Ron should go to jury duty

[spainlinx0]

Jury duty is not about just judging whether a defendant is guilty, but whether the law is just. If he doesn't want people with drugs to not be convicted, then he should want to serve. Jury nullification is an option to the jury, who may agree that the defendant broke the law, but does not agree with the law.

It's a pretty powerful option available to the American public, and if more people knew about it maybe we wouldn't have these crazy drug laws.

However, I'm not an attorney so maybe that doesn't apply to grand jury testimony? Mikeyboy you're a lawyer right? Is that available to Ron?

We need people on juries who are willing to use this option.

[Melk]

Jury duty is not about just judging whether a defendant is guilty, but whether the law is just. If he doesn't want people with drugs to not be convicted, then he should want to serve. Jury nullification is an option to the jury, who may agree that the defendant broke the law, but does not agree with the law.

It's a pretty powerful option available to the American public, and if more people knew about it maybe we wouldn't have these crazy drug laws.

However, I'm not an attorney so maybe that doesn't apply to grand jury testimony? Mikeyboy you're a lawyer right? Is that available to Ron?

We need people on juries who are willing to use this option.
I am not a lawyer, but I served on jury duty twice (once on a grand jury trial). The judge makes certain to clarify that the jury is to respond in accordance to the law and not to the personal opinions of the jurors regarding the laws. Usually, if you are asked questions like "Do you have negative attitudes toward law enforcement officials?" or things to that effect, answer honestly.

I got out of being assigned to a jury for a trial just because I knew the defendant's lawyer.

Perhaps Ron can get lucky.

[Servo]

Jury duty is not about just judging whether a defendant is guilty, but whether the law is just.

Yeah, this is completely incorrect.

Serving on a trial jury is only about whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not making a statement about how you feel about the law. Got a problem with a law? Write your state legislature.

Grand jury is completely different. The jurors are simply there to decide whether there's enough legally sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution (it's a little more involved than just "rubber-stamping" shit, as Ron put it... they do hear from witnesses, and the defendant has a right to testify on his own behalf.)

He should go down to get it over with. There's a good chance he won't get seated. It's pretty much luck of the draw.

[spainlinx0]

Yeah, this is completely incorrect.

Serving on a trial jury is only about whether the prosecution has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not making a statement about how you feel about the law. Got a problem with a law? Write your state legislature.

Grand jury is completely different. The jurors are simply there to decide whether there's enough legally sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution (it's a little more involved than just "rubber-stamping" shit, as Ron put it... they do hear from witnesses, and the defendant has a right to testify on his own behalf.)

He should go down to get it over with. There's a good chance he won't get seated. It's pretty much luck of the draw.

I don't believe you're right. Jury nullification may not be popular nowadays, but it does exist. Read up on it.

[burrben]

where are all the lawyers that run this place when you need them?

[Servo]

I don't believe you're right. Jury nullification may not be popular nowadays, but it does exist. Read up on it.

Actually, I know what I'm talking about. Yes, it does happen, but it's not a legally permitted "option". There's just nothing that can be done about it, if a jury chooses to do it. Still, the defense is not permitted to argue for it, and the judge doesn't give the option to a jury when he charges them at the end of a trial.

[Judge Smails]

He should just tell them he's got a lot of dog ball wrinkle counting to do.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art4/0430091jury1.gif

[burrben]

i didnt know there was that much crime in montana

[Juliejulez]

for my own selfish reasons, Ron shouldn't go to Jury Duty. I don't mind R&F repeats, but I have to know that Ron is speaking directly to me LIVE when he's on the radio.

[spainlinx0]

Actually, I know what I'm talking about. Yes, it does happen, but it's not a legally permitted "option". There's just nothing that can be done about it, if a jury chooses to do it. Still, the defense is not permitted to argue for it, and the judge doesn't give the option to a jury when he charges them at the end of a trial.

It's not illegal. So how is it not a legally permitted option? Whether judges like to inform the jury of the option or not is irrelevant.

[Servo]

It's not illegal. So how is it not a legally permitted option? Whether judges like to inform the jury of the option or not is irrelevant.

It's not that judges don't like to inform juries of it... they can't. There is no provision under the law for it, and jurors are required to follow the law as the judge gives it to them.

My point is, your first statement that jury service is about expressing your opinion about the law is completely wrong.

[spainlinx0]

From another site:

For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

[Servo]

From another site:

For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

That was over 200 years ago. That's not the state of the law today. This is from a headnote for a 1998 case -

The duty of juries in criminal cases is to take the law from the court and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Jury nullification, which is a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court, is logically incompatible with applying the law and trial courts have a mandated duty to prevent improper and impermissive nullification conduct.

[ThisGuyIsIvan]

Jury Duty is fucking awful. thats all i've got.

[spainlinx0]

Depends on your state:

The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.”

Whether some governments have decided it's inconvient to allow the people to have some say over the laws of the land, doesn't mean it's not a valid choice. It was never intended to be removed as our right despite what the legal aristocracy today may decide is what's "best" for us simple people.

[hatonmyhead]

Ron should go to jury doody and set their ass straight. Could I get out of jury duty because I have add?

[jclassic]

Bringing up that you know about jury nullification and acting too smart or too argumentative in general is a pretty good way to not get picked for regular jury. The most masterful argument I've been there for was a guy at a malpractice case. Prosecution asked if he's comfortable making a judgment in the millions of dollars if the prosecution can prove liability. His gee-whiz "I've never made a decision over more than a thousand dollars" was so awesomely passive-aggressive that I almost want to steal the gimmick if I ever called up to the stand. It wasn't combative, but provided such great resistance. He was like a rock up there, immovable.

I'm sure Ronny B could come up with something though. The best of's aren't too shabby though especially for a newer listener like me. Hell, I might just replay the May 7th episode for myself.

[TripleSkeet]

People still arent figuring out the difference between jury duty and grand jury duty huh? Fucking amazing.

[tele7]

I was selected for Grand Jury duty a few years back. Every Thursday for 18 weeks, and I really missed it when it was over. Some days we were out by 2:30. BTW, we were told that only 5% of cases actually went to trial. If asked, I would do it again.

[jclassic]

I was selected for Grand Jury duty a few years back. Every Thursday for 18 weeks, and I really missed it when it was over. Some days we were out by 2:30. BTW, we were told that only 5% of cases actually went to trial. If asked, I would do it again.

Honestly, if I wasn't busy with the closing of a home, I would've loved to have been selected. Parking's free for jury duty in Providence, it doesn't count against my vacation days for work and I'm on salary and I would've gotten to relax at Providence Place mall for lunch. Probably would've gotten fat off the fast food after a while.

In NY with grand jury duty, is it still the same process as it is in RI of having to go there amongst a pool of candidates and they draw numbers and figure out if you can be eligible or have to be dismissed? That's a boring couple of days but it really wasn't that bad.

[tele7]

Honestly, if I wasn't busy with the closing of a home, I would've loved to have been selected. Parking's free for jury duty in Providence, it doesn't count against my vacation days for work and I'm on salary and I would've gotten to relax at Providence Place mall for lunch. Probably would've gotten fat off the fast food after a while.

In NY with grand jury duty, is it still the same process as it is in RI of having to go there amongst a pool of candidates and they draw numbers and figure out if you can be eligible or have to be dismissed? That's a boring couple of days but it really wasn't that bad.

Yep, pretty much the same process as RI, but it only took one morning for the actual selection. It was actually pretty funny to hear some of the excuses given to the judge.

Here's one: (best I can remember anyway)

Woman: "I have a hard time making decisions"

Judge: "You decided to come here, didn't you?

Woman: Well, yes, but I still have a hard time making decisions

that went back and forth until everyone was laughing at her....

Eventually the judge got pissed off and she was dismissed.