Jury or no jury
 

If your guilty, go with a jury, if your innocent go with the judge. The average person does not have the ability to find the truth. After a trial, jurors vote for the most convincing lawyer and their decision has nothing to do with the dependents guilt or innocence

My father, who spent his life in law enforcement and achieved a high degree of success, once told me that in our court system, the truth didn't always matter. Rather 'the truth' ended up being whatever the lawyers could make a jury believe. Sadly, I've observed this to be correct, and I'll cite the O. J. Simpson trial and the Casey Anthony trial to make my point. Having said this, it's still the best justice system in the world. I think.

It seems to me that the court system does not want jurors who think for themselves. You are not supposed to research anything related to the case you are hearing nor really even talk about the case under consideration with anyone other than another jury member and that's only when all the other jury members are present.

It kind of makes the whole thing into a contest on who can present the most convincing case to the jury while the judge tries to make sure that the Rules of Evidence are followed.

In law school, there was a very popular Law Professor Irving Younger who said that trials were like theater. In my experiences as a potential juror as well as watching various trials on TV, that seems to be true.

In our justice system, I believe that most cases are plea bargained and never make it to a jury. I could be wrong about this, but that seemed to be the situation when I was in law school. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/plea-bargains

I am not sure about what country has the best legal system not being familiar with all of them. One thing for sure though is that ours is one of the ones that has the most humane treatment of prisoners and looks out for the rights of the defendants.

Very true!!

Picking a jury is more important than the evidence presented in court.

Sometime ago I ran across a study showing that criminal defense attorneys seek to obtain juries averaging tenth grade educations and low normal IQ's. I have been called to jury duty in New Mexico where by statute not only lawyers but judges can serve on juries and have some pretty funny stories about being voir dired there.

I have spent my entire career close to the courts. Let me state that the American judicial system while not above reproach is at least more transparent than most. As a general statement officers of the court are more interested in winning at all costs than the truth; albeit by its nature the truth is generally revealed. The selection of jury is obviously based on improving one's outcome. It would be better if the objective was to sit 6-9-12 people on a jury who had the skills and experience to better assess some of the complex issues in a case.

Most lawyers are good capable people. some on the other hand have the morals of an alley cat and would do anything to win a case especially if there is money on the table.

It was an eye opener to see those lawyers who pushed for television advertising, etc and those lawyers that fought against it as being demeaning to their profession.

The OJ Simpson case and Casey Anthony case underscore the problems associated with jury selection and the mistake being made to televise these trials. They are become nothing more than entertainment making people apathetic toward damage done to victims and their families

In all the years in dealing with lawsuits I found while facts were logically laid out that truth didn't matter as a jury would be swayed by emotion rather than fact. What we need are more Joe Friday's on juries...just the fact please just the facts. What we need are more jury members who better understand our judicial system. However far too many people are so far removed from critical needed information because they are no longer taught civics, etc but are taught cultural diversity courses, etc that given them insight into rights but fail to teach that the rule of law is how those rights are protected.

When I lived in St. Louis, I was called for jury duty virtually every three years, almost like clockwork. Probably as many as six calls.

But, I was selected for only one case in the City's Petit Court. The first one. Every other case where the juror selection process got underway, I was rejected. My gut said that I was a college-educated, moderately successful white man, hardly a peer of most defendants in the City - usuallly under-educated, blue collar type black men!

May be wrong, but it makes sense to me!

Served one six-month term as a panelist on a Federal Grand Jury. That was much more interesting than any of the City's cases!

SWR
:beer3:

swrinfla You are spot on With your background a lawyer would be concerned that you would have too much sway over other jurors

A few years ago (January 2010 or so) there was a Federal case in Ocala for which I went in as a potential juror. One of the sitting empaneled jurors was a retired CIA manager. I do not know about you guys but when I hear CIA I do not think of apple pie, flag waving, and the US Constitution. Was surprised that the judge kept a retired CIA manager on the panel. I would think if there was anyone that could sway other jurors by his opinion it would be someone who guarded various secrets like a retired CIA manager.

I have found very little consistency in just which people they keep on juries in the 4 jury pools I have been involved with in three states. There was a lawyer kept on a far as I could tell in Sonoma County, CA even though I could challenged by the prosecution as soon as I mentioned the victims' rights stuff I had been involved with over time. This was around 1993.

I got bumped from the Pinellas County FL jury pool as soon as I mentioned that I had a JD around 2002. And if I remember correctly Sumter County did not even want me to come into their office after I outlined my victims' rights stuff and my JD and MA in Librarianship. This was about 2008.

I suppose I do have a bit of agenda when viewing legal proceedings but doubt if I would ever let my emotions guide me.

It was just reported on the news that the jury for the George Zimmerman trial has been picked, and it will be made up of six women.

In my experience, if you are perceived to be above average in intelligence and have analytical skills, you have about zero chance of bring selected for a jury.

Just saw that on the news, IMO that will work for the defense.

A few years ago i was selected for a Jury in a Civil Case involving two parties who had been in a automobile accident . The Trial lasted only two days . One of my " fellow Jurors actually dozed off on a fairly regular basis .
I ended up being elected Foreman , I surmised because I was the only Juror who showed up in a suit and tie !
It was very clear even to the " sleeper " that the Plaintiff was in the wrong . It was established within a few minutes of our gathering in the Jury Room . Much to my shock once it was agreed that the Plaintiff was at fault the very next statement from one of my fellow Jurors was " So how much are we going to give him " And amazingly everyone chimed in with the same thought process !
Fortunately , I was able to convince them that they couldn`t hold the Defendant harmless and award damages to the Plaintiff at the same time . Just amazing !!

I recently spent two days in jury selection for a criminal case in Palm Beach county. Half of the people in the pool shouldn't even be allowed to vote, and about a quarter shouldn't be allowed to breed.