Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:53 pm**

I am curious to know how many people here have served on a jury, and what were your experiences? I personally have never been called for jury duty. I was going to do a poll, but somehow I messed it up.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:17 pm**

So far, I have never been called to serve, but I think it would be really interesting, and one big responsibility for a trial where some ones life could hang in the balance.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:03 pm**

I've sat on a jury before, and enjoyed myself to tell the truth. I've actually told this story here before as I remember - it's in the archives somewhere I'd almost bet on it.

The short of the story is that the defendant was charged with domestic violence. The state presented its entire case in about three and a half hours. We were instructed by the judge early afternoon as I recall (after lunch) and retired to the jury room for deliberations. In retrospect I'd say we gave the defendant a good and fair trial on the evidence - as best I recall, we spent as much time in our deliberations as it took to present the entire case on both sides or maybe slightly more. (It amounted to a full workday including the lunch break.)

We came out, rendered our verdict. The judge said (words to the effect of) 'Ladies and gentlemen, I have some news for you from Los Angeles: OJ Simpson has been aquitted.' (We tried our case the same day the murder verdicts were announced.) The judge then thanked us for our service, and for devoting more time to our DV case than the Simpson jury had spent deliberating on a case that lasted nearly nine months.

Now I'll admit to being a bit of a geek about such things, but the "Thank you especially for devoting more time..." made the whole day worthwhile, because I had seen the Simson trial, to which our case was comparatively small potatoes.

As for deliberations, if you've ever seen the film "12 Angry Men" things went pretty much along those lines, but with far less heat.

I'm actually in the venire pool for another go-round - got the letter in late September. Will I get called? We'll see...

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:30 pm**

Wow, that is a cool story Dougoh, I was always surprised at how quickly the OJ jury rendered their verdict. I personally think the jury played the race card thing just like Johnny Cochran wanted them to since most of them were black. Anyway, thanks for your response, I would actually like to serve on a jury someday, but I have to admit, I would want it to be an interesting case and not a boring, mundane, waste of time thing.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:09 pm**

Well, Scott, depending on the size of your community, the quickest ticket to an "invitation" to jury service is usually a vote in a primary election. Since primary season 2000, I've gotten four of 'em - never have yet actually had to report though, because the cases were settled beforehand.

Even the cases you might think uninteresting, though, are still important: Just put yourself in the defendant's shoes. The only chance he or she has comes from you and your willingness and ability to give a fair hearing of the evidence, and render a fair judgement based on the evidence presented.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:11 pm**

the o.j case would have been interesting, but for nine months there you'd be!

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:14 pm**

I have made the next to last "cut" twice. When carefully quizzed by the judge and attorneys, and asked about my jobs, all went well until I told them I worked weekends at the Lizzie Borden B&B. After some lively discussion about the case, Lizzie's acquittal, and my interest in true crime- I got dismissed! One was a murder case last October and I really wanted to sit on that jury! Next time I will not volunteer so much or look too happy to serve!

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:17 pm**

doug65oh @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:09 pm wrote:Well, Scott, depending on the size of your community, the quickest ticket to an "invitation" to jury service is usually a vote in a primary election. Since primary season 2000, I've gotten four of 'em - never have yet actually had to report though, because the cases were settled beforehand.

Even the cases you might think uninteresting, though, are still important: Just put yourself in the defendant's shoes. The only chance he or she has comes from you and your willingness and ability to give a fair hearing of the evidence, and render a fair judgement based on the evidence presented.

You are totally correct, I would want a fair and impartial jury if it was ME on trial, and I admit that I wouldn't want to be sequestered for months at a time either. I guess it is just a fantasy of mine to be a part of a famous, high profile case.

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:19 pm**

Shelley. If only you'd mentioned Titanic instead...who's to say?

Posted: **Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:28 pm**

I know what you mean, Scott. I think everybody has that fantasy now and then. Any one of the four Williams trials back in the '80s would have worked for me. (The Midnight In the Garden of Good & Evil cases I mean.) Or Texas v. Ruby back in 1964.

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:20 am**

Shelley @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:14 pm wrote:I have made the next to last "cut" twice. When carefully quizzed by the judge and attorneys, and asked about my jobs, all went well until I told them I worked weekends at the Lizzie Borden B&B. After some lively discussion about the case, Lizzie's acquittal, and my interest in true crime- I got dismissed! One was a murder case last October and I really wanted to sit on that jury! Next time I will not volunteer so much or look too happy to serve!

The last time my name was picked out of the jury pool I said I had a comment and approached the bench with the prosecutor and defense lawyer. I told what I had to say, and the judge asked if I wanted an excuse. I said that was up to the judge, since if I wasn't excused the information would waste a peremptory challenge. At this one of the lawyers smiled, as if I knew too much to be a simple juror. I was excused, and not called again.

I think any juror who "knows too much" just may be eliminated by either a peremptory challenge or for cause. Your state may do this differently, based on the law dramas set in California.

In John Grisham's book "A Runaway Jury" we learn about what can happen if a juror "knows too much". But its just fiction, isn't it?

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:24 am**

Smudgeman @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:30 pm wrote:Wow, that is a cool story Dougoh, I was always surprised at how quickly the OJ jury rendered their verdict. I personally think the jury played the race card thing just like Johnny Cochran wanted them to since most of them were black. Anyway, thanks for your response, I would actually like to serve on a jury someday, but I have to admit, I would want it to be an interesting case and not a boring, mundane, waste of time thing.

The jury in the Trial of OJ came to a verdict almost as quickly as the jury in the Trial of LB for the same reason: they were not guilty of the charges.

When I was on a jury that tried a serious felony, the straw vote taken in the first hour showed 9 not guilty, 3 maybe. No one voted for guilt on this straw vote. The prosecutor did not make the case, the evidence wasn't there. It was one person's word against the other, and she had been wrong before in her description of the perpetrator. No physical evidence to convict.

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:41 am**

Well, actually, in the OJ case, the jury had plenty of physical evidence to contend with : blood, socks, hat, gloves, a bronco, etc.......

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:59 am**

Smudgeman @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:41 pm wrote:Well, actually, in the OJ case, the jury had plenty of physical evidence to contend with : blood, socks, hat, gloves, a bronco, etc.......

All of which could be planted that morning or aferwards.

The real problem for any prosecution is that the limo driver arrived just after 10:20 PM, picked up OJ after 11 PM and took him to the airport. During that time he saw no person or car leave the compound.
The Medical Examiner Dr. Irwin Golden (name?) testified in July 1994 that the available evidence said they were killed after 11 PM. He did the autopsies. The autopsies are contained in the book "Killing Time".
Therefore the bloodstains were planted before they were killed, or, somebody else planted them at OJ's home. Take your choice.

Do we want to go there?

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:05 pm**

No, we don't. I don't think OJ's blood was planted on the victim's bodies, but anyway, my point was there WAS physical evidence in the trial the jury had to deal with that's all.

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:14 pm**

Here is an article by Paul Roberts on the Justice System.
Roberts was Asst. Treasurer under Reagan, a columnist for 'Business Week' and the 'Wall Street Journal' in the past.
Now he is strongly against Bush Jr's policies.

Here is what he has to say. Some of this may be known to you.

http://www.counterpunch.com/roberts12122006.html

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:50 pm**

Yes I have seen that before, and agree with some of it. Don't get me started on Bush - I am not a fan of his.

Posted: **Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:31 pm**

Speaking of juries, anybody see the latest on Commonwealth v. McCowen (the Worthington murder case)? The way it sounds, might be a case of "3 Angry Jurors."

The story is in both today's Cape Cod Times and Boston Globe.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:22 am**

The last time I was called to serve, in January, the officer in charge of my grouping got a big laugh outta using me as the straight man- he kind of picked me out and jokingly said he knew I'd be "trouble." We bonded quickly.
Then, because I had just drunk about a gallon of water to hydrate in that closed-air atmosphere while waiting, I had to pee. Then about 15 minutes later I had to pee again. And again. Then I asked my officer if they takes breaks in a trial if someone has to pee. He thought I was a charming handful and I bet my bottom dollar I am never called again! I think he *put a word in.*

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:43 am**

Just a curiosity. I found this on the ground 2 years ago right outside Lizzie's New Bedford Courthouse.
Of course, those of you who live in the area will not only not be impressed- you will probably shudder>>>

I thought it was neat and I kept it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:52 pm**

Smudgeman @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:50 pm wrote:Yes I have seen that before, and agree with some of it. Don't get me started on Bush - I am not a fan of his.

I think the objective physical evidence is that Georgie W. is NOT the President his father was. BUT he was re-elected!!!

The above is an argument for a new Constitutional Amendmen. Once a person serves as President, his wife, siblings, children and nephews /nieces would be forever barred from the Presidency.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:26 pm**

Smudgeman @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:05 pm wrote:No, we don't. I don't think OJ's blood was planted on the victim's bodies, but anyway, my point was there WAS physical evidence in the trial the jury had to deal with that's all.

Didn't OJ foolishly give a blood sample the day he was questioned? Do you know why it came up a few CCs short of what was noted at the time?

"Frame-Up" by Curt Gentry will educate you about the law.
"Justice" (now on Friday night) is terribly explicit on legal procedure.
Or is that just Show Business?
PS
Alfred de Marigny's book on his murder trial is another example.

Posted: **Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:58 pm**

Let's just drop the whole OJ thing. I am satisfied with my opinions on the matter from watching the trial on TV and reading books.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:47 pm**

Joseph Bosco was the only reporter to sit through every hour of the trial. His book may be in your library.
He wrote that after watching the trial in person, seeing the news on TV made it look like an entirely different trial.
Editing can be done to create an effect. "60 Minutes' (see the book) used to film the interview, then separately film the questions. The answers would not necessarily match the question, but made Good Drama.

Broadcast news have a rule strictly forbidding it. That may be why it is called a "magazine".

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:05 pm**

F. Lee Bailey- I've been wanting to talk to you for a long time. Personal reasons.

Posted: **Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:43 pm**

If you want to get out of jury duty just walk in and say something that will piss-off the defense like, "When's the hanging" or "Let's get this show on the road, I've got pigs to slaughter" and they will show you the door.

-1bigsteve (o:

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:13 am**

I've sat on a jury years ago, & I have to admit."I didn't like it". One case was fairly easy. A woman took out an insurance policy, (her two small children the benificiaries) within 24 hours of taking out the policy, after being at a party, she was hit by a drunk driver (from the same party) while walking beside the highway, in the dark...The insurance company did not want to pay...It was pretty cut & dried, as the policy was in effect ,once they took her money.....In Alaska ,if you get a Permanant Fund Dividend, you get put in a pot to be called for jury duty (in whatever Borough you may live in)...Right now I am "on call" from December thru Feb....as I work in a Prison, I am hopeing ,I will not actually have to sit on an actual case....(After all I am an expert, on criminals, as I work around them, right?

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 2:34 am**

Unfortunately, that sounds all too familiar when it comes to insurance companies.

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:06 pm**

Before anyone here considers making remarks in court, there is such a thing as "contempt of court" for certain judges. Speak politely!!!
If the case was well publicized, and you made up your mind from reading the sensational stories in the press, just tell this during voir dire.

I was once on a panel. They wanted to know if anyone was a member of the plaintiff's parish, whether they knew where her housing was, and had anyone who sued over a fall. I wan't called, but 3 strikes here.

PS Corrected

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:08 pm**

Before anyone here considers making remarks in court, there is such a thing as "contempt of court" for certain judges. Speak politely!!!
If the case was well publicized, and you made up your mind from reading the sensational stories in the press, just tell this during voir dire.

I was once on a panel. They wanted to know if anyone was a member of the plaintiff's parish, whether they knew where her housing was, and had anyone who sued over a fall. I wan't called, but 3 strikes here.

PS Corrected

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:10 pm**

doug65oh @ Fri Dec 15, 2006 3:34 am wrote:Unfortunately, that sounds all too familiar when it comes to insurance companies.

Gerry Spence "Bloodthirsty Bitches ..." says the clogging of the courts is caused by insurance companies as they try to delay cases.
Ever been on a civil jury when they settle just after the jury is finished?

Posted: **Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:34 pm**

1bigsteve @ Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:43 pm wrote:If you want to get out of jury duty just walk in and say something that will piss-off the defense like, "When's the hanging" or "Let's get this show on the road, I've got pigs to slaughter" and they will show you the door.

-1bigsteve (o:

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

Jury Duty

Jury Duty