TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
Two wks ago, when I first went in as a potential juror, I actually got called into the jurors' box, but the atty's X'd my name off the list for whatever reason, so I went home for Thanksgiving wk. It would have been an assault and battery case between two middle-aged men.
Today it was a case of a middle-aged man indicted for assault and battery of a 17-yr-old with whom he was living (not sure if it was his daughter or step-d or what. Several jurors excused themselves (one actually knew the defendant!) and even after 6 replacements, (and another half doz who excused themselves because they were still in the big pool but had served two wks ago, and the judge said the newcomers got first dibs) my name never came up by random computer choice.
So I'm free! Woo-hoo!
Now that I've had time to digest the issue, I was wondering ... they ask you questions like, "Have you ever been the victim of domestic assault." "No."
And then I thought, hmm, does difficult child count? Even though he's a kid and he's got a diagnosis, and he's never been in jail. I totally forgot about it. And when I remembered, I instinctively blew it off, thinking it had nothing to do with-the case. Then again, maybe this 17-yr-old battered girl is a difficult child? Would it have influenced me?
Another Q was "Would listening to testimony about battery be so uncomfortable for you that you could not sit through a trial?" "No."
(Okay on that one. I've got a strong stomach.)
"Does anyone here believe that corporal punishment is totally wrong, under any circumstances?" "No."(I almost laughed aloud at that one. I could see the defense's argument from a mile away.)
Another statement by the judge was that the jury's job is not to find the defendant innocent; it is to find him guilty or not guilty. That doesn't mean you can't have a gut feeling or a tiny bit of doubt, just that you have to use the evidence given in court to make your decision.
Casey Anthony came to mind. And now I understand why she got off. The jurors were instructed not to find her innocent, just whether or not there was enough evidence to find her guilty.
I remember reading all the notes here after her trial, and thinking about it, and understanding in an abstract sense, but now that I've actually sat in a courtroom and heard the instructions, it makes more sense.
The local trial is probably over by now (the judge said it was a 1-day deal and it's late afternoon) so I feel comfortable asking these questions (not that I remember the names, and most people here don't know where I live).
But it got me thinking ...
Today it was a case of a middle-aged man indicted for assault and battery of a 17-yr-old with whom he was living (not sure if it was his daughter or step-d or what. Several jurors excused themselves (one actually knew the defendant!) and even after 6 replacements, (and another half doz who excused themselves because they were still in the big pool but had served two wks ago, and the judge said the newcomers got first dibs) my name never came up by random computer choice.
So I'm free! Woo-hoo!
Now that I've had time to digest the issue, I was wondering ... they ask you questions like, "Have you ever been the victim of domestic assault." "No."
And then I thought, hmm, does difficult child count? Even though he's a kid and he's got a diagnosis, and he's never been in jail. I totally forgot about it. And when I remembered, I instinctively blew it off, thinking it had nothing to do with-the case. Then again, maybe this 17-yr-old battered girl is a difficult child? Would it have influenced me?
Another Q was "Would listening to testimony about battery be so uncomfortable for you that you could not sit through a trial?" "No."
(Okay on that one. I've got a strong stomach.)
"Does anyone here believe that corporal punishment is totally wrong, under any circumstances?" "No."(I almost laughed aloud at that one. I could see the defense's argument from a mile away.)
Another statement by the judge was that the jury's job is not to find the defendant innocent; it is to find him guilty or not guilty. That doesn't mean you can't have a gut feeling or a tiny bit of doubt, just that you have to use the evidence given in court to make your decision.
Casey Anthony came to mind. And now I understand why she got off. The jurors were instructed not to find her innocent, just whether or not there was enough evidence to find her guilty.
I remember reading all the notes here after her trial, and thinking about it, and understanding in an abstract sense, but now that I've actually sat in a courtroom and heard the instructions, it makes more sense.
The local trial is probably over by now (the judge said it was a 1-day deal and it's late afternoon) so I feel comfortable asking these questions (not that I remember the names, and most people here don't know where I live).
But it got me thinking ...
Last edited: