Comments on: Jury Duty

By: Retailer Michael George Found Guilty of Murder » Comics Worth Reading

Retailer Michael George Found Guilty of Murder » Comics Worth Reading — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:41:42 +0000

[...] which strikes me as a remarkably short time to make a decision about murder charges. When I was on jury duty, our deliberations were short because we had no question that the defendant was guilty. [...]

By: Johanna

Johanna — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:53:48 +0000

I agree, Paul. We would have liked to have had more information for comparison than we were allowed.

By: Paul O'Brien

Paul O'Brien — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:46:22 +0000

In the UK, we leave sentencing to the judge. The problem with letting juries do it is that they simply don’t have a sense of the going rate (because only exceptional cases get reported by the mainstream media), which means that they’ll produce wildly erratic decisions. Judges are better placed to ensure that sentencing is broadly consistent, by virtue of their greater experience. The value of experience, to my mind, is much greater in these issues than in straightforward yes/no questions such as “is he guilty?” (Of course, there can be awkward situations when the jury convicts and the judge can’t work out how the hell they came to that conclusion.)

By: Michael Grabois

Michael Grabois — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:29:25 +0000

I’m glad you didn’t consider a minimum sentence just because of his age. It seems to me to be a worse crime to have killed someone and gotten away with it for 30 years, than if he had been captured at the time.

In Texas, at least, you are not allowed to consider parole or anything else like that when determining the length of the sentence. For example, in one of my cases about 10 years ago, due to prison overcrowding a prisoner was serving only about one month per year of his sentence. So when we sentenced a guy to 25 years, he was out in less than two (counting time served while waiting for trial).

The only part of jury deliberations and discussion that’s illegal to reveal is the Grand Jury, which is why the prosecutors are going harder after the San Francisco reporters who revealed Grand Jury testimony leaked to them about Barry Bonds and illegal steroids, than they are after the guys who provided the illegal steroids in the first place.

By: James Schee

James Schee — Wed, 24 May 2006 21:24:13 +0000

It sounds like a very… startling experience. To think of having to decide someone’s fate like this is just a bit mind bending.

I’ve never had jury duty, my parents and I shared the same mailing address (a PO Box) even when I got on my own. My dad’s name was James Schee as well, though we had different middle names.

So when the summons would come in, it would just say James Schee and we’d call to see which they meant and they’d just go “never mind” instead of dealing with it.

Since his passing, I’ve only got one summons and when I called the night before I didn’t have to go because there were no pending court cases.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:35:17 +0000

Don, I thought briefly about whether I should talk about it, but then I realized that they’d been so careful to tell us everything we needed to know that if we shouldn’t talk, they would have instructed us about that. But you scared me for a minute!

By: Don MacPherson

Don MacPherson — Wed, 24 May 2006 20:14:29 +0000

Justice system factoid: In Canada, revealing jury deliberations or even jurors’ identities is a crime, even when it’s a jurors him/herself doing the talking/writing. Those TV interviews with jurors in prominent U.S. cases — never happens up here in the Great White North.

Ultimately, I think that’s a good thing, as it eliminates the possibility of people seeking to turn their jury experiences in high-profile cases into some kind of personal windfall.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 24 May 2006 17:20:44 +0000

Michael, that did come up. No one seemed to seriously consider the minimum.

Ed, we had similar problems, with our question about parole during sentencing coming back “you shouldn’t think about that.” I’m glad that the case was relatively simple (there were no separate defense witnesses, for example) and that death wasn’t a consideration.

By: Michael Grabois

Michael Grabois — Wed, 24 May 2006 16:59:15 +0000

The guy’s lawyer said “Twenty years to a 60-year-old man is an awful, awful long time.” Well gee, how about the 30 years that the victim has been dead? How unfair a deal did he get?

You wrote that “The jury tried to balance mercy (any sentence would effectively result in life)…” I appreciate what a hard decision this must have been, but how much did the jury consider that he got away with murder for 30 years, and if he had been convicted and served 20 years at the original time, he would have been out 10 years ago and would still have another 20 to enjoy his freedom?

By: adistantsoil.com » Blog Archive » Cold Case Files

adistantsoil.com » Blog Archive » Cold Case Files — Wed, 24 May 2006 15:04:58 +0000

[...] Johanna Draper Carlson is serving jury duty in a 30 year old murder. That’s the sobering story for the day. [...]

By: Ed Sizemore

Ed Sizemore — Wed, 24 May 2006 15:04:51 +0000

Johanna, my condolences on the jury duty. I served on a jury about five years ago. I thought I was cynical about the American justice system prior to that, but my experience on the jury really showed me how flawed the system can be. During the trial I served on, the jury was effectively not allowed to ask questions. (We had to write questions down, pass them to the foreman of the jury who would decide if they should be passed on to the judge, who would determine if the question was going to allowed.) During deliberation we had questions about some of the testimony, the judge said that no questions could be asked during the deliberation phase. I felt like a impotent spectator during all of it. We found the man guilty because he basically confessed to the crime on the witness stand. (It was a breaking and entering charge and he admitted to be in the building to steal merchandise after business hours.) He was suppose to be on parole and we couldn’t figure out how the sentencing worked and weren’t allow to ask questions when making a decision on jail time. Next time the jury questionnaire comes my way and they ask what reasons I can give not to serve, I will honestly say I think the trial system is a joke (at least in Chesterfield County).