Join This Group. Membership is FREE!

Group: Jury Duty

I was recently called for Jury Duty. As a citizen, I belief it's my duty to serve, but, as someone who's been involved in the criminal justice system for over twenty years in one capacity or another, I've always doubted I'd get put on a jury. This time, it was close. After sitting around all morning, my name was finally called to be one of about 55 to go through the process of elimination. We gathered in the courtroom, the judge on the bench, the court staff around her, a prosecuting attorney, a defendant in his black and white striped prisoner clothes, and two attorneys with him. Not like on TV, I thought, where they always dress and groom the defendant to look nice. After the judge asked everyone if they could hear or see well enough to participate, she asked if anyone did not understand the English language. We had to leave the courtroom while those people were discussed, then those that did not qualify were dismissed. Those simple questions eliminated 8 of the potential jurors; then we returned, only to have another twenty eliminated because of the possibility that it would be a hardship for them to serve. It turns out that this was to be a jury for the sentencing phase in a kidnapping/murder trial in which the defendant already had plead guilty to taking a man into the desert, and, along with his accomplice, putting 3 holes in the victims chest and one in his head for good measure, then leaving him there. When they were caught, they still had the gun in their possession. And the defendant here was representing himself (hence, the prison attire). Not a smart man. The Supreme Court ruled that judges cannot issue a death sentence in cases where the state request it, that has to be done by a jury. So, because he plead guilty, a jury is needed so that the state can tell the jury why kidnapping someone, taking them into the desert and putting 4 holes in them is worthy of the death penalty. Then, if the jury doesn't agree, the judge will issue the sentence. If the jury does agree, then the defendant gets to tell the jury why the fact that he admits to putting 4 holes in the victim after kidnapping him was in some way not so serious a crime that he should be put to death. If the jury buys his excuses, then the jury will not give him death, but make a recommendation to the judge as to what kind of sentence he gets. After half of the pool of jurors was eliminated, I was thinking I might get this case, just because I could end up being one of the few left! Not that it wouldn't have been interesting, but I knew there was no way I was going to want this guy to live; death to me was his only option, and I'd like to be the one to throw the switch. I thought that my views might appeal to one side or the other in hopes of either getting the death penalty assured, or getting the jury hung up and then the judge would have to give him a sentence. I might have been able to convince them to go for death, but I doubt it; there are just too many wimps out there now. And no one in that pool wanted to be there... given the opportunity to end it quickly, I don't believe any of them will vote for death and prolong their duty, they'll let the judge make that call. Fortunately, after hearing my views on the death penalty, I was rejected. Now I think that rather than primarily using the voter registration records, there should be a pool of jurors who can be called upon, and paid, to sit in judgement of the accused. Retirees, the unemployed, people (citizens) with time on their hands and a need for financial assistance, should be the primary juror pool. Working people should only be called upon when absolutely necessary. And having a jury for the sentening of an admitted murderer is a ridiculous waste of the courts time and the taxpayers money. Another wrong decision by the Supreme Court.