Facebook Post Juror Gets Fined, Removed, Assigned Homework 539
eldavojohn writes "A Michigan judge removed a juror after a Facebook comment and also fined her $250 and required her to write a five-page paper about the constitutional right to a fair trial. The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her, saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it... (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as I hate Facebook and love to take any opportunity to bash it, I very much agree with you.
I have served on juries, in and most cases my fellow jurors had already made up their minds well before both sides presented their case.
Re:5 page paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unasked Question (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was a juror we were assigned numbers before we even arrived at the court for selection. AFAIK the judge didn't even know our names.
During selection, we were asked if we knew the accused, the victim, any of the lawyers, the police officers involved, or any of the witnesses (and their names were listed) or if we had any dealings with anyone in the small town that they had all come from. Any of those would make you not able to sit on the jury for this case.
We were also strongly warned not to speak about the details of the trial with anyone other than the other jurors. Ever.
Of course, that''s the Canadian court system. In other countries, YMMV.
You can't handle the truth (Score:2, Interesting)
Given recent articles about snap decisions (apparently deciding if you think a gal's hot, or your emotional reaction to a web site both take a fraction of a second), perhaps all this woman was doing was revealing an uncomfortable truth about the justice system. Could it be that jurors reach their decision in the first few minutes (or less) and everything that follows just loads them up with ammunition to form their rationalizations?
Re:What's wrong with this? (Score:4, Interesting)
People can't change their minds now? Of course a juror is going to think the defendant is guilty after hearing the prosecution. If she didn't think so, the prosecution wouldn't be doing their job.
Re:Don't people know all defendants are guilty... (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't people know all defendants are guilty period?
I mean, c'mon. If they're on trial that means we got them. :P
I know you're joking, but I'd like to point out that there's a rather natural reason why the system is slanted against the defendant:
It's expensive and overloaded.
As a prosecutor you wouldn't want to waste resources on a fishing expedition. You'll need a case, and whether fabricated out of whole cloth or genuine, it really ought to be a good enough case to convince at least SOME of the jurors by the time you are finished presenting it. If not, then it is too soon to go to trial, isn't it?
Re:5 page paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
all citizens agree to all laws. Not random people who get extra rules foisted on them for varying lengths of time which can get them jailed without a proper trial if they break them.
Re:5 page paper? (Score:4, Interesting)
You dont know much about the process do you.
you AGREED to it when you signed up to vote. That is where they pull jury choices from Voter records.
Here in michigan they use TWO. Drivers license records and Voter records. If you do NOT agree to being on a jury, then dont have a drivers license and dont register to vote.
This is spelled out clearly in the State and Federal EULA you agreed to when you became a US citizen.
Let me guess, you are one of those people that knows NOTHING about your rights, and responsibilities as set forth by your Laws and constitution.
Re:another reason (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really just an older definition of the term. "Peer" is mostly used the same way in Britain as it's used here, and the it can be used here to describe "peers" of other countries, perfectly accurately. Since blooded nobility means very little these days, even in countries that continue to have it, the old use of the term has fallen away except in historical records and fantasy novels.
To GP: The original use of the term "peer" had little to do with ability, and everything to do with birth. When the original English legal system was designed, the jury of one's peers assumed that a noble would not be judged by a jury of commoners. Of course in the US, since we recognize no blooded nobility, that means that a jury of your peers is synonymous with a jury of fellow citizens.
Re:5 page paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why the pool should be 50% random selection and 50% required of all 18 year old adults.
Graduated from highschool? Great! Here's your juror number. It's time you learned how the judicial system works instead of the bullshit they fed you in school civics class.
Re:Facebook had nothing to do with it... (Score:5, Interesting)
And I was on a jury for a murder trial where we debated for many hours before finding the person not guilty (the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case). The point being that your experience is interesting but not universal.
Yes people make up their mind beofre things start.. But that is why yu are supposed to deliberate, supposed to discuss. To make sure
a) everyone understands the evidence
b) everyone understands what the evidence MEANS
c) everyone can explain their reasoning.
Sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions. But if yu are on the jury with other people who have a brain they will see through that and make you explain yourself.
You get what you pay for (Score:3, Interesting)
My Grandpa used to say: "You pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
Sadly that is what the juror system has become.
Re:another reason (Score:3, Interesting)
How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?
Re:Common problem of jury based justice (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:another reason (Score:3, Interesting)
How does someone even reach the age where they can be selected for jury duty without understanding the basic principle that the jurors can decide pretty much whatever they please behind those closed doors? I mean, who even needs to be told about "jury nullification"?
I imagine this has to do with a combination of factors, namely a campaign on the part of the legal system to suppress knowledge about jury nullification and instruct jurors that they may not use it. The lack of ethics and/or civics classes in modern American secondary education probably has a whole lot to do with it as well, I'm sure.
Re:The problem with jurors (Score:3, Interesting)
Care to explain how you knew the other potential jurors were lying?
Re:another reason (Score:2, Interesting)
A couple of years ago, I was working in a PC repair shop (a real one, not a Geek Squad) with 6 other techs of varying ages (20ish to 45ish), most with 4-year college degrees or working towards them. We were having a discussion about the RIAA's actions, and I mentioned that I'm surprised that no jury in a RIAA-related case has voted for nullfication.
None of the other techs knew what jury nullification was. Furthermore, none of them believed that it was a real thing once I explained it. And *furthermore,* once I brought up the Wikipedia entry on jury nullification, they all just assumed that Wikipedia was wrong.
So it does not surprise me at all that people are unfamiliar with the concept. Most high schools don't even teach civics any more.
--Jeremy
Re:about time.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Regarding Hadley Jons saying sorry - hmmm, I suspect that she was sorry she had to pay a fine and go back to school. I doubt she felt any remorse for making the Facebook post. I expect she will present her essay triple-spaced in 20 point Comic Sans.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. I wish our voting process was to hand each voter a list of offices followed by a blank line. The poll test would be to write in the candidates name. If you can't correctly spell the name of the candidate you wish to vote for, you obviously haven't done enough research to really know what they stand for, and are to uninformed in matters to be choosing who gets to make the laws.
But, that's just me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason juries dont work (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't believe no one has referenced the Richard Dawkins paper where he points out some serious flaws in the idea y jury trials.
If you haven't read it there is a copy here Three herring gull chicks...The reason juries don't work [lucite.org].
Re:5 page paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:5 page paper? (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes for a much more even distribution of jurors