Most people have absolutely no experience with what goes on in a courtroom. This is a discussion about juries and some of it will surprise people here:
A discussion of jury selection from The Armed Attorneys
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
Anchorite
Member
Thanks for sharing. This is the hardest part of trying cases, IMO.
I don’t know anything about the “armed lawyer” in the video above, but the idea of jury deselection remains a popular technique that has been around for a while and is applicable to most criminal trails.
Years ago I read a book (can’t recall the title or author, but it stuck with me) where the author basically came out and said no matter your voir dire, “jurors’ see what they believe,” and I couldn’t describe it any better. Despite an oath to be fair, when asked to make a tough decision, jurors will always default to their belief system (ie, confirmation bias). Thus, in jury selection, I must try to learn what jurors already believe about the important issues in the case I am trying. And those issues are different from case to case, and from criminal to civil. It’s a hell of a lot harder than you think to get people to talk in a group setting of strangers about this stuff that is foreign to all of them.
I don’t know anything about the “armed lawyer” in the video above, but the idea of jury deselection remains a popular technique that has been around for a while and is applicable to most criminal trails.
Years ago I read a book (can’t recall the title or author, but it stuck with me) where the author basically came out and said no matter your voir dire, “jurors’ see what they believe,” and I couldn’t describe it any better. Despite an oath to be fair, when asked to make a tough decision, jurors will always default to their belief system (ie, confirmation bias). Thus, in jury selection, I must try to learn what jurors already believe about the important issues in the case I am trying. And those issues are different from case to case, and from criminal to civil. It’s a hell of a lot harder than you think to get people to talk in a group setting of strangers about this stuff that is foreign to all of them.
lemaymiami
Member
If you're in court - and they're picking a jury.... You're in deep trouble. I only saw what I considered to be justice in a courtroom once or twice - in a 22 year career in police work.... Once things get to court it's all about who wins and who loses - and if actual justice occurs that's good fortune in my experience. My best advice for any armed citizen - stay out of court if at all possible -and expect a very hard time afterwards if you're ever forced to defend yourself or your family...
The trial begins at jury selection.
Speedo66
Member
There is nothing more boring than jury selection. Hearing the same questions asked again and again…
“Jurors, this part of the trial is known as the ‘voir dire’, that’s French for ‘slow death’.”
Edit: I’ve also heard “you’re going to be tried by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.”
“Jurors, this part of the trial is known as the ‘voir dire’, that’s French for ‘slow death’.”
Edit: I’ve also heard “you’re going to be tried by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.”
Last edited:
Excellent post, Jeff.
For the scholarly minded -
Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science (Psychology and Crime, 8)
by Dennis J. Devine (Author)
Excellent book going over some the research and nuances. One thing that was really interesting in the middle of the video is that the lawyers were negative on having 'gun' folks on the jury who actually knew something. They were harsher than naive people. That has been supported by jury research that found exactly that. Gun knowledgeable folks were harder on decision making and gun type issues.
We've seen on forum discussions, when someone brings up some issue - let's say - number of shots, gun type or whatever, some will post that my lawyer will easily explain this and convince the jury. Or my lawyer will object. Not so easy (read the research). For example, if you object - two negatives. First, the jury only remembers the bad thing even more. Two, if you had a big objection - then there must have been something about it being a bad thing and that's why you are having a fit.
For the scholarly minded -
Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science (Psychology and Crime, 8)
by Dennis J. Devine (Author)
Excellent book going over some the research and nuances. One thing that was really interesting in the middle of the video is that the lawyers were negative on having 'gun' folks on the jury who actually knew something. They were harsher than naive people. That has been supported by jury research that found exactly that. Gun knowledgeable folks were harder on decision making and gun type issues.
We've seen on forum discussions, when someone brings up some issue - let's say - number of shots, gun type or whatever, some will post that my lawyer will easily explain this and convince the jury. Or my lawyer will object. Not so easy (read the research). For example, if you object - two negatives. First, the jury only remembers the bad thing even more. Two, if you had a big objection - then there must have been something about it being a bad thing and that's why you are having a fit.
A colleague of mine who was a PhD biologist was called for a water pollution case of a lake being fouled. He was asked if he would only consider the scientific evidence offered and not use any from his expertise. He said NO and was ejected.
theotherwaldo
Member
I've been excluded from juries a remarkable number of times.
Something about being an older white male with a number of various degrees and experiences who refuses to disregard all previous knowledge and experience... .
Something about being an older white male with a number of various degrees and experiences who refuses to disregard all previous knowledge and experience... .
earlthegoat2
Member
I’m sure telling the truth as one sees it is a perfect technique for getting excluded. It’s also a perfect technique for alienating a plethora of other undesireable people from your life.
I wasn’t at all surprised about “gun people” being harder on juries in self defense cases after 20+ years of moderating this subforum. I do wonder if our society is well served by the system the way it is though.
My LE background keeps me from even being called for jury duty. (They have a list at the courthouse here) It worked for immediate family members for awhile, but a shortage of people who showed up caused them to put immediate family on civil cases and my wife had to sit through a medical malpractice civil case. She said no one on the jury had the expertise to make any judgement about the technical medical evidence presented.
I don’t know if excluding “gun people” gets more acquittals or not. I wonder if there are any stats about people who have been in violent encounters on juries? I’m thinking that combat experience in the military might be the only experience that got past the selection process. LE and Corrections experience is automatically excluded everywhere that I’m aware of. I would think that someone who had experienced the fear and confusion of violent encounter would be able to relate better.
My LE background keeps me from even being called for jury duty. (They have a list at the courthouse here) It worked for immediate family members for awhile, but a shortage of people who showed up caused them to put immediate family on civil cases and my wife had to sit through a medical malpractice civil case. She said no one on the jury had the expertise to make any judgement about the technical medical evidence presented.
I don’t know if excluding “gun people” gets more acquittals or not. I wonder if there are any stats about people who have been in violent encounters on juries? I’m thinking that combat experience in the military might be the only experience that got past the selection process. LE and Corrections experience is automatically excluded everywhere that I’m aware of. I would think that someone who had experienced the fear and confusion of violent encounter would be able to relate better.
I always wondered when I filled out the jury forms that I got in the mail, calling me to serve whether I had law enforcement relatives. That seems prejudicial to me, why not ask if I had medical personnel? I can see it being asked in voir dire but why on a form. I do so I said yes. However, on my 3 last calls before I aged out, I just sat in the big old auditorium, read a book and never made it to even be questioned.
They had a decent cafeteria, so I just hung out all day. Some folks went to the River Walk but it was too hot in my opinion for tourist food.
They had a decent cafeteria, so I just hung out all day. Some folks went to the River Walk but it was too hot in my opinion for tourist food.
It's no secret that a jury can make or break a case. It's not unusual for parties to settle in a civil case after jury selection, because they already know how it's going to play out.
The gun guy being the problem was a new one on me, but some enthusiasts are very critical of the general public. It doesn't surprise me.
The gun guy being the problem was a new one on me, but some enthusiasts are very critical of the general public. It doesn't surprise me.
The gun guy has two branches:
1. The gun guy who might think your choice of gun, an 'assault' violated his view of what one should have. We recall several noticeable gun writers who attacked the platform.
2. The person with legit knowledge of tactics and weapons who can analyze why your claim of SD was BS (as mentioned in the video).
1. The gun guy who might think your choice of gun, an 'assault' violated his view of what one should have. We recall several noticeable gun writers who attacked the platform.
2. The person with legit knowledge of tactics and weapons who can analyze why your claim of SD was BS (as mentioned in the video).
JTHunter
Member
As I have only been called once, I have never had to serve on a jury. The time I was called, I said something about "reasonable doubt" and the SA bounced me.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I’ve been called twice and served on 5 juries, apparently they think I do a good job lol.
The ones I have served on have been entirely ruled by emotion in deliberation, “I feel” this or that. Fortunately they’ve all been fairly cut and dry so there wasn’t much discussion or debate.
once an older lady, I’d say close to 90 judging by appearance, couldn’t hear thunder. The lawyers were yelling at her just trying to communicate. Eventually, frustrated, she pointed the defendant and yelled “I was just sitting on my porch and he came up a whacked me on my head… I told them I didn’t know if he stole anything or not, I was knocked out….. and I’ve know you since you was a boy!”
Nothing else in that case mattered, every juror admitted as much behind closed doors. Since then I’ve wondered if her sight was good as her hearing.
Once I personally had been quite convinced someone was guilty, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt. But that was definitely the way things were going. That is until the sole witness took the stand and said “that’s not the guy” we were dismissed about 10 minutes later.
As I understand it, if you get to the point of a trial multiple lawyers have looked at the evidence and decided it is enough to try you. So I’d say you go in behind the 8 ball, as they say. So far as self defense cases, people get tried on the jurors “feel” like they’d have done, imo. I definitely don’t want to count of 12 random people from my county, folks around here will shoot quick, but they don’t like to blame a victim either… it’s like a crap shoot with your freedom.
The ones I have served on have been entirely ruled by emotion in deliberation, “I feel” this or that. Fortunately they’ve all been fairly cut and dry so there wasn’t much discussion or debate.
once an older lady, I’d say close to 90 judging by appearance, couldn’t hear thunder. The lawyers were yelling at her just trying to communicate. Eventually, frustrated, she pointed the defendant and yelled “I was just sitting on my porch and he came up a whacked me on my head… I told them I didn’t know if he stole anything or not, I was knocked out….. and I’ve know you since you was a boy!”
Nothing else in that case mattered, every juror admitted as much behind closed doors. Since then I’ve wondered if her sight was good as her hearing.
Once I personally had been quite convinced someone was guilty, not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt. But that was definitely the way things were going. That is until the sole witness took the stand and said “that’s not the guy” we were dismissed about 10 minutes later.
As I understand it, if you get to the point of a trial multiple lawyers have looked at the evidence and decided it is enough to try you. So I’d say you go in behind the 8 ball, as they say. So far as self defense cases, people get tried on the jurors “feel” like they’d have done, imo. I definitely don’t want to count of 12 random people from my county, folks around here will shoot quick, but they don’t like to blame a victim either… it’s like a crap shoot with your freedom.
rdnktrkr
Member
I've been called a few times, once on the "grand" jury where you decide IF cases go further, 2 days a week for 12 weeks, that was some busy days. The only case I served on the defendant would have come out better taking the pre trial offer.
I tried to see both sides and not be opinionated (hard for me to do). I've always heard it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but finding 12 peers that would look at my case fairly might be getting harder to locate.
I tried to see both sides and not be opinionated (hard for me to do). I've always heard it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but finding 12 peers that would look at my case fairly might be getting harder to locate.
I couldn't agree more. Being at the mercy of the legal system is terrifying.
lemaymiami
Member
Been called for jury duty once or twice - the moment they find out I'm a retired cop - out the door I go.... The last thing anyone in court wants (the folks who are earning a living in court...) is someone that has the slightest idea of what's going on... Yet, even saying that - occasionally justice will jump up out of the muck and assert itself... Just not very often from my experience...
I've been summoned to jury duty twice. The first time was for federal court. I filled out their questionnaire, and never heard from them again. (I read the directions pretty carefully, so I'm sure it wasn't on me to call in & see if I needed to report.) The second time, I'd just taken a job as a prosecutor, and I got summoned for a state court division that only heard criminal cases. That court excused me before I ever reported.
The reality for me is that I'll probably never serve on a jury. I know that I'd only keep a lawyer on the jury in very specific and rare circumstances.
The reality for me is that I'll probably never serve on a jury. I know that I'd only keep a lawyer on the jury in very specific and rare circumstances.
Jim Watson
Member
I got "caught" on a couple of civil cases. I went along with the crowd on the first one with an award more than I thought it was worth, but the second, I held my ground and talked up a less extravagant judgement.
I begged off on a case where the plaintiff was a coworker and was severely scolded for not saying I could disregard all the stuff I had been hearing at the office.
I do wish I had been able to hang around and hear the case of the guy who was suing the insurance company to collect his wife's life insurance. He had, after all, been acquitted of murdering her.
I begged off on a case where the plaintiff was a coworker and was severely scolded for not saying I could disregard all the stuff I had been hearing at the office.
I do wish I had been able to hang around and hear the case of the guy who was suing the insurance company to collect his wife's life insurance. He had, after all, been acquitted of murdering her.
Old Dog
Member
I would never, ever, ever consent to be tried in a jury trial, given the choice. Never served jury duty (received summons ten or more times over the years), go figure. However, I've seen the most inexplicable, perplexing, aggravating and downright outrageous verdicts in multiple trials in which I've been called as a witness (usually for the state, although once for a plaintiff in a civil case against the state).
What I concluded:
1. Having a law degree does not mean someone is intelligent or possessed of common sense. (No offense intended to any THR members who are attorneys)
2. Juries are typically collectively stupid. There may be one or two intelligent jurors on the panel, but they will generally go along with the majority.
Anyone who is at all familiar with the O.J. trial and witnessed him get acquitted in the face of overwhelming evidence and science against him, where the jurors were simply too uneducated, too stupid and ultimately, too biased, to understand the forensic science and evidence, should understand the myriad of pitfalls and potential consequences of trial by jury.
There are now many major issues that render trial by jury in this country problematic, among them:
1. The racial divide, which after smoldering for a few decades, has flamed up again with misleading or hateful rhetoric from all sides,
2. The country's collective stance on all things gun-related (yer either for 'em or agin' 'em, as Walter Brennan used to say),
3. Increasing distrust of government, and law enforcement, among Americans of all political persuasions, not to mention the "don't be a snitch" mentality prevalent in most urban communities,
4. Younger generations of Americans are increasingly socially isolated, lacking in the life experiences and in-person social interactions of older generations, the erosion of neighborhood communities, fracturing of families, decline in church attendance, lack of meaningful in-person relationships.
What I concluded:
1. Having a law degree does not mean someone is intelligent or possessed of common sense. (No offense intended to any THR members who are attorneys)
2. Juries are typically collectively stupid. There may be one or two intelligent jurors on the panel, but they will generally go along with the majority.
Anyone who is at all familiar with the O.J. trial and witnessed him get acquitted in the face of overwhelming evidence and science against him, where the jurors were simply too uneducated, too stupid and ultimately, too biased, to understand the forensic science and evidence, should understand the myriad of pitfalls and potential consequences of trial by jury.
There are now many major issues that render trial by jury in this country problematic, among them:
1. The racial divide, which after smoldering for a few decades, has flamed up again with misleading or hateful rhetoric from all sides,
2. The country's collective stance on all things gun-related (yer either for 'em or agin' 'em, as Walter Brennan used to say),
3. Increasing distrust of government, and law enforcement, among Americans of all political persuasions, not to mention the "don't be a snitch" mentality prevalent in most urban communities,
4. Younger generations of Americans are increasingly socially isolated, lacking in the life experiences and in-person social interactions of older generations, the erosion of neighborhood communities, fracturing of families, decline in church attendance, lack of meaningful in-person relationships.
Outlaw75
Member
Yep, I've been on one jury in my nearly 60 years. That experience has convinced me that I never want to depend on a jury when my skin is on the line.
Jim Watson
Member
So what is left, a bench trial where the Head Lawyer decides?
One wag said, if you are going to argue the facts, demand a jury trial, if you are going to argue the law, take a bench trial.
One wag said, if you are going to argue the facts, demand a jury trial, if you are going to argue the law, take a bench trial.
