Jury Selection

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

I'm a prosecutor who does jury trials. If you don't show up, often they send you a letter for a 2nd jury trial after, and usually if you fail to show for that one too it's a warrant for you. However, it's up to the individual judge. If they're mad, or no one is showing up, they will have less patience than that.

I figured there had to be one of you guys on here. So many lawyers...

[GN18]

Originally Posted by Radio

I got the call once. I checked with work on the jury duty policy, my work's policy was you are paid in full.

I went down to the court house and there were around 200+ people there. Some are summoned, others are law students trying to get selected.

You watch a video about jury duty, the selection process, and how's it's your duty.

They do a row call and if you are absent without prior release they issue a warrant for your arrest.

They say how many trials they are selecting for (mine was 3). They then put everyone's name in bingo tumbler thing, they announce a few particulars of the trial and start drawing names.

If your name is called you go to the front and you have the opportunity to say why you can't do jury duty. Things like your job doesn't pay, you already have booked travel, things like that. The judge then decides if you have a valid reason or not.

If you're not excused then you stand in front of the lawyers and they decide if they want you or not. They can only ask certain questions, your age and your occupation. If they don't want you they can "challenge". If they challenge you are rejected and you go back and sit down. Each lawyer has a limited number of challenges, 6 or so, can't remember exactly.

Once the jury is selected, they do the whole thing again for the next one.

When I went I was called up twice and ended up as the 12th juror in a re-trial. A guy had thrown his father down the stairs and killed him. Funny thing is a lady from my work had been selected as an alternate juror for the first trial.

They pay you $10 a day and pay for transit. I'd go down around 10 and leave around 2.

I thought it would blow but I found it really interesting and I learned a little about law and how it pertains to your property. The dad was trying to throw the son out of his house, who had become drunk and belligerent.

What I learned was that if I own the property and I ask someone to leave, even if I had previously invited them in, and they don't they are trespassing. I can force ably, within reason, remove them and if they resist then they are assaulting me. I found the whole thing pretty interesting.

Not that I want to derail the thread, but this was the law up until 2012. It was covered under section 41 of the Criminal Code, Assault by Trespasser. It was repealed in 2012 due to many "Assault" charges clogging up the courts.

So while still be able to use force to remove a trespasser, the simple act of resisting is no longer considered assault.

[SportsJunky]

I've been told to just ignore it if you don't want to/ can't go. Worst case, they contact you and you deny ever receiving the jury summons in the mail.

[Rubicant]

I've only been to one jury selection process (it was in Toronto) and defied the odds and wound up as a juror. It was a little different in that there was only one trial we were being selected for. It was a retrial for murder.

Before they started calling names, they told us who was on trial, who the victim was, who the police involved in the case were, who the lawyers were and asked if anyone knew these people. If you did you were dismissed.

Then they asked if you had read about the case or heard about it in the news. I believe you were dismissed at that point as well if you had.

Then they asked if anyone couldn't serve due to not understanding english - funny part was someone was later selected and had no idea what the judge was asking him. He didn't understand the earlier question about speaking english as he didn't speak english.

Afterwards they started drawing names. The first two selected actually weren't on the jury, they were almost an approval committee. When the third name was selected they had the power to dismiss the juror if they felt they weren't appropriate. If they were found appropriate the lawyers got to ask a few questions and accepted or challenged the juror. If you were challenged you went home. When they accepted someone, that person was juror number 1, one of the two original approvers was dismissed and juror number 1 and the remaining approver now got to be the approval committee. On and on it went until there were 12 and 2 alternates. (I should also add that when you were called up you had a chance to tell the judge why you couldn't serve. Trips already planned and financial hardship were the most common reasons that he let people go)

Anyways short story long I found it was an important thing to do once. I saw how the legal system worked, and experienced a trial from beginning to end.

The irritating part was there were random days off when there were no witnesses or the judge had something else he had to do. Because I'm a teacher I had to plan stuff for my kids to do and then randomly show up in class for a day here or there so logistically it wasn't fun. I had 2 classes of grade 12 physics and the kids were not impressed that I was gone for basically a month.

If people really want more details I can provide them but the gist of what happened was a man in an apartment building killed his senior citizen neighbour, stole her credit cards, and shopped with them for the next two days. We had a choice of acquittal, murder in 2nd degree, or manslaughter. We convicted him of 2nd degree murder.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Locke

Tell them that you dont have to abide by their laws because you're a Freeman on the Land.

Then show them your driver's license that was made by hand by some random children and your name is Crappo del Bunghole.

[Nage Waza]

I think it would be a privelage to be on a jury. Kind of like voting or contributing to society in other ways.

I am not sure why someone is complaining, unless there is a very specific and reasonable reason they cannot offer their time.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think it would be a privelage to be on a jury. Kind of like voting or contributing to society in other ways.

I am not sure why someone is complaining, unless there is a very specific and reasonable reason they cannot offer their time.

A lot of companies don't pay for your time on jury duty, nor are they obligated to pay you. In which case the time comes out of your vacation or pay. I dunno about you, but I'd rather spend my vacation time somewhere far away rather than having my ass stapled in a jury box.

[mrkajz44]

I always find it bizarre that so many people complain about the justice system and how it never is fair, but when they finally get a chance to be part of the process, the first thought is "how do I get out of this?"

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I always find it bizarre that so many people complain about the justice system and how it never is fair, but when they finally get a chance to be part of the process, the first thought is "how do I get out of this?"

Ha, you think the reason the justice system is a joke is the jury process? How funny.

[troutman]

BTW, Law Day at the Calgary Courthouse is Saturday April 26th:

http://lawdayalberta.weebly.com/calgary.html

Merlin the Magician v Hairy Porter (11:00am and 2:00pm)
Merlin the Magician is suing Hairy Porter in replevin for the return of missing property that Merlin is alleging is in the control or possession of Hairy Porter. The audience acts as the jury and decides whether or not the missing property was the property of Merlin; and if the property was Merlin's, then the audience decides whether or not the property is now in possession or control of Hairy Porter; and if the audience decides both of those questions in the affirmative, then the audience decides whether or not Hairy has to return the property to Merlin.

R v Batman (10:00am and 12:30pm)
R v Batman is a humorous way of demonstrating the criminal trial process. Batman is put on trial for acts he has done while fighting crime and the witnesses the Crown calls to prove these crimes will shock you! The trial is run in a way that shows the audience many parts of a criminal trial such as: the use of exhibits; examining witnesses; objections; the role of the Crown and Defence counsel; and even how to handle hostile witnesses. Although the mock trial of Batman is put on with entertainment in mind the production is layered with actual criminal trial processes for the audience to learn from.

[Lucifer]

In 2011 I was called for jury selection. This was shortly after I started a new job, and for whatever reason I decided against going because I didn't feel like it.

The day of the jury selection I phoned whatever number they give, and explained that I forgot about the jury selection. It was a lame excuse, but better than making up some big lie about why I couldn't make it because I was worried they could check. To be honest I was scared I might have said something stupid at the jury selection and I would have got thrown in jail. Yes, that could have happened since I didn't show up.

In the end, I got a call back saying they didn't need me because more than enough people showed up. I got off lucky, but next time I'll just man up and go, lol.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

I always find it bizarre that so many people complain about the justice system and how it never is fair, but when they finally get a chance to be part of the process, the first thought is "how do I get out of this?"

It's about time the jury process was done away with anyway. It's antiquated and just unnecessarily resource intensive.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

It's about time the jury process was done away with anyway. It's antiquated and just unnecessarily resource intensive.

Same with elections

[Locke]

Originally Posted by troutman

BTW, Law Day at the Calgary Courthouse is Saturday April 26th:

http://lawdayalberta.weebly.com/calgary.html

Merlin the Magician v Hairy Porter (11:00am and 2:00pm)
[SIZE=4]

Hairy Porter. Sounds like someone doesnt want to get sued for law day. Inaprops...

Originally Posted by flylock shox

It's about time the jury process was done away with anyway. It's antiquated and just unnecessarily resource intensive.

You do not want to give that much power to judges, they're people like everyone else and have biases just like everyone else.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Locke

You do not want to give that much power to judges, they're people like everyone else and have biases just like everyone else.

Juries are selected based on their likely biases though, so I'm not sure that helps.

Really it comes down to whether juries are better able to assess credibility than judges are, or are better at putting the facts of a case together, both of which I suspect they're not. They're much worse when it comes to applying the law.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Juries are selected based on their likely biases though, so I'm not sure that helps.

Really it comes down to whether juries are better able to assess credibility than judges are, or are better at putting the facts of a case together, both of which I suspect they're not. They're much worse when it comes to applying the law.

I dont know, I'm basing my opinion on anecdotal evidence of judges just doing whatever they want. Maybe from a criminal law perspective as opposed to a civil law perspective the realities are different.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hairy Porter. Sounds like someone doesnt want to get sued for law day. Inaprops...





You do not want to give that much power to judges, they're people like everyone else and have biases just like everyone else.

You've obviously never been to court stoned on acid. They are gods.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know, I'm basing my opinion on anecdotal evidence of judges just doing whatever they want. Maybe from a criminal law perspective as opposed to a civil law perspective the realities are different.

There's always the danger of activist judges, but usually those types of decisions are based on interpretations of law and can be appealed.

My concern with juries (other than the resource drain) is that they have trouble applying the law, particularly in complex cases, to the facts, and jury members are by and large going to be more biased and emotional in their decision making on issues of credibility, which aren't appealable.

Jury selection in Canada seems come down to the stereotying abilities of counsel choosing jury members (e.g. if I'm prosecuting a black dude for dealing weed, I'm going to weed out black dudes, white dudes with dreadlocks, young people generally, people with visibe tattoos, while trying to pack as many conservative old potential racists onto the jury as I can).

[Locke]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

There's always the danger of activist judges, but usually those types of decisions are based on interpretations of law and can be appealed.

My concern with juries (other than the resource drain) is that they have trouble applying the law, particularly in complex cases, to the facts, and jury members are by and large going to be more biased and emotional in their decision making on issues of credibility, which aren't appealable.

Jury selection in Canada seems come down to the stereotying abilities of counsel choosing jury members (e.g. if I'm prosecuting a black dude for dealing weed, I'm going to weed out black dudes, white dudes with dreadlocks, young people generally, people with visibe tattoos, while trying to pack as many conservative old potential racists onto the jury as I can).

Yeah, but that process is staggeringly expensive.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

There's always the danger of activist judges, but usually those types of decisions are based on interpretations of law and can be appealed.

My concern with juries (other than the resource drain) is that they have trouble applying the law, particularly in complex cases, to the facts, and jury members are by and large going to be more biased and emotional in their decision making on issues of credibility, which aren't appealable.

Jury selection in Canada seems come down to the stereotying abilities of counsel choosing jury members (e.g. if I'm prosecuting a black dude for dealing weed, I'm going to weed out black dudes, white dudes with dreadlocks, young people generally, people with visibe tattoos, while trying to pack as many conservative old potential racists onto the jury as I can).

Sounds like you are the person with issues stereotyping.