Re: Jury duty considered harmful, or at least rare

On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> 
> At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
> 
> >Yeah.  The times I've known the facts in cop-vs-citizen cases,
> >the cops have often been lying; I have to assume that they're often lying
> >in cases when I don't know the facts as well.  Of course, getting
> >somebody with that kind of attitude about cops onto a jury
> >is somewhat unlikely, but occasionally you'll find neutrals.
> 
> I last served on a jury in 1973, 25 years ago, no doubt before many readers
> of Cypherpunks were born.
> 
> And I've only received a single _possible_ summons since, in the 25 years
> since that  one jury appearance.
> 
> Yet some of the apolitical numbskulls I know about have served on several
> juries in the same time. The Poisson, as expected, or something more human?
> 
> Jury nullifying minds want to know.

That is almost enough to make the more paranoid among us think that maybe
they have a "do not summon" list. They basically have this anyway with the
prosecution vetoing possible jurors. If you're on it, you just aren't
summoned. People on that list would be people of libertarian mindsets,
politically outspoken people, Cypherpunks, professional people, etc.

If they do have a list, I'd kind of like to be on it. I'm a college
student, and I _can't_ serve on a jury for more than a day or so. The same
goes for doctors, corporate executives, and others.

There is an inherent flaw in the jury system. You get summoned and are
legally required to blow the entire day down at the courthouse. If you're
a student you miss classes, and if you have a job you miss that too. You
have to pay for transportation, parking, food, and whatever else you need. 
In return, you get paid something like $3, which often isn't even enough
to cover the parking and get told every five minutes that this or that
will get you, as a juror or potential juror, thrown in jail.

Meanwhile, if you're a doctor, scientist, college student, lawyer, or hold
any other professional position you're thrown off most of the time. If you
have a decent job or if you're in school, forget about it, because if
you're tied up for more than a day or so you _just can't do it_. They
don't want people who know that juries are capable of nullification. They
don't want people who can determine that the evidence of one side or the
other is suspect. They don't want people who will actually look at the
facts rather than the emotion of the opening and closing arguments. The
prosecution sure as hell doesn't want anybody who will look at whether a
law should exist in the first place.

"Hey, Doctor! Um, I have to serve on a jury. Can you take all my patients
for the next six months while I'm locked in a hotel room? Oh, and I need
to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no.

So you basically wind up with juries which are stacked with welfare
recipients, stupid people, and retirees. A jury of retirees may work, but
the others surely don't.

When the trial actually starts, the average juror, regardless of what
council may tell them about due process, is usually biased in favor of the
prosecution, especially if the government is claiming that the defendant
is an evil child molestor. If it's a case involving technology, you get a
bunch of bogus "experts" up there which say what council wants to be said,
because real "experts" refuse to dumb down their testimony to a
kindergarden level.

"Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the
microchip fabrication process works?"

"Well, we start with..." 

"I'm sorry to stop you, sir. Can you please explain to the jury -- in
layman's terms -- what a transistor is?" 

"Well, in this context it often acts as a switch for an electronic
circuit, but it can also--"

"Would you please explain in layman's terms what a circuit is?" 

Argh. 

Can you imagine trying to be a defense expert in a cryptography case with
a bunch of jurors who can barely read, are unemployed, hate "nerds," and
beat the "geeks" up in high school, while the prosecution is constantly
screaming that the defendant is a kiddy porn trader and you're expected to
dumb your expert testimony down to kindergarden level?

An Anonymous College Student wants to be able to stay off jury duty,
and also complains that the system ties you up all day in court
even if you're not picked.  I've been called for jury duty in
three or four different counties, which had different approaches
to the jury selection and different levels of disrespect for the
time of potential jury pool members.  In Santa Clara County CA,
you're required to telephone into a badly organized recording
every day for a week to see if your number is up, and if
it does come up you need to go in, but otherwise not.
In Monmouth County NJ, you're called for a week, though they'll
let you go on Thursday afternoon if you haven't been picked
for a trial.  I played a lot of bridge that week....
In Middlesex County NJ, you and the lawyers all have to 
show up on Monday, and if they don't need you, you're done.

If you really want to both serve the public and get out of jury duty,
take a bunch of literature from the Fully Informed Jury Association
and start handing it out in the jury pool, explaining to people that
under the common law, juries have both the power and the moral obligation
to find people innocent if the law they're accused of is a bad law
or if the punishments are far out of proportion to the crime -
such as the fugitive slave laws of the 1800s or the 
alcohol and drug prohibitions of the 1900s, or hanging forgers in the 1800s 
or three strikes* for non-violent felons in the 1900s.  

	[*I'm not saying that three strikes for violent felons isn't appropriate, 
	but California's law goes far beyond that in practice.
	And we've had FIJA fights here before, and don't need them again.
	For the purpose of this discussion, the important FIJA issue
	is which door you'll be thrown out of, which body parts you'll land on,
	and how many times you'll bounce on your way out. :-)  ]

>Actually, the last time that I was called, the largest proportion of potential
>jurors were people who work for the government in one form or another.
>City park workers, school teachers, post office workers, clerical workers
>who work at city hall, etc.  Retirees were the next largest group.
>Between the two, they accounted for 80+ of the jury pool.

Yup.  Jury participation is critical for preserving a free society,
but you can't preserve freedom by forcing people to participate in things.
Unfortunately, to the extent that jury systems do allow people
who have better things to do with their time (like running businesses)
out of jury time, they tend to filter in favor of people who'll 
cooperate with what the government wants - like retired schoolteachers.

Also, jury selection processes tend to filter out people who
don't appear likely to do what the prosecution and/or defense tell them;
it's an interesting thing to watch.  And the prosecution and sometimes
the other jurors often get grouchy when some jurors aren't cooperative -
an engineering supervisor I once worked with was one of two jurors who
hung their jury be refusing to accept the contention that a Hispanic man
should be guilty of carrying drugs and drug paraphrenalia because the
airplane glue he'd bought at the hardware store was in a plastic bag
which he *obviously* intended to use for sniffing it with.  (And this was
in New Jersey, where's it's not even illegal to be Hispanic....)
Of course, they did get much less abuse than the friend of mine who
refused to convict someone for drug possession because the drug war is bogus...
he got yelled at a lot afterwards, but being a New Yorker he viewed that
as entertainment and returned fire in kind.




				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 9:54 PM -0400 on 9/23/98, Anonymous wrote:

> That is almost enough to make the more paranoid among us think that maybe
> they have a "do not summon" list.

What Fun! Just today, I got a summons for jury duty...

Is there a "do not summon" list? Synchronistic minds want to know.

Frankly, I wonder if most people who vote aren't just moving all the time.
I've lived in the same place 11 years, and my Jury summons comes every
three years, just like clockwork.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga
-----------------
Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@philodox.com>
Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

At 1:54 AM +0000 9/24/98, Anonymous wrote:
>So you basically wind up with juries which are stacked with welfare
>recipients, stupid people, and retirees. A jury of retirees may work, but
>the others surely don't.
>
Actually, the last time that I was called, the largest proportion of potential
jurors were people who work for the government in one form or another.

City park workers, school teachers, post office workers, clerical workers
who work at city hall, etc.

Retirees were the next largest group.

Between the two, they accounted for 80+ of the jury pool.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Adobe Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

"Yes, the president should resign. He has lied to the American people time 
and time again, and betrayed their trust.  He is no longer an effective 
leader.  Since he has admitted guilt, there is no reason to put the 
American people through an impeachment.  He will serve absolutely no 
purpose in finishing out his term, the only possible solution is for the 
president to save some dignity and resign."
	
	-- William Jefferson Clinton
	    speaking in 1974 about President Nixon and Watergate

On 24 Sep 1998, Anonymous wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:
> 
> > 
> > At 11:11 PM -0700 9/22/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
> > 
> 

> If they do have a list, I'd kind of like to be on it. I'm a college
> student, and I _can't_ serve on a jury for more than a day or so. The same
> goes for doctors, corporate executives, and others.
> 

Yeah, right. I *never* blew off class to go to the beach. I never go to
"meetings" on the golf course, either. Glad to hear the only people with
important places to be are doctors, executives, and college students. 


> There is an inherent flaw in the jury system. You get summoned and are
> legally required to blow the entire day down at the courthouse. If you're
> a student you miss classes, and if you have a job you miss that too. You
> have to pay for transportation, parking, food, and whatever else you need. 
> In return, you get paid something like $3, which often isn't even enough
> to cover the parking and get told every five minutes that this or that
> will get you, as a juror or potential juror, thrown in jail.

It is a trade-off. If you aren't willing to put in your time, you can't 
complain when somebody else lets OJ off the hook. You can't whine if you 
are convicted by a bunch of people who were to stupid to get out of jury 
duty.

> don't want people who can determine that the evidence of one side or the
> other is suspect. They don't want people who will actually look at the
> facts rather than the emotion of the opening and closing arguments. The
> prosecution sure as hell doesn't want anybody who will look at whether a
> law should exist in the first place.

"They" refers to both sides. We have an adversarial system. Usualy one 
side or the other is willing to keep jurors who are interested in the facts. 
(OK, launch the court-appointed-public-defender rant here)

One of my employees, a white/male/degreed/job holding/computer programmer 
was kicked out by the defense, not the prosecutor.

> 
> "Hey, Doctor! Um, I have to serve on a jury. Can you take all my patients
> for the next six months while I'm locked in a hotel room?

Very few juries are sequestered. In cases where this is likely, jurors 
are often permitted to be excused if a lengthy trial is expected. This is 
a bullshit excuse for ducking jury duty. The longest anyone who works 
with or for me has been absent due to jury duty was three days.


 Oh, and I need
> to still get my full salary to pay my bills. Thanks, buddy." Um, no.
> 

The company I work for pays our salary while we are on jury duty. We have 
to turn over the $3 a day stipend.

> When the trial actually starts, the average juror, regardless of what
> council may tell them about due process, is usually biased in favor of the
> prosecution, especially if the government is claiming that the defendant
> is an evil child molestor. If it's a case involving technology, you get a
> bunch of bogus "experts" up there which say what council wants to be said,
> because real "experts" refuse to dumb down their testimony to a
> kindergarden level.

Most defendants are guilty. That doesn't mean the one in front of you is. 
Take traffic court as an example. How many defandants are there because
they are innocent, and the cop was mistaken, didn't calibrate his radar,
needed to fill his quota, etc.? A few. How many are there because they
want a couple points knocked off the penalty, even theough they were
speeding? Most of them. A guilty defendant is entitled to a fair trial. So
is an innocent one.  You don't help the process by ducking jury duty (or
are you one of the stupid people?). 

> 
> "Mr. May, will you please explain -- in layman's terms -- exactly how the
> microchip fabrication process works?"
> 

The technobable seemed to work in favor of the defense, in the OJ case. 
People have come to understand and accept fingerprinting (although it was 
not accpeted initially). Many seem to be unwilling to trust DNA evidence, 
though.

> 
> Can you imagine trying to be a defense expert in a cryptography case with
> a bunch of jurors who can barely read, are unemployed, hate "nerds," and
> beat the "geeks" up in high school, while the prosecution is constantly
> screaming that the defendant is a kiddy porn trader and you're expected to
> dumb your expert testimony down to kindergarden level? 
> 

One can always request a judge to hear the case.

It isn't a perfect system, but what do you propose as an alternative? 
Should Tim May judge us all? 

Should we revert to anarchy, with whomever is left standing is 
considered innocent, and the dead are the guilty?

-r.w.