I don't get my enhanced drivers license being I don't have a passport how they can mandate I serve Federal jury duty. Can't serve if I'm not allowed in a Federal building. It's a real hassle to get to Fed court might be as far as NYC & who wants to go there?

[brewer12345]

One of Dad's friends years ago was a self employed stove repairman and in the early years of going it on his own money was tight as he plowed money back into the business. At a critical time for him he got a jury duty summons. He checked the box that said he could not serve because he was a felon and never got another jury summons.

[Winger Ed.]

That reminds me, of the several times I've been called. Awhile back, I got three summons in 15 months.

Sitting there in one of the pools, the judge came out and told everybody,
"You want to get tough on crime? ........Here's your big chance".

[abunaitoo]

I'm odd.
I enjoy Jury Duty.
Been on four juries.
I even called back asking if I could volunteer for more.
They said "no".

[Tom W.]

I wouldn't mind doing it again, but they'd have to delay the proceedings for me.....and there's no special time when the urge hits, even with my meds....

[country gent]

tell the judge rope is recyclable and can be used many times. I usually send a letter back with the summons paper work stating my health issues when they call back a say I need a doctors excuse I say will serve if they don't mind if I have an accident in their floor.

[JBinMN]

For some reason, when I ask if "Jury nullification" is still not supposed to be discussed among the jurors, I am quietly told that I am not needed to show up anymore... Imagine that... Have not heard from them in many years...
;)

[hwilliam01]

I used to stand up when the judge asked if there was anything anyone wanted to say after the jury selection....."Hang the bastard....he's guilty....I can see it in his eyes...."

[blackthorn]

I was called once while I was still working. My work entailed traveling province wide with two weeks file preparation for the hearings. My employer got me excused. Here, when you turn 65 you can request to be taken off the list, so I did that. No more call-ups.

[dangitgriff]

For some reason, when I ask if "Jury nullification" is still not supposed to be discussed among the jurors, I am quietly told that I am not needed to show up anymore... Imagine that... Have not heard from them in many years...
;)

And that is 100% legal, regardless of what any judge says otherwise.
Any judge that bans talk of jury nullification in his courtroom or jury is breaking the law.

[thraxx]

TIL: about jury nullification. thanks JB!

[Bookworm]

What happens in the jury room during deliberations is completely and totally up to the Jury itself. It is essentially autonomous, organizing itself, and conducting itself according to its own rules.

If the jury wishes to nap on the floor of the jury room, there is no one to tell it different.

I have been called many times, and have sat on 2 juries, one in a Fed Court. The jury room is roughly sound-proofed, with a guard at the door.

The Judge can stop you from leaving, but he has no control over what happens inside.

[DocSavage]

Guess I'm lucky only been called twice first time I was called sat for a couple of hours waiting to be picked was rejected for whatever reason,second time the trial was postponed. Next year I will be 70 and according to state law I can refuse to serve with no penalties.

[redhawk0]

When asked if there is any reason I can't serve...I just say "no...(snap my finger)...I can spot guilty people just like that"

redhawk

[Texas by God]

Take a sharpie and draw a big bold crucifix on your forehead. Pretty sure that'll do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Sig556r]

Me & my wife, on separate occasions, got jury summons preceded by traffic ticket, so I don't buy the random selection bs.
I was lucky that mine was at a nearby local court & I wasn't even selected to be interviewed, while that of my wife was in downtown where parking is expensive plus it took her almost a day to be even interviewed, but consequently was dismissed.
Nonetheless, we still think its worthwhile as a civic duty in spite of the inconvenience.

[Land Owner]

I was selected, once, but did not have to serve. The mere fact that a jury was ready to be seated gave the DUI perp the motivation to negotiate a reduced sentence for his guilty plea.

I was also held over for 14 continuous days as a potential jurist once (ordinarily it is a ONE DAY service - picked or not) when the case was a "sensational" media-circus murder trial. I was glad to have been excused from that.

[dbosman]

I can't serve on a drunk driving case as my wife's sister and my BILs first wife were killed by drunks. An acquaintance was killed, while walking, by a hit and run who confessed to drunk driving a year later. That limits me to the biggies and domestic assault.
So, I was on a domestic assault case for four days. At the end of the trial, and guilty verdict, we asked the judge if we could sentence the parents of the kids involved. No deal. Drat!
The assaulter and the girl fought over both had useless out of touch parents.

[Petrol & Powder]

I wonder if I don't get my enhanced drivers license being I don't have a passport how they can mandate I serve Federal jury duty. Can't serve if I'm not allowed in a Federal building. It's a real hassle to get to Fed court might be as far as NYC & who wants to go there?

Putnam County is in the Southern District of New York, so potential court house locations are Manhattan or White Plains. My guess is jurors for the White Plains court house are probably pulled from the counties outside of NYC, but that's just a guess. It would seem to me they have enough population to pull from in Manhattan and the Bronx to fill juries.

As for not being able to enter the courthouse without an enhanced driver's license - that's funny. If you get called - let us know how that works...after they let you out and you get access to the internet again. :p

I guess under that theory a defendant on bond would have an excuse. How about the defense attorney?, the clerks?, the court reporter.....?


And BTW, I know you were just joking.

[MaryB]

Got called for one before my back went, murder case where the dude beat his GF to death with a baseball bat. When they questioned me I said "Beat him to death with the same bat" dismissed! Got called after that and my doc did a note to the court. I can't sit for more than an hour or so with my bad back...

[bayjoe]

If you live in Pueblo county in Colorado it is guaranteed you'll get called every year. And yes you will get picked.

[Riverpigusmc]

I get called every year. Every year, the defense attorney rejects me

[Petrol & Powder]

I get called every year. Every year, the defense attorney rejects me

You need to learn how to infiltrate those juries. :-o

[Hickory]

I got called for jury duty only once. The jury was picked before they got to me, I had no interview and was sent home and haven't ever been called since.
My wife has been called more times than I can remember and served 6-7 times.

[Tom W.]

The first time I was called was in Eufaula, and I disregard the notice. I got another saying that if I didn't show up the guys in the brown cars will come and get me. I complied, and was selected for the grand jury. That was a hoot!

[abunaitoo]

With a majority of the people NOT wanting to serve on a jury, I wonder why they didn't let me volunteer for more????
I would think they would NOT want someone who DOESN'T want to be there.
Then again, I wouldn't put it pass some people, who would go there just to sabotage the process.
We just had a big trial that I really wanted to be called for.
Friends joked that I would have been purfect for it.
Same people have three more trials to go, so I might still have a chance.

[OldBearHair]

Last time that I was called up, we were all sitting there as the lawyers came in. The defense attorney looked toward the group, singled me out and dismissed me..The prosecutor's turn was next as I was leaving. I suppose that I seemed too eager to serve.... They don't call anymore at 84 years old.

[Winger Ed.]

Ma Dad hated being called, and he'd have this big long face from when he got the summons until it was over.

In Dallas County, the jury pool room seats at least 400 people, and every morning, it's full.
The head bailiff fella does a 5-10 minute presentation, then you wait until they call for pool members to go to the various courts.

One time, Dad was sitting at the far back of the room,,,, WAY away from the bailiff doing the presentation.
When he was done, he went all the way back, patted Dad on the shoulder, and told him, "Ahhh come on now,,, it ain't that bad".

[fast ronnie]

I've served on a couple of juries. Was on a murder trial for six weeks, then had to go back for the sentencing part. A guy beat a girl to death with a bat. Problem started with some drug deal and they went in her house to steal her stereo and then teach her a lesson. I think he is still on Death Row, and it's been more than thirty years.

[pete501]

I don't mind doing my civic duty and have served on several juries. Never got paid from work for serving and enjoyed it.

Once during jury selection the lawyer asked the jurors what guns they own. I requested to respond in private and was excused.

[NyFirefighter357]

Putnam County is in the Southern District of New York, so potential court house locations are Manhattan or White Plains. My guess is jurors for the White Plains court house are probably pulled from the counties outside of NYC, but that's just a guess. It would seem to me they have enough population to pull from in Manhattan and the Bronx to fill juries.

As for not being able to enter the courthouse without an enhanced driver's license - that's funny. If you get called - let us know how that works...after they let you out and you get access to the internet again. :p

I guess under that theory a defendant on bond would have an excuse. How about the defense attorney?, the clerks?, the court reporter.....?


And BTW, I know you were just joking.

People here do get jury duty in Manhattan but your right most Federal is in White Plains which is much closer but It isn't any better parking wise. I hate when I have to work near the court house as the metered parking is usually full and it's only 1hr with limited spots. I jump at the local jury duty just to prevent me from having to go further. As a Vol. fireman we were exempt from jury duty but that changed over 20yrs ago.

[Petrol & Powder]

Federal court is pretty good at paying jurors for their expenses, including travel and parking. Doesn't make the job fun but they at least try to not punish jurors.

From the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Juror FAQ web page:

" If you live outside New York City and drive your car, either to your local train station or to the courthouse, the Court will pay your parking and toll costs, over and above the mileage fee. The Court does not own a parking lot for jurors. Park in a private or municipal parking lot. Receipts are required for reimbursement of parking and toll costs except where using a parking meter or EZ-PASS."

http://nysd.uscourts.gov/jury_faq.php

[pworley1]

I asked our county circuit clerk why some people seem to never get called and some of us get called more often. He explained that in our county only a portion of the registered voters were put in the jury pool at one time. He said that a certain percentage of the eligible residents were randomly selected and for a period of time that was the only group that the juries were chosen from. When the next random selection occurs some of that group might be selected again, and some people might never get selected for the pool.

[Hickory]

I think I know why I never got called up for jury duty again, I remember filling out a questionnaire and one of the questions was about hearing and I answered that I had hearing loss. That must have been the disqualifier.

[gwpercle]

I wonder if I don't get my enhanced drivers license being I don't have a passport how they can mandate I serve Federal jury duty. Can't serve if I'm not allowed in a Federal building. It's a real hassle to get to Fed court might be as far as NYC & who wants to go there?

When I found out they paid Federal Jurors $50 (less than a week) to $60 (more than a week)
every DAY , I tried to volunteer .... A 10 day trial would get you $600.00 , not bad for sitting around and not breaking a sweat .
In Louisiana the regular court pays a whopping $12.00 a day...a 10 day trial gets you $120.00 !

The only perk that comes with being 70 years old is you don't have to do jury duty if you don't want to...that's about it .

[Petrol & Powder]

Jury duty is a civic duty, not an occupation. Instead of looking at the low amount paid to jurors for performing a needed service, perhaps one should look at the pay, regardless of how paltry, as a bonus. Some little compensation that you were awarded but not entitled to.

And it would be good to remember the source of that pay for jurors. In my state if a criminal defendant is convicted, the defendant is responsible for a portion (but not all) of the trial costs, including the cost of a jury. However, if a defendant is not convicted those costs are borne entirely by the taxpayers. So if you serve on a jury, regardless of the outcome of the trial, you are essentially paying yourself. If the defendant is convicted the court will require the defendant to pay court costs which, if collected, will only partially offset the public cost of the trial. If the defendant is not convicted the public will bear the entire cost of the trial. And of course, you would do well to remember that few criminal defendants actually PAY their court costs.

IS JURY DUTY A BURDEN ? The answer is YES, but it is a burden all good citizens must bear.

We all have our lives and would like to live them, without interference, as we see fit. However, there are duties required of citizens. During times in our nation's history we have drafted people to serve in the military. That requirement included the very real possibility of serious injury, disfigurement, imprisonment as a POW or even death.

There have been times in our history when all able bodied men were required to assist in firefighting.

The concept of being called to assist in the apprehension of criminals is not that old.

And of course there are taxes collected to support government.

The right to a jury trial is enshrined in the Constitution.
The 6th amendment in part:

"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 the right to a jury trial is also preserved in Article III, Section 2:

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

In order to provide that jury we must occasionally have..........people to serve as jurors !

Yes it is inconvenient. Yes the pay sucks. Yes the selection process may appear to be a bit mysterious. And YES, it is a civic duty.

[Bookworm]

I have never tried to shirk jury duty. I always figured that, if I needed a jury, I want one available.
So if some other fella needs one, I'm available in my turn.

[MrWolf]

Where I am at now my mailing address is in one county but my physical address is another. Got a notice to serve in the other county and just told them where I physically reside. I doubt their system could handle it so probably won't be selected again. I couldn't serve anyway due to my neck and back but that is another issue.

[Land Owner]

The old adage is Jury Duty is a civic duty but do not discount that if you shirk it for no good reason, YOU will be put in jail and may need a jury of your own.

I looked at it as an adventure. One that you will get no other way. Consider it an inside look at Justice in America. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is what juries, judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, and defendants do all day, every day.

[abunaitoo]

Funny jury story
We were in in the box, being questioned by the lawyers.
Old guy sitting in the front.
LW- Do you know why you are here????
OG- My grand daughter say I get letter. I have to be here.
LW- But do you know why you are here????
OG- My grand daughter say i have to be here.
LW- But do you know what is going on????
OG- My grand daughter say I have to be here.
LW- How did you get here????
OG- My grand daughter drop me off.
LW- Where is she now????
OG- She go to work.
LW- How will you get home????
OG- My grand daughter say she pick me up after work.
It was funny, but kind of sad.
Poor guy had no idea what was going on.
He got excused, they led him in the back.
I think to see if they could get someone to pick him up.
Jury duty has been mostly interesting.
Some of them should NOT have been on the jury.
Once before they started the selection, the judge ask if there was anyone who felt the could not serve.
Many stood up.
As they each went up to the judge, one guy said, pointing at the defendants, "they are hawaiian, they cannot be tried in a non hawaiian court"
Judge told him to take a seat.
Funny thing is, selection went on for two days.
Guy had to come back everyday.
I'm sure he was not happy.

[Petrol & Powder]

Last time I checked, Hawaii is in the United States. If the native Hawaiians don't like that fact, they're welcome to leave - If they stay, they need to act like American citizens.

[abunaitoo]

We're the ones who will have to leave.
They want the island back, but they want to keep all the benefits.
Keep on telling them they can't have it both ways.
They don't listen.
They are to busy fighting among themselves.
They stab each other in the back all the time.
Always in court for corruption.
Just had the Asst Prosecutor, and her police chief husband convicted.
Both hawaiian.
Very sad.
I have lots of hawaiian friends.
They are sick of the selfish trouble makers.

[dangitgriff]

Glad someone brought up jury compensation...
How is it the state gets to lawfully sideline you for potentially a week or longer and pay you just a small percentage of your salary?
I go to work to pay my bills. They need to compensate me for my time—every hour I’m there, I lose money, and that affects my family. That pisses me off.
Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole.

[Petrol & Powder]

Glad someone brought up jury compensation...
How is it the state gets to lawfully sideline you for potentially a week or longer and pay you just a small percentage of your salary?
I go to work to pay my bills. They need to compensate me for my time—every hour I’m there, I lose money, and that affects my family. That pisses me off.
Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole.

".... Someone please post settled law cases that give the state authority to hold you without making your salary whole..."

The short answer is, "You're not special". All qualified citizens that do not fall under one of the exemptions for jury duty are subject to potential jury duty.

Because the individual right to a jury trial is strongly established in the Constitution, the state [government] clearly has the authority to summon people to serve as jurors. If the state is required to provide juries then the state has the authority to procure potential jurors.

The proper form of that question is: "If I'm forced to serve on a jury and I lose income as a result of that forced service, what can I do about it?" ; and the answer is very simple - you can do NOTHING !

The state not only has the authority to procure jurors, the state has an absolute need to provide jurors.
Because the state and federal government have sovereign immunity (you can't sue the king unless the king gives you permission to sue him), you have no recourse.

Now, both federal and state government recognize that hardships exist and there are laws to provide relief. The elderly are exempt from jury duty, nursing mothers are generally exempt, sole proprietors of farms and businesses are often exempt, persons with disabilities are often exempt and there are other exemptions. However, the government needs jurors, so they can't make everyone exempt.

Why are some sailors and soldiers forced to stand watch or pull guard duty while others get to sleep? The answer is someone must stand watch for the protection of all. It's not fun, it's not easy but sometimes it is just your turn and it needs to be done.
Why do we force people to serve on juries? Because it is necessary for the protection of all.

As a practical matter, federal employees are not eligible for compensation from the court when they serve as jurors but they get their regular pay while serving on a federal jury. Many private sector employers will voluntarily pay their employees while their employees are on jury duty.

If none of the above assuages your concerns about the loss of income while performing your civic duty, my final advice to you is to become a convicted felon - then you will never have to worry about serving on a jury for the rest of your life.

[dangitgriff]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190817/77de08330176fe9b9bab4b6c49fafe20.jpg
This sounds like something you read about in communist China or Soviet-era Russia, not in a supposedly free society.

I wonder how many millionaires have ever been subjected to a trial by his peers—12 other millionaires who dutifully answer the call to serve on a jury? I can’t recollect any...do they have an excuse the rest of us don’t qualify for?

[Petrol & Powder]

dangitgriff wrote, "This sounds like something you read about in communist China or Soviet-era Russia, not in a supposedly free society. "

In China or Soviet-era Russia or current North Korea or many other places; you wouldn't get a JURY trial at ALL.

If you view the U.S.A. as a "supposedly free" country and wish to leave - this is NOT North Korea, or the former East Germany; you are FREE to leave.

Free society doesn't mean anarchy. Free society doesn't mean everything in life is fair. With citizenship comes responsibility. There have been times in our nation's history that we have drafted people for military service and paid them very little for their time during that service. That pay wasn't based on their income before they were drafted. In addition to that low pay they also received the very real potential of being killed in the service of their country. FREEDOM ISN'T FREE !

You're demanding that if you are "drafted" into jury service, that you be compensated for that civic duty, during the duration of that civic duty, at your prior pay rate.

Let's explore your theory that jurors should be compensated for their time during jury service at their normal hourly rate.

Assume you are charged with a crime that carries the potential of incarceration. You are entitled to a trial by jury and you exercise that right to have a jury trial. That's a Constitutional right that you have and Soviet-era Russians or current day North Korean subjects do not have.

After a lengthy process of seeking impartial jurors we end up with a jury comprised of 12 people that all normally earn a living in excess of $100/hour. The are crane operators, airline pilots, skilled technicians, etc.
The trial runs 8 hours a day for one week. That's $1200/hour for 40 hours or $48,000 in lost wages that you believe those jurors are entitled to.

NOW - let's say you are convicted, receive a suspended jail sentence, a fine of $1000 plus court costs. If the state charges the convicted defendant for the cost of the jury (my state does exactly that), you would owe $49,000 for that particular trial and that's before we bill you for your free public defender if you couldn't hire your own lawyer. Another defendant that was tried by jurors that made minimum wage would owe less at the end of a similar trial.

NOW - let's change the outcome of the trial and say you were found not guilty. You are not responsible for the cost of that jury because we don't assess court costs when people are found not guilty. Under your theory the taxpayers would then be responsible for compensating those jurors at their normal hourly rate and that trial would cost the taxpayers $48,000.

We don't have full time professional jurors in this country. Jury service is not an occupation. We don't pay jurors a hourly rate commensurate with their normal pay because jury service is a civic duty, not an occupation. It is something expected of you as a citizen.

FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.

[Winger Ed.]

[QUOTE=We don't have full time professional jurors in this country. Jury service is not an occupation. We don't pay jurors a hourly rate commensurate with their normal pay because jury service is a civic duty, not an occupation. It is something expected of you as a citizen.
FREEDOM ISN'T FREE.[/QUOTE]


Where's that 'like' button? I want to hit it a couple times.

[GL49]

[QUOTE=Winger Ed.;4709303]Where's that 'like' button? I want to hit it a couple times.

Last jury I was on I told the judge I wouldn't be able to sit for more than an hour or my legs would get numb, and I would need headphones because of my hearing loss. His reply was "you can move around as long as you didn't leave the jury box and the headphones are wireless"
My reply to him? "That'll work for me".

If you have a legitimate reason why you can't serve, I'm good with that. No problem.
However, if you're just figuring a way to "beat the system", well, we'll have to disagree about what should be expected from a responsible citizen.

[JBinMN]

Just so folks understand, I am not against one doing the civic duty serving their jurisdiction as a jury member. What I am against is tyranny, unfair laws(legislation) & abuse of laws as they were written by legislators who did not foresee, or overlooked the constitutionality whether purposefully or ignorantly, the unconstitutionality of such laws, and such laws being prosecuted by over eager prosecutors trying to stack up a record of convictions at the cost of the ones accused.

I will give you one possible example of what I mean.

If I lived in a state that had "Red Flag" laws, and I was part of a jury to determine if that person who had their firearms confiscated, & that person was to be criminally charged with some offense regarding the ownership of those firearms that resulted from a confiscation of the accused firearms,( which "I" consider to be unconstitutional) I would "most likely" find that the crime for which the person was charged with, was the result of an illegal law(red flag) that had violated the due process of that individual ( against the 5th & 14th Amendments) & any resulting charges were "fruit of the poisonous tree", and thus the one charged with the crime as a result of those infringements of the persons Rights would not likely have been pursued if the government & prosecutor had not pursued the criminal charges as a result of the illegal laws.

^ I am not sure I explained that very well, but it comes down to... If someone is charged with a crime that is the result of unconstitutional infringement of that persons rights(Civil), the crime/charge should be nullified by the jury(or a juror(s)) based on those unconstitutional infringements and the person accused should be freed from that prosecution & any possible conviction as a result of that prosecution.

Note - If I understand things correctly, as I am not an attorney... A person who declines a jury trial & instead takes a proceeding presided over only by a judge, will lose the chance of "jury nullification", as a judge will not entertain whether a law is unconstitutional or not, but will follow it until the unconstitutionality of the law(s) is/are decided by other courts, up to the USSC. "If" such laws ever get to the USSC, IOW, the USSC may decide not to to look into the case & decision of the highest court before reaching the USSC ( Usually a District court) will stand. Meaning a person found guilty by a judge will still go to prison while their appeal over the constitutionality of the law works its way up to the USSC & then still may not be addressed by the USSC at all.

I would not want to be a part of sending a person to prison( or whatever punishment) for an unconstitutional law, or the result of prosecutions based on what an unconstitutional law discovered.

So, either folks will understand why I bring up jury nullification or not.

It has nothing to do with shirking ones civic duty, but , IMO, on the contrary, should be a part of the juries instructions for any case before the trial even begins.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse", I have often heard said, and likewise, by not allowing jurors to know about the possibility of jury nullification, shows that whomsoever is not wanting that information to be shared with potential jurors(usually prosecutors) is promoting "ignorance of the law" & trying to basically "stack the cards" for conviction, rather than looking to find the TRUTH of the matter & how that Truth was uncovered.
IF the Truth was discovered by illegal or unconstitutional means, then the charges should not be pursued & the jury should not even have to hear the testimony or attend the trial which should not even happen.

OK, That is it from me. either folks will understand me or not. I don't know now, just how to say it any better for folks to understand...

[Petrol & Powder]

JBinMN, I don't think you need to worry about being on a jury in a criminal trial because no prosecutor worth their salt would allow you to stay in the jury pool after asking this standard voir dire question:

"Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is? "

If you answered that question truthfully (in accordance to what you just wrote in post #51) a prosecutor would strike you for cause and you would never make it onto the final jury panel.

[skeettx]

1. I have a letter from my VA audiologist and it says I can not understand words enough to
sit on a jury

2. In Texas, if you are 70 or over, you can ask to be excused

Mike

[Petrol & Powder]

This thread is about jury duty not jury nullification. Those two very separate issues both contain the word "jury" but that's the only thing those issues have in common.

I don't wish to drift this thread too far down this path, so I'll be brief. Jury Nullification is occasionally seen by some as a good thing but it is not always a good thing.

Let's say the state has charged someone with child molestation and puts that person on trial. The state has spent a lot of effort and money gathering evidence and they have gathered a LOT of evidence to support their allegation. The state puts on their evidence and it is all admissible evidence and it is overwhelmingly damning. There is no doubt the defendant is guilty.

But there's a guy on the jury that doesn't believe the laws concerning child molestation are Constitutional laws. He believes the state has met their burden in proving the guilt of the defendant but he doesn't personally agree with the law, so he votes not-guilty. The other 11 jurors vote to convict.

That will result in a hung jury and a mistrial. The prosecution then must decide if they want to do it all over again in a new trial or if they want to let the defendant go. True jury nullification only exists when all of the jurors vote to acquit and double jeopardy prevents the state from doing it all over again.

People tend to talk about jury nullification as if it is always the last protection against a tyrannical government but jury nullification isn't always a good thing or even the will of the general public.

It is important to remember that BOTH sides are entitled to a fair trial. The defense is entitled to a fair trial and the people (the community) are entitled to a fair trial. When individuals start thinking they can pick and choose which laws they like and will obey, they begin to wield the same tyrannical force they feared the government would possess.

[Char-Gar]

I consider jury service to be a civic duty. I have been called many times, but never chosen, due to my background. In Texas being 70 years of age is an automatic excuse, so I don't get jury summons anymore.

[LynC2]

I've been called several times including 1 murder trial. I don't mind serving, however it is a pita because of driving downtown and all the wasted time to in the selection process. Personally I'm more than happy to serve on a jury involving criminal charges as I believe in the maximum if it is warranted.

[woodbutcher]

:lol: In my home town in Fl,I was called for jury duty 3 times.I was always not selected for the jury.Why?Because all three times I was asked if I knew the defendant.I answered yes your honor,And I also have known you Sir since I was 6 years old.Have also known the defense and prosecuting attys all my life.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[dangitgriff]

Re: Jury nullification—
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190817/aba382756e82be5c4c399062a7ffa4bf.jpg
I understand completely.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190817/31443594a805238fe02a01fd5ffba099.jpg
This is false. Jury nullification is nothing more or less than judging the law behind the prosecution of the accused. There is no better or more immediately effective and nonviolent way to curb tyranny than by nullification of unjust laws at the state or federal level, and nullification has been used historically throughout American jurisprudence.
In a free society, jury nullification would be taught as part of civics class in our schools, not hidden and made into an unconstitutionally punishable offense in our courts.
In a free society, that is. [emoji6]

[trapper9260]

I had been call 3 times for duty first was for the state of MA when I live there and serve and the judge made me foreman We got the guy for assault on a EMT and off for disturbing the peace , the 2nd was fed here in Iowa and it was a civil case on Walmart, we found Walmart mainly at fault . Then the 3rd was county here and it was criminal they ask if I serve before and said yes 2 other time they ask about the cases and told them and then about the criminal one and then ask how would I be jury on this case I said I go by the facts they dis miss me and said you serve enough times. I got paid for all the lost pay from the places I work one made up the different and the other place paid me full pay and just had to sign the check I got for serve and turn it in .i did not get any lost of pay. I will serve again if call but they will see I am not new at it .

[Petrol & Powder]

dangitgriff, don't know why you feel compelled to use the largest typeface possible.

And who gets to decide if the law is "unjust" (to use your term)?

Jurors don't get to make their own laws or decide if they personally believe a law is "unjust".

Ask yourself how you would answer the voir dire question I posted earlier, "Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is?"

Jury Nullification does exist, but it isn't always a good thing. Ask yourself if your daughter was raped and the rapist was on trial, would you want someone on the jury that didn't believe the government had the authority to declare rape to be a criminal act? Does that juror get to personally decide if he/she thinks that law is "unjust"? Who is he to place himself above the law ?

[dangitgriff]

The individual sitting in a jury decides—completely independent of state coercion. That’s exactly how it is supposed to work. The individual states have the most nullification power over the national government:
https://youtu.be/37tEeO-qTYo

[Bookworm]

The judge made you foreman?

I've been on 2 juries. The jury voted, via private ballot in the jury room, for foreman. The judge wasn't, and shouldn't be, involved.

[Buzz Krumhunger]

There’s a very nice Federal Courthouse at the edge of my town. But the Federal District Judge doesn’t like to travel here from his home town, so Federal Jury Pool selection and trials take place in Pecos, a hundred miles from here. Pecos is in the middle of an oil boom, so there are seldom any hotel rooms available, and the oil field traffic is treacherous, to boot. I received a notice a couple of months ago that my name was on the Federal Pool list but fortunately I have thus far not received a notice to appear, for some reason.

[blackthorn]

Quote "NOW - let's change the outcome of the trial and say you were found not guilty. You are not responsible for the cost of that jury because we don't assess court costs when people are found not guilty. Under your theory the taxpayers would then be responsible for compensating those jurors at their normal hourly rate and that trial would cost the taxpayers $48,000."

On the other side of the coin, the "taxpayer" who's dollars you defend gets to at at home, go to work and make wages to support his/her family while the juror loses money and time. Some trials drag on for months, potentially bankrupting someone who lives from paycheque to paycheque. A more fair system would be to set jurors pay at the national average pay for all workers. At least then it would mitigate any financial hardship caused by doing you "civic duty".

[Petrol & Powder]

..........

On the other side of the coin, the "taxpayer" who's dollars you defend gets to at at home, go to work and make wages to support his/her family while the juror loses money and time. Some trials drag on for months, potentially bankrupting someone who lives from paycheque to paycheque. A more fair system would be to set jurors pay at the national average pay for all workers. At least then it would mitigate any financial hardship caused by doing you "civic duty".

There's no such thing as government money, there's only your money and my money.

If someone's service on a jury would bankrupt them, that would be an exemption to serve on a jury.

And I notice you live in Canada, I don't know how you handle juries in Canada but I'm happy with the way we do it down here.

[dangitgriff]

A financial incentive would definitely be problematic for seating jurors. Trials would become even more costly for taxpayers than they already are...then again, prosecutors are manipulating defendants to take plea deals to avoid bringing a case to trial.
The system isn’t perfect, but it’s light years ahead of undeveloped nations’ legal systems, where they exist at all. I suppose it will have to do until we run out of other people’s money to hear cases.

[WRideout]

Right after I had resigned from the Ventura County California Sheriff's Crime lab as a blood alcohol analyst, I received a jury summons. When I got there, I found out it was a drunk driving case; most likely the blood alcohol analysis had been done by my former supervisor. I knew I would never be selected for this jury, but it took me until noon to get to the judge and explain. He let me go so I could start my new job. Coincidentally, the secretary from the crime lab was also called for that same jury panel.

Wayne

[Char-Gar]

Some facts to consider when discussing jury duty:

When the jury is impaneled it is sworn in. The jury swears to decide the case based on evidence entered into the court record and nothing else.

In America the jury is the decider of disputed facts and the judge is the decider of the law. When the jury retires to deliberate the disputed facts, the judge gives them instruction on the law which is to be followed.

In either a civil or criminal case, there can be a "Bench Trial" where the judge becomes the decider of disputed facts and the law.

In a civil case, if the jury does not follow the law, a motion for "judgment NOV (not withstand the verdict)" can be made and if the judge agree the jury verdict can be set aside the the judge enter a verdict based on the facts and the law.

In a criminal case, if a jury does not follow the law, there is little the prosecution can do about it because they don't have the right of appeal.

There is no such things as "jury nullification", that is just a term concocked to sugar coat a jury that violates it's sworn oath. Such actions violate the basic principals of American Rule of Law and is dangerous to our Constitutional Republic. The vast majority of other contries do not have trial by jury. In those few that do it is quite different that our jury system. The right to trial by jury is a Constitutional guarantee and when it becomes perverted, the Constitution becomes subverted. Juries that take their oath with great seriousness, are the bedrock of our American system.

[JBinMN]

The concept of "jury nullification", is based on the same principles that formed this nation, The US of A.

A battle against tyranny & unjust laws.

By example, the Declaration of Independence was written based on the same type of concept as jury nullification, that when a law or laws are passed, that are unjust, tyrannical & go against the Rights of men, they should not be followed.

When the men who wrote the Dec. of Independence wrote it, they listed various unjust actions taken against the citizens & that they no longer would follow such unjust & tyrannical laws.

The "Tories" mocked them & questioned their allegiance to the King & parliament, ( perhaps like the most recent post appeared to do, IMO) and took a stance that the King & parliaments laws were not unjust & tyrannical & all should bow to their authority. Claimed the "Patriots" were "treasonous", and breaking their oath as British subjects to follow the King & his sovereignty..

Well, in a way they were "treasonous" to the British King & his sovereignty, since the king was abusing them & they were not going to take it any more. They saw that there were God Given Rights to all men & the laws of the King were infringing on those God Given Rights, as well as not providing compensation for the confiscation & use of civilian property, and thus declared independence from that condition.

So, the "Patriots" were the ones who fought for the Independence from such unjust & tyrannical laws, & history shows who won...

I would prefer to be on the side that has the concept that unjust & tyrannical laws are not to be tolerated & one should do what is necessary to prevent their implementation or exercise. That includes keeping ones commitment to upholding ones principles.

I have not had to take the "sworn oath" of a jury, as I have not yet ever reached that point in such jury selection proceedings. Likely because of my questions about jury nullification & my committment to the principles I have mentioned here. Thus, I have not broken any oath. There would be no need to even worry about the concept of jury nullification if the laws the accused was being charged with breaking were constitutional ones & the evidence used was not discovered thru illegal means , or by the infringement of the accused civil/constitutional rights.

It would be "moot", as there would be no need to be concerned about it.

Even if the jury felt that the punishment "did not fit the crime", such as "death for stealing a loaf of bread", or some sort of unconscionable punishment for a slight offense, I could see where that would be good reason for the concept of "jury nullification" of that proceeding & conviction/punishment.

The concept of jury nullification does exist, regardless of what others may tell folks. As well as the concept being used for more that just criminal trials. As mentioned the concept/principal of people doing what is "right" to preserve the freedom from tyranny & unjust law has been used thru out history for those who felt they were not going to be a part of such acts.

( I might mention , for those who question my use of "thru out history", might consider the Alamo, and the war for TExas independence as just one of those instances, and I will leave other examples for those who wish to look for themselves.)

I would also urge ones who have to consider their presence on a jury, that one might want to take the mindset of considering how YOU would see things, were it YOU on trial, based on an unconstitutional law(s) where the evidence had been possibly obtained thru illegal or unconstitutional means & that illegal or unconstitutional evidence was going to be used against YOU to put YOU in Prison for a long time, or at minimum, Take AWAY your God given right(s), such as the 2nd Amend. RTBA...

OR, how would YOU feel if it was going to be YOU being punished excessively for stealing a loaf of bread, or some other slight crime? Even if the facts had shown that the accused had done the crime, would it be right for the punishment to be excessive to the merit or worth of the crime committed?

Others may not feel that same way. That is just fine with me.

BTW, I do want to ask these learned folks, who seem to think that one should just "follow the unjust laws", just what is the consequences of saying one will not follow this supposed "oath" that jurors take?

Or, put another way, "Is there a consequence for saying one will not take the oath at all?".

If there is some unpleasant consequence to not being willing to take that "oath", then I think that the person who does take the oath against their principles to avoid unpleasant consequences is put into jeopardy(< meaning, "Damned if they do, damned if they don't.) for not taking the oath & thus such an oath is not worth being followed as it coerces /compels someone to do something in which they would feel is wrong in principle to their beliefs. Not unlike a pacifist wanting to avoid taking lives or harming any one & the concept of a "conscientious objector", or the like.

Well, maybe these esteemed & learned folks will take the time to answer those last few questions, at least to share some knowledge of how such things work from their point of view...

Or, not...

[Char-Gar]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00. A Class C misdemeanor is theft of property less than $50.00. I see no great oppressive injustice in this law, unless one thinks stealing another persons property should be legal.

[JBinMN]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00.

It doesn't matter if something is a "federal offense", or not. The principles/concept can be applied for any or all criminal proceedings. ( or punishments)

Is it a matter of will one be ( or is one) compelled to take part in a proceeding in which they feel the law, is unjust/tyrannical, or if the punishment is excessive to the crime committed, and if so compelled by some sort of jeopardy for not complying with what they feel is unjust, should they not follow their principles or should they be a part of the jury decision that will end up with someone having their liberties infringed upon by illegal or un constitutional means, or punished in an excessive manner(cruel & unusual)?

Care to take a shot at answering the questions asked in my previous post?

If not, that is alright. I understand that it is sometimes easier for one to put out an opinion but not want to further defend ones stance against any possible questioning of that opinion... If even for educational reasons & not justification reasons. It happens all the time in the "editorial section" of newspapers & even in the "comments" area below many internet articles. One would not be alone in that regard, anyway.

I simply chose to defend "my" stance & opinion about "my" reasons for considering this supposedly non existent concept of "jury nullification". Others may not feel that way, and if so. I understand.

[David2011]

Jury duty is a civic duty, not an occupation. Instead of looking at the low amount paid to jurors for performing a needed service, perhaps one should look at the pay, regardless of how paltry, as a bonus. Some little compensation that you were awarded but not entitled to.

And it would be good to remember the source of that pay for jurors. In my state if a criminal defendant is convicted, the defendant is responsible for a portion (but not all) of the trial costs, including the cost of a jury. However, if a defendant is not convicted those costs are borne entirely by the taxpayers. So if you serve on a jury, regardless of the outcome of the trial, you are essentially paying yourself. If the defendant is convicted the court will require the defendant to pay court costs which, if collected, will only partially offset the public cost of the trial. If the defendant is not convicted the public will bear the entire cost of the trial. And of course, you would do well to remember that few criminal defendants actually PAY their court costs.

IS JURY DUTY A BURDEN ? The answer is YES, but it is a burden all good citizens must bear.

. . .

Yes it is inconvenient. Yes the pay sucks. Yes the selection process may appear to be a bit mysterious. And YES, it is a civic duty.

Having served for jury duty in three states has given me some perspective.

In Texas you're subject to jury duty for a week under most circumstances. In Harris County (Houston area) the cost to park and eat exceeds the daily payment and often requires going into crowded downtown Houston where there is not reserved parking for jury duty people. IMO a citizen should not have money taken out of pocket to meet the obligations. Once selected for a jury, meals are provided.

In New Mexico, jury duty is onerous. The term is six weeks. Jurors are required to call in and listen to a recording every Sunday through Thursday to find out if they have to report the next day. Six weeks is a long time for the individual and their employer not knowing if the person will be at work the next day. At least when called, the juror is paid enough to cover all expenses including the option to receive a mileage payment. Last time I was called I sat through a trail that took four days. I was the second alternate juror, bumped up to alternate when something happened that a juror was unable to continue and did not get to participate in the deliberations. Fortunately the accused was found guilty on multiple charges after having (initiating) a shootout with the police. He was a previously convicted felon in possession of multiple firearms as well. Those charges were dealt with in a separate Federal trial where he was also found guilty but for some reason a convicted felon was able to procure firearms even though there were laws against him doing so.

The third state was California, about 19 years ago and it seems like it was only a one day obligation. I was not selected for a trial.

[JBinMN]

Stealing a loaf of bread is not a Federal offense. In Texas it is a Class C misdemeanor that carries no jail time, just a fine up to $500.00. A Class C misdemeanor is theft of property less than $50.00. I see no great oppressive injustice in this law, unless one thinks stealing another persons property should be legal.

I see you edited to add to your previous post that I quoted earlier. That happens as well, but you have added something that I want to address.

You seem to be trying to come up with some hypothetical that justifies your stance, using the "loaf of bread" analogy I used previously, but also seem to/appear to fail in understanding that it is not all laws( or cases) that might be questioned for their legality or constitutionality, nor for their punishments being excessive that I am proposing as a possible reason of using the concept of "jury nullification".

I am mentioning it when there is a case where there was an abuse of the evidence gathering that infringed upon ones rights, or the evidence was gathered thru illegal means. Or, when a punisment is determined that is excessive to the crime committed.

{ Your example in the quote above seems to be a reasonable punishment for the crime, and if the evidence was not obtained illegally or infringed on ones constitutional rights, then the whole thing is not one that would even be considered as a reason for the concept of "jury nullification" in either regard. IOW, not so good of an example to defend ones stance in regard to jury nullification. it is an "apple" when "oranges" are being discussed, and while both are round & fruits, there are obvious differences between the two, and most, if familiar with those differences, would not confuse the two..}

If you are unable to understand that someone not wanting to allow, or be a part of a situation where someone is punished or deprived of property/liberty by suspect or illegal means, and instead, think that one should just "go along" with an unjust law or illegal activity, than we are not going to be able to understand one another apparently. That is a pity...

[David2011]

dangitgriff, don't know why you feel compelled to use the largest typeface possible.

And who gets to decide if the law is "unjust" (to use your term)?

Jurors don't get to make their own laws or decide if they personally believe a law is "unjust".



Actually, that is exactly the prerogative of the jury. The jury cannot "make their own laws" but the entire jury, if they believe a law is unjust, can make such a declaration. For example, it is supposedly illegal to photograph a rabbit in Wyoming between January and April without a permit. Since that is in conflict with other laws that permit anything in public view to be photographed I can easily see that law becoming a subject of jury nullification.

[Char-Gar]

JB...I agree that you should not be forced to serve on a jury, but you won't be forced to do so. Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

As to all other matters, you are entitled to your opinion on whatever subject. I will not try and disposse you of any opinion. All I concern myself with are incorrect or mistated facts.

[Char-Gar]

Actually, that is exactly the prerogative of the jury. The jury cannot "make their own laws" but the entire jury, if they believe a law is unjust, can make such a declaration. For example, it is supposedly illegal to photograph a rabbit in Wyoming between January and April without a permit. Since that is in conflict with other laws that permit anything in public view to be photographed I can easily see that law becoming a subject of jury nullification.

A little legal research tells me there is no such law in Wyoming. However at one time there was such a law that applied to all game and not just rabbits. It was passed in 1921. The law was not on the books in 1996, thus it was repealed sometime prior, but how much prior seems to be an unknown. No doubt I could ferret out the repeal date, but "No vale la pena" (not worth the bother). Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.

[Winger Ed.]

Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

Very true.

In selecting a jury the attorneys really don't want anyone with a strong opinion about much of anything,
or anyone with a superior knowledge or experiences on subjects relating to the case at hand.

This is why insurance companies hate going to a jury trial as the defendant.
In the jury selection process,
its almost impossible to find twelve people who haven't been screwed by a insurance company.
Or ones that have, and aren't looking for the chance to give a little 'payback'.

They're looking for folks they can persuade or convince with their arguments during the trial.
It makes their job easier, and a biased juror could be grounds for a retrial or appeal.

[Petrol & Powder]

The Constitution guarantees a trial by jury. If you think jury duty is "onerous", ask yourself how you would feel if you were the accused and wanted that jury trial.

JB, as I pointed out earlier in post #52, you need not worry about serving on a jury. Char-Gar is absolutely correct that you need only to state your views and you will be excused.
Your answer to this question would be more than enough for a prosecutor OR defense attorney to strike you for cause during voir dire:

"Would you have any difficulty or reluctance in accepting the law as explained by the court and applying it to the facts regardless of your personal beliefs about what the law should be or is? "

David2011 - Juries decide facts not law. If jurors start thinking they can disregard the law they are no long upholding their oath.

[Char-Gar]

Very true.

In selecting a jury the attorneys really don't want anyone with a strong opinion about much of anything,
or anyone with a superior knowledge or experiences on subjects relating to the case at hand.

This is why insurance companies hate going to a jury trial as the defendant.
In the jury selection process,
its almost impossible to find twelve people who haven't been screwed by a insurance company.
Or ones that have, and aren't looking for the chance to give a little 'payback'.

They're looking for folks they can persuade or convince with their arguments during the trial.
It makes their job easier, and a biased juror could be grounds for a retrial or appeal.

Having selected both civil and criminal juries on both side of the bar, I can tell you with a high degree of certainity that lawyers do want intelligent jurors who can process complex evidence and arrive as a good decision based the evidence. No lawyer want a jury box full of dumbos or house plants.

What lawyers do not want is jurors that brings bias and predjice into the jury box with them. That is why they take an oath to render their decision based on the evidence they hear in the court room. Bias and prejudice (pre-judging) kill the American jury system.

Despite what you may read here or elsewhere on the Internet, it is possible to find 12 intellegent and honest jurors that will take their oath seriously and render a proper verdict based on the evidence and nothing else. Sometimes you have to go through allot of people in the jury pool to find them, but they are there. They are the backbone of our freedom and liberty and worthy of the respect and gratitude of the American people.

[JBinMN]

JB...I agree that you should not be forced to serve on a jury, but you won't be forced to do so. Just state your thinking as above and you will be excused from jury duty. You will disqualify yourself for jury duty.

Thanks for your civil & polite reply.

It is not that I am looking for a way to avoid jury duty, as I have said before. It is just that I try, as a "concerned citizen", to consider what is just or not when I make decisions. I expect that our elected legislators would do the same, as well as those in the judiciary, meaning in particular, prosecutors/Dist. Atty, et al..

Unfortunately, it seems that at the top of the system, there are certain legislators from States, all the way to those in the US Congress, who think it is just fine to propose & try to implement laws that are un constitutional at their core, and foregoing their own oath to not make laws that are unconstitutional since they swear to "uphold" the US Constitution. Then there are the prosecutors who then try to use such laws to prosecute persons not just to "uphold the law", but to accomplish some other agendas , such as self promotion as a success & as a stepping stone to other more influential( powerful) positions in the future. With that, there are also those prosecutors who will allow other laws to be prosecuted as a result of those unconstitutional laws until they are overthrown by a higher court, while in the meantime the ones accused & if found guilty of such laws still have to suffer until their cases are overturned.

Earlier I used the proposed Federal "Red Flag" laws ( Some states have already implemented them) as an example, and while it may not interest some, I am going to use that proposed legislation to provide an example of what I was trying to get folks to consider earleir to help demonstrate why I think the way I do.

If someone has their property confiscated( firearms) before they have committed a crime, then they are not given "Due Process" under the law as per the US Constitution & the 5th & 14th Amendments. That being the case, if then, while those confiscated firearms are in the possession of the authorities it is discovered that one of those firearms was used in a crime before the person the firearms became the owner of that firearm, the person who had the firearms confiscated could be charged with a crime related to that firearm, & prosecuted for it, even if they had not bee the one involved in any crime & were unaware of the firearms criminal use.

That type of thing would be wrong, in my thinking, and those who would use(prosecute) a law that was unconstitutional to further the prosecution of a law that "was" constitutional, would not be using fair & just practices to obtain a conviction. Basically using "illegal" means to prosecute.

So, even if the person was found to be innocent of the reason for their firearms being confiscated in the first place, the "punishment" of the confiscation illegally, then would result in a further infringement by making the accused person unwittingly be a "witness against themselves" as per the 5th amendment because of the illegal & unconstitutional confiscation in the first place.

This hypothetical can be switched around to any crime that becomes the "fruit of a poisonous tree", so it is not just about the Red Flag type laws, but any law that is put into place that is unconstitutional or the evidence is obtained thru such measures.

Anyone who is willing to be a part of an unjust prosecution, including the jurors, is not much a leap from "lynching" even if the punishment is not hanging. It would be acting as a part of a "kangaroo court", and justice would not be served in a fair manner if it was to be allowed.

OK, I will stop now & bow out & go do other things. I am just one who is quite zealous in my intention to try to make sure that folks are not ignorant of certain concepts that could have direct bearing on not only others, but on themselves if these situationsand potential laws are implemented.

IOW... it could happen to YOU to be on one side(jury) or the other(accused) in regard to such laws & it might behoove folks to be aware of some of the things that might concern themselves or others who they care about if these laws are put into effect.
;)

I'm done now. Thanks for your patience.
:)

[Petrol & Powder]

It seems like every time there's a discussion about jury duty on this forum, some people want to morph it into a discussion about jury nullification.

Some people seem to hold a romanticized view of renegade jurors failing to follow their oath. There's this air that renegade jurors disregarding the law is some type of sword wielded by the people as a last defense to a tyrannical government. They fail to see that lawless activity by jurors as being just as dangerous to freedom as a lawless government.

A rapist is captured and put on trial. All 12 jurors agree that the state's evidence is more than sufficient to convict the accused. However, ONE juror doesn't personally believe the government has the authority to criminalize the act of rape, so he votes not guilty. That juror doesn't think the laws prohibiting rape are "just". He doesn't think rape should be illegal. He personally disagrees with the law.

That action will result in a mistrial. Then the government must decide to let the rapist go or conduct another trial.

The concept that jury nullification is somehow "noble" or a defense against tyranny is wrong. It is term bantered about by people who believe they are above the law. It is a term used by people that believe they personally get to decide which laws they will obey. It is a term used by people that want to justify breaking their oath as jurors.

Ask yourself - if it was your daughter that was raped, would you want her to endure a second trial just because some juror thought it was "cool" to disregard the law? Would you want the rapist to escape justice because some juror thought he was above the law or got to make his own laws?

There is a reason we have laws and there is a reason jurors take an oath to follow the law.

[Char-Gar]

Thanks for your civil & polite reply.

It is not that I am looking for a way to avoid jury duty, as I have said before. It is just that I try, as a "concerned citizen", to consider what is just or not when I make decisions. I expect that our elected legislators would do the same, as well as those in the judiciary, meaning in particular, prosecutors/Dist. Atty, et al..

Unfortunately, it seems that at the top of the system, there are certain legislators from States, all the way to those in the US Congress, who think it is just fine to propose & try to implement laws that are un constitutional at their core, and foregoing their own oath to not make laws that are unconstitutional since they swear to "uphold" the US Constitution. Then there are the prosecutors who then try to use such laws to prosecute persons not just to "uphold the law", but to accomplish some other agendas , such as self promotion as a success & as a stepping stone to other more influential( powerful) positions in the future. With that, there are also those prosecutors who will allow other laws to be prosecuted as a result of those unconstitutional laws until they are overthrown by a higher court, while in the meantime the ones accused & if found guilty of such laws still have to suffer until their cases are overturned.

Earlier I used the proposed Federal "Red Flag" laws ( Some states have already implemented them) as an example, and while it may not interest some, I am going to use that proposed legislation to provide an example of what I was trying to get folks to consider earleir to help demonstrate why I think the way I do.

If someone has their property confiscated( firearms) before they have committed a crime, then they are not given "Due Process" under the law as per the US Constitution & the 5th & 14th Amendments. That being the case, if then, while those confiscated firearms are in the possession of the authorities it is discovered that one of those firearms was used in a crime before the person the firearms became the owner of that firearm, the person who had the firearms confiscated could be charged with a crime related to that firearm, & prosecuted for it, even if they had not bee the one involved in any crime & were unaware of the firearms criminal use.

That type of thing would be wrong, in my thinking, and those who would use(prosecute) a law that was unconstitutional to further the prosecution of a law that "was" constitutional, would not be using fair & just practices to obtain a conviction. Basically using "illegal" means to prosecute.

So, even if the person was found to be innocent of the reason for their firearms being confiscated in the first place, the "punishment" of the confiscation illegally, then would result in a further infringement by making the accused person unwittingly be a "witness against themselves" as per the 5th amendment because of the illegal & unconstitutional confiscation in the first place.

This hypothetical can be switched around to any crime that becomes the "fruit of a poisonous tree", so it is not just about the Red Flag type laws, but any law that is put into place that is unconstitutional or the evidence is obtained thru such measures.

Anyone who is willing to be a part of an unjust prosecution, including the jurors, is not much a leap from "lynching" even if the punishment is not hanging. It would be acting as a part of a "kangaroo court", and justice would not be served in a fair manner if it was to be allowed.

OK, I will stop now & bow out & go do other things. I am just one who is quite zealous in my intention to try to make sure that folks are not ignorant of certain concepts that could have direct bearing on not only others, but on themselves if these situationsand potential laws are implemented.

IOW... it could happen to YOU to be on one side(jury) or the other(accused) in regard to such laws & it might behoove folks to be aware of some of the things that might concern themselves or others who they care about if these laws are put into effect.
;)

I'm done now. Thanks for your patience.
:)

The Congress and the various state and local law making bodies do indeed pass some very self serving, stupid and dangerous laws. Thanksfully we have the concept of Judicial Review where by various courts can kill such laws, if they violate the U.S. or State Constitutions. Can these courts be political tools? Certainly they can and have been. But there are appelate courts to kill lower political ruling that violate the Rule of Law or the Constitution. The ultimate killer of bad laws in the United States Supreme Court and that is what makes the selection of the Justices so very important. Thus far our current POTUS has done a wonderful job with his judicial appointment at all levels of the Federal judiciary.

I do not believe the United States Constitution has a devine origin, but is still is best governance document every produced by human beings. I am very strong support of this magnificant document. I continue to be amazed at just how well the writers thought out all the issues and their consequences. It is just a relevant today as if was when written. It is for this reason, I support our jury system as it is a fundamental part of American liberty and justice. When people think they can jack with the jury system, they also think they can jack with the Constitution.

[Winger Ed.]

This has reminded me of my Dad's long time friend.
This guy was the most cynical, pessimistic person I ever knew.
Whenever I saw him, I'd start to chuckle.
I knew he was going to tell his latest tale of bad luck from some self inflicted event.
He's the guy in the sea stories thread that the Navy Corpsmen gave Preparation H for burned fingers.

He came over one time and told of getting a DWI.

Next time I saw him, I asked how it worked out.
He told me the Judge gave him a big fine, and some community service along with a threatening lecture.
I asked, "The jury didn't give you any jail time"?

He said, "Oh no. I only dealt with the Judge.
I wasn't going to trust my fate to a bunch of people that couldn't get out of jury duty"

[Char-Gar]

He said, "Oh no. I only dealt with the Judge.
I wasn't going to trust my fate to a bunch of people that couldn't get out of jury duty"

Now that is funny, truly funny. Cynical but still funny.

[fatnhappy]

I just pulled jury duty Friday, town court. I was back home 38 minutes after reporting and I stopped for coffee.

[Mr_Sheesh]

From what I've been told, Jury Nullification requires that the entire jury unanimously agree that a law is unjust, and that it should be gone, not just one juror. I'm no expert on the law o'course.

I've been called once, was in bed rest from being injured badly at the time, had to get a Dr's note and was let off. I had a GF who was disabled and who was called, but was challenged by the defense counsel and didn't end up serving.

[Petrol & Powder]

Most states require a unanimous decision by the jury in a criminal case. (Oregon and Louisiana are exceptions) , so it only takes ONE juror to hang a jury.
A hung jury results in a mistrial. A mistrial in a criminal case means the prosecutor gets to decide if he wants to do it all over again.

If the state decides to conduct another trial the defendant's status continues (which may mean he sits in jail for months awaiting another trial) and a new trial date is set. Another 40,50...100..?.. people are summoned for jury duty and another jury panel is selected from those people. It's a "do over", complete with more cost, more inconvenience and at least 12 new jurors.

[DxieLandMan]

My sister-in-law got a notice last week. Only problem? She died in May.

[dangitgriff]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190822/90e32ea5d9be1ec67d5591e9283c160d.jpg
^^^That is what gives a single juror nullification power. The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again. And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not.

[Petrol & Powder]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190822/90e32ea5d9be1ec67d5591e9283c160d.jpg
^^^That is what gives a single juror nullification power. The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again. And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not.

OK, can you stop with the giant text? Seriously it makes it look like you're angry, or you perceive yourself as very important.

Allow me to address these issues individually:

"That is what gives a single juror nullification power......"

Jurors take an oath to follow the law. Jurors decide facts. Judges decide matters of law.

Jurors do not get to decide if they like a law, agree with a law or even if they think a law is Constitutional. Judicial review the domain of a judge. Nor do jurors get to substitute their own laws for the state's laws.
The term "jury nullification" gets bantered around as if it is some type of power held by the people as a protection from the government. Jury Nullification is simply an euphemistic term for renegade jurors that decide they are above the law and wish to violate their oath.

".....The odds of seating another fully-informed juror are admittedly low, so the prosecutor may try again.....".
An individual juror that decides he/she has the authority to conduct judicial review is not "Fully-informed", as you suggest.

I'll use my prior example of a juror that doesn't believe rape should be criminal to explain this. Let's say a man is on trial for rape and all 12 jurors believe the state has met their burden of proof to convict the defendant but ONE juror doesn't believe the state has the authority to make rape illegal. That one juror substitutes his personal belief of what the law should be for what the law actually is.

"Jury Nullification" sounds cool when people frame it as some protection against tyranny but it's not so cool when you realize that it is people making up their own laws or deciding if they agree with the law.

As for the prosecutor's decision to re-try a case that ended in a hung jury - That decision is usually made based on how the jury deadlocked. If it was 11 votes to convict and one vote to acquit - the prosecutor is likely to take another shot at it knowing that he is unlikely to get another jury with another single crazy idiot juror. If the split was 11 votes to acquit and 1 vote to convict, the prosecutor may decide to punt that one.

".....And why not? It’s not like they are spending their own money to fund their endeavors, sound or not. ....."


It's true that we are all paying to fund that prosecutor's office and the prosecutor is operating with our money and not his money. However, as a taxpayer funding that prosecutor' office, I would prefer he use his limited resources to prosecute criminals and not have to divert resources from other cases. If a prosecutor must re-try a case because some idiot juror thought it would be cool to disregard his or her oath; the prosecutor must then divert resources to conduct another costly trial.

[Char-Gar]

The folks who advocate juror oath violation, erroneously called jury nullification, are generally poorly informed people, filled with self importance, and violate their oath in order to gum up the judicial system. Like people form a circle, to pat each other on the back and feel they are some kind of superior patriots for their gross dishonesty.

[dangitgriff]

Sorry about the giant text, I use screenshots where I can’t copy/paste the text. It’s unintentional.
Anyway, I could not disagree more with those who regard jury nullification as some sort of an un-American assault on the judicial system. It appears as though government propaganda has succeeded in hoodwinking the average uninformed American.
Please read this 2012 article by the late, great Will Grigg detailing a court case where jury nullification was confirmed as a legitimate function of jurors:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/william-norman-grigg/jury-nullification-is-now-the-law/
Here is a webpage full of pertinent links to articles and essays supporting the position of jury nullification:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Jury+nullification+
Case law going back to the Magna Carta fully supports jury nullification. The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naive at best and fatal to liberty at worst.
R/Griff

[Winger Ed.]

There was a story here years ago on the local news of a guy on trial for robbery.

It was one of those desperate situations, he had been laid off, had to feed his kids,
he didn't really have a gun- he put his finger in his pocket and told a store clerk it was a gun.
He didn't get any money, and was held for Police without incident.

At the end of the proceedings:
His attorney told him the jury was going to come back and find him- not guilty.
He told the guy, when they did, to stand up and thank the jury and the judge.

Everybody knew he did it,,,, but, as predicted, he was found- not guilty.

He then stood up and told the court, "Thank you all for that ruling, and I promise,,,,, I'll never do it again".

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm hardly an uninformed American when it comes to our laws, nor have I been "Hoodwinked" by "government propaganda".

That jurors can choose to disregard their oath, and do so without consequences; doesn't make the practice proper.
Couple that with the protection against double jeopardy and there is some real damage that can be done by renegade jurors that think they get to make their own laws.

Finally to address: "The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naïve at best and fatal to liberty at worst. "
For starters, one cannot "abolish" what does not exist.

Jury Nullification is hardly a "safeguard" against government tyranny although it is often touted as such.
Jury Nullification is often portrayed as some sort of last defense against a tyrannical government BUT it only appears as such when the outcome is favorable.

Once again, ask yourself if you would be such a staunch supporter of jurors breaking their oath if they refused to convict your daughter's rapist simply because the jurors didn't believe the government had the authority to declare rape illegal?

Jurors decide facts not law.

Jury Nullification sounds like a good practice when it is painted as protection against tyranny but it doesn't look as so good when it is painted as what it really is - disobedience to: a duty, an oath and the law.

[JBinMN]

Sorry about the giant text, I use screenshots where I can’t copy/paste the text. It’s unintentional.
Anyway, I could not disagree more with those who regard jury nullification as some sort of an un-American assault on the judicial system. It appears as though government propaganda has succeeded in hoodwinking the average uninformed American.
Please read this 2012 article by the late, great Will Grigg detailing a court case where jury nullification was confirmed as a legitimate function of jurors:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/william-norman-grigg/jury-nullification-is-now-the-law/
Here is a webpage full of pertinent links to articles and essays supporting the position of jury nullification:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/?s=Jury+nullification+
Case law going back to the Magna Carta fully supports jury nullification. The attempted abolishment of this safeguard against government tyranny by pro-government propagandists is dangerously naive at best and fatal to liberty at worst.
R/Griff

Thanks for the links.

I found another to be quite interesting as well on the page with the list:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/03/jacob-hornberger/two-checks-on-tyranny/

Here is an interesting quote from the article:


At the trial, the accused is presumed innocent and federal prosecutors have the burden of providing sufficient evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. The accused himself has the right to present evidence showing that he is not guilty of the offense.

After both sides have presented their evidence, the federal judge instructs the jury that its duty is simply to weigh the evidence and decide whether the accused is guilty. The judge’s duty, he explains, is to provide the jury with the applicable law in the case.

What federal judges (and, for that matter, state judges) never explain to the jury, however, is the full extent of its powers. Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. If the jury decides that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or tyrannical, the jurors can vote to acquit the accused and there is nothing the federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it.

Once the verdict of acquittal is announced, the judge must discharge the defendant, enabling him to immediately walk out of the courtroom a free man. The jury itself is discharged as well, and neither the prosecutors nor the judge can retaliate against the jurors. The jury verdict is final.

There is some additional info regarding the 2nd Amend. that is worth the read as well, IMO.

[Petrol & Powder]

There was a story here years ago on the local news of a guy on trial for robbery.

It was one of those desperate situations, he had been laid off, had to feed his kids,
he didn't really have a gun- he put his finger in his pocket and told a store clerk it was a gun.
He didn't get any money, and was held for Police without incident.

At the end of the proceedings:
His attorney told him the jury was going to come back and find him- not guilty.
He told the guy, when they did, to stand up and thank the jury and the judge.

Everybody knew he did it,,,, but, as predicted, he was found- not guilty.

He then stood up and told the court, "Thank you all for that ruling, and I promise,,,,, I'll never do it again".

That is not an example of jury nullification. A jury that finds the state failed to prove all of the elements of a crime must vote to acquit. In the above example the jurors could have found that the defendant didn't separate the victim from their property with force or the threat of force - therefore the elements of robbery were not met.
In the above example the jurors could simply have concluded that the defendant's actions didn't rise to the level of a robbery. That's not an example of jurors believing the law against robbery is unjust; that's an example of jurors believing the government failed to prove all of the necessary elements of robbery.

[Winger Ed.]

In the above example the jurors could simply have concluded that the defendant's actions didn't rise to the level of a robbery. That's not an example of jurors believing the law against robbery is unjust; that's an example of jurors believing the government failed to prove all of the necessary elements of robbery.

Nobody ever called me a real deep thinker.
With nerve deafness in one ear, some hearing loss in the other, my world is a rather quiet, and simple place.
All things considered, I rather like it that way.

I always figured our system was engineered to have real, normal, day to day people involved in it at various levels.
Both as over sight, and to keep it close & personal to the very people it serves, rather than some abstract thing that is totally left
to 'professionals' or beauracrats 1,000 miles away with no skin in the game and potentionaly - a poor grasp on reality.

[Petrol & Powder]

JB, your quoted text is only partially accurate:

"What federal judges (and, for that matter, state judges) never explain to the jury, however, is the full extent of its powers. Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. If the jury decides that the law itself is unjust, immoral, or tyrannical, the jurors can vote to acquit the accused and there is nothing the federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it."



While it is entirely true that there is "....... nothing federal prosecutors or the federal judge can legally do about it [jurors disregarding their oath]. It is NOT true that "....Every jury, whether it realizes it or not, actually has the power to judge the law itself. "
The jury does not have "the power to judge the law" but they do have the power to disregard their oath and duty with impunity.

So if a jury runs off the rails and disregards their: oath, duty and the law - there's not much the government can do about it. HOWEVER, that doesn't make it right or lawful.

So, ONE MORE TIME, ask yourself if a jury found the law against rape to be "unjust, immoral or tyrannical" and the victim was your daughter - Would you feel it was OK for the jury to make their own laws? Would you think it was OK for that jury to disregard their oath?

[1911sw45]

To answer P&P. Yes I would be ok with that. Not that I liked it. That’s the reason for a jury trial. And unfortunately in our justice system it’s a crap shoot any more going to a jury trial. Flame on and say what you will.

[Petrol & Powder]

To answer P&P. Yes I would be ok with that. Not that I liked it. That’s the reason for a jury trial. And unfortunately in our justice system it’s a crap shoot any more going to a jury trial. Flame on and say what you will.

I'll take the high road and leave the flaming to others, thank you.

[Char-Gar]

To answer P&P. Yes I would be ok with that. Not that I liked it. That’s the reason for a jury trial. And unfortunately in our justice system it’s a crap shoot any more going to a jury trial. Flame on and say what you will.

So what system that decides a person fate is not a crap shoot? Is three vigilantes with rope a better system? Is an elected Judge not a crap shoot. Is an appointed judge not a crap shoot. What pray tell, is the system that eliminates the human element and the possibility of a wrong decision?

[1911sw45]

I am ok with it being a crap shoot. Better than any other Countries way of law. I am all in favor of the jury trials. Rather have that than just one person deciding. I.E just a judge.

[Petrol & Powder]

Lets talk about jurors violating their oath and disregarding the law:

You're at a gas station late at night filling your tank. A 17 year old approaches you and asks for money. It's clear he's a bit mentally challenged. You politely tell him that you're not going to give him money and he starts to walk away. While your back is turned, the 17 yr. old tackles you to the ground and pulls out a knife. You're on your back fending him off with your weak hand as he cuts you. You manage to draw your pistol and shoot him 8 times before he falls off of you and dies.
Several hostile bystanders start to yell and curse you for killing little Bobby. You retreat to your car, reload your pistol and call 911.
There are several witnesses and the entire event is captured on the store surveillance system.
The police respond, you go to the hospital and Bobby goes to the morgue.

A newly elected liberal Democrat prosecutor that ran on a gun control platform indicts you for murder despite the fact the police advise him that it appears to be self defense.

The event took place in a community populated by very liberal voters and Bobby was a different race than you are.

The facts at trial are undisputed. You were attacked by Bobby and shot him in self-defense. There's video, eye witness testimony, an autopsy report, the knife, the gun, your 911 call. It is very clear what happened.

The jury gets the case and the judge provides the jury with several jury instructions, including an instruction that if the jury finds that you acted in self defense they must vote not guilty on the murder charge.

The jurors all agree that you acted in self defense BUT they are appalled that a civilized adult would carry an evil Automatic handgun and shoot a mentally disabled child.......EIGHT times! They decide that even though they all agree you were acting in self defense and the law provided to them by the judge requires that they acquit; they're going to disregard their oath to follow the law. They think that law is immoral and unjust. How could the law possibly allow a person to shoot a child 8 times?

They deliver a guilty verdict for murder.

NOW, DO YOU STILL THINK IT'S OK FOR JURORS TO VIOLATE THIER OATH ?

When jurors violate their oath and acquit because they don't like the law, is sounds cool and people label that behavior "Jury Nullification"
BUT
When jurors violate their oath so that they can disregard the law and substitute their own law, it's not so cool anymore.

Subverting the law and subverting the Constitution is never a good thing.

[dangitgriff]

Yes—that’s the way it works.
Perhaps a better question to ask is, why don’t we hold the elected officials to THEIR oaths to uphold the Constitution? They ignore it every day.
As far as I’m concerned, THAT is the greatest threat this country faces, by far.
The War of Northern Aggression killed between 600-800 thousand Americans because our own president ignored the Constitution (Article 3, Section 3–TREASON, as defined) and our own Congress allowed him to get away with it, instead of removing him from office (Article 2, section 4–The President...SHALL BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE ON IMPEACHMENT FOR, AND CONVICTION OF, TREASON...).
It appears our anger is woefully misdirected in the matters of the U.S. Constitution and the revered oaths of our elected representatives to uphold it.
R/Griff

[Geezer in NH]

I do not get the cost of a trial.

Judge is on a salary and benefits from the .gov Yearly payment stays the same whether he is on a case or not.

Prosecutor and his minions are the same.

Court officers, deputy's, sheriffs, police officers again the same.

Jail officers etc. the same.

WHAT COST DIFFERS?

Only the defendant's law fees but no one stated care about that.

As a former fire INVS/FF/Deputy sheriff. DA's always wanted the cost of a false alarm for restitution for the found guilty and I had a problem giving one other than the cost of the desil fuel as the FF's were paid regardless of responding or not and the fuel was pushing it as the may drive around the districts the covered for many reasons other than alarms. [getting lunch, ice cream run on hot night, just to keep from going stir crazy in the fire house.]

Adding all the costs of fuel, manpower, mechanical wear is the same as if they did not respond IMHO unless there was an accident causing harm property or personal.

I cannot figure how the court is much different than that. Momey paid out is the same if not on a trial other than the pittance the jurors are paid.

It is called SPIN

[Winger Ed.]

I do not get the cost of a trial.
Judge is on a salary and benefits from the .gov Yearly payment stays the same whether he is on a case or not.
Prosecutor and his minions are the same.
Court officers, deputy's, sheriffs, police officers again the same.

You're not supposed to ask that.

There is an expense of these fixed things. If we didn't have crime, we wouldn't need the criminal court and prison system at all.
But we do. So we have to hire people, and build a justice system. The 'Court costs' fees are a way to make up at least some of it.
All things considered, they are usually kind of cheap.
If you 'use' a judge, a DA, a baliff, some office clerks, the govt. buildings, etc., maybe a day or two of jail-- its costs a bunch.
If your court cost is a thousand dollars,,,, that won't cover the payroll much less all of what it actually costs the govt. to use those services.



You see the same effect when they say, "President so-and-so's trip cost up-teen million dollars".
No it didn't. There's fuel***, wear and tear on airplanes, overtime for Police, and some per-diem expenses for the crew and staff.
But the govt. isn't buying hotels, or new vehicles, they're renting a few, or using their own.
It costs a lot for the President to travel. However; it isn't millions and millions for a few days
unless you figure the retail price for hiring off duty Police Officers, renting a airliner, paying to transport everything on charter flights,
the pay of everyone that is involved as if you had to hire them just for that event..


***
That's not totally accurate either.
All the military planes and aircrew are going to fly so many hours a month just to keep up their 'papers'.
If you need to fly 10 hours a month minimum to stay current in those VIP birds, or any other military aircraft,
you'll do it either on a official state trip, or 'training flights'.
Basically, those planes and crew are going to fly so many hours a month, reguardless of where they go.

[Petrol & Powder]

It's the fallacy of the broken window.

A kid breaks a window and onlookers believe that because the kid's father will pay a repairman to fix the window, that influx of cash will add to the local economy. There's a theory that the money that goes to the repairman and the glass supplier will then be available to be spent elsewhere. This is completely false.

The expense paid by the father, REDUCES the father's disposable income. Money that the father could have invested elsewhere is now required to be used to pay for a broken window. There is no net gain to the community by the destruction of the window. There is only loss.

Consider the possibility of a drunk riding around and shooting out several traffic lights one night. That creates a situation that the highway department must immediately address. The highway department must stop working on projects for that day and divert resources to repairing those lights. They must spend money that was earmarked for other projects to buy new lights. They may must divert manpower earmarked for regular maintenance to fix the now broken signals.
Yes, we are paying for the highway department anyway but we weren't paying them to replace traffic lights that day.
That old snowplow that they had budgeted to replace; that replacement now must be delayed because we were forced to divert money for the purchase of new lights. That pothole in front of your house that a crew was going to fill today; that crew now must be diverted to repair several lights instead. Those guys that were on their regular day off; we had to call them in and pay them overtime to fix traffic lights.
Just because we're already paying for a highway department doesn't mean the destruction to the traffic lights occurred at zero additional cost to the taxpayers.

Now, consider a prosecutor that must re-try a case due to a mistrial. That new trial will require resources be diverted from other activities. Jury trials take days, sometimes weeks, of preparation. Meanwhile, the normal docket doesn't just stop.

Yes, we are paying prosecutors, clerks, judges, deputies, court reporters and others; but they're not just normally sitting around doing nothing. When we add work: resources must be diverted, overtime must be paid, other cases must be disposed of and people work longer hours.
That guy we were going to put on trial for burglary of your house.......now we have to offer him a plea to misdemeanor trespassing because we don't have people to try that case and speedy trial limits prevent us from continuing the trial.
That civil trial the judge, court reporter, clerk and deputies were going to handle - that must be postponed so that a re-trial on criminal case can be held.

It's the fallacy that the broken window adds to the economy.

It's a zero sum game. There's no such thing as government money - there's only your money and my money.

[Petrol & Powder]

Geezer in NH - When the false alarm forced those firefighters to respond to a bogus call were they just sitting around or were they: engaged in training?, performing required maintenance?, eating a meal after working 20 hours without a break? Did another engine company have to cover real calls in their area of responsibility while they were handling a bogus call? Were they sleeping after handling a full night of real emergencies? Were they exposed to unnecessary danger while responding to that bogus call? Did they expose the public to unnecessary traffic delays by their emergency response?

Yes - we pay firefighters to stand by so that they can answer calls for service but we pay them to answer REAL calls, not bogus false alarms that divert resources from real emergencies.

I have NO problem with requiring some jerk to pay restitution for a false alarm. I'd rather he pay that cost than to pass that cost onto the taxpayers.

[Char-Gar]

I do not get the cost of a trial.

Judge is on a salary and benefits from the .gov Yearly payment stays the same whether he is on a case or not.

Prosecutor and his minions are the same.

Court officers, deputy's, sheriffs, police officers again the same.

Jail officers etc. the same.

WHAT COST DIFFERS?

Only the defendant's law fees but no one stated care about that.

As a former fire INVS/FF/Deputy sheriff. DA's always wanted the cost of a false alarm for restitution for the found guilty and I had a problem giving one other than the cost of the desil fuel as the FF's were paid regardless of responding or not and the fuel was pushing it as the may drive around the districts the covered for many reasons other than alarms. [getting lunch, ice cream run on hot night, just to keep from going stir crazy in the fire house.]

Adding all the costs of fuel, manpower, mechanical wear is the same as if they did not respond IMHO unless there was an accident causing harm property or personal.

I cannot figure how the court is much different than that. Momey paid out is the same if not on a trial other than the pittance the jurors are paid.

It is called SPIN

Not nearly the same cost. A jury trial involves the extensive preparation of evidence, including witness fees, travel, expert witness fees, visual and graphic presentations and many such things. This consumes many days of work by prosecutors and their staff. If every case went to trial, the number of prosecutors and staff would be out of the question. You would also have to increase the number of judges, baliffs, clerks, court reporters etc.

Before the trial prep, the case file is just statments and perhaps some results from a crime lab. With a jury trial, the cost of evidence presenation to a judge or jury sky rockets.

Now throw in the cost of the defendants appointed legal team (lawyers, para-legals, expert witnesses, lab testing, cost of defence evidence presentation etc. etc.) and the cost skyrockets agains.

Bottom line is a jury trial costs a several hundred more times, or even a thousands more times the cost of a plea of guilty. You can figure each day of a jury trial costs a hundred thousand dollars or perhaps multiples of that amounts depending on the complexity of the evidence.