Post: #1

A few weeks ago, the summons arrived in the mail. Today was my day to report for jury duty. I showed up at the Travis County Court House. That is here in Austin, Texas.

This was the second time Travis County had called me in for jury duty. It also happened about four years ago, and I was selected for the jury either. The whole thing went from 1:30 to about 4:30, and today was about the same time frame.

Once we got into the court room, the judge started talking to us. He went through the usual stuff about how jurors are supposed to judge the facts and only consider reasonable doubts. I naturally consider this baloney. If I ever am on a case, I will judge everything.

Then a woman began speaking to us--she was the prosecutor. She said this court was mostly for family issues, and this was a case of unlawful restraint. This was a misdemeanor, so it would be a trial with six jurors.

The most interesting I'd heard was that a prosecutor can charge someone even if the alleged victim doesn't want to file charges. This was one such case. She asked to consider reasons why someone would not want to file charges in this case.

She also asked everyone if they had been impacted by domestic violence or abuse in the family. Out of 35 potential jurors, only seven had no been impacted. A few had worked in professions which worked with this, like a cop or an ATF agent. Many had family members or other people close to them who had been impacted by this.

The defense attorney spoke next. He talked about the possibility that the defendant might not make an appearance either. He asked why a person would not want to appear on the stand as well.

Looking back now, it sounds like it may be an interesting trial. If the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator aren't going to appear, then what is the whole point?

We were also asked if we considered police officers more trustworthy than the general public. I didn't raise my hand for this. Many did.

The prosecutor raised several objections to things that the defense attorney said. Every time, the judge told the defender to proceed.

I mentioned an issue in which a man had been charged for "unlawful restraint" because he had grabbed his partner's car keys when she was drunk. I also raised the possibility that prosecutors may have quotas just as police officers have quotas for speeding tickets.

I didn't get picked for the jury, but I hope I made the jurors who were picked think about some things. I went back to work and stayed three hours late to make for the time lost.

If you get a chance, make yourself heard. It may be disruptive to your day. It's also a place where you really can make a difference. Civilized society can survive with the ballot box. It won't survive without the jury box.

Post: #2

I got arrested once in a case where my behavior should reasonably been let go, but I had to plead guilty to charges. Shortly after, my wife was on a jury for someone whose case was similar to mine. She saw what bullshit the case was, and saw the similar questionable tactics used by the police. She voted her conscience against conviction, and swung the rest of the jury to vote against conviction.

Post: #3

Yep a similar thing happened to a Professional Hockey Player named Slava Voynov. I think his Girl was drunk & being disruptive, so an altercation took place. She got injured & went to the hospital. Mentioned to the nurse the event which took place was her fault... but nah! He Got arrested, and the DA decided to prosecute even without her cooperation! Went back to Russia to avoid any risk of doing time... and now officially serving a 1 year suspension from the league. Was still playing Pro Hockey in Russia, but lost 5 years of his prime away from the NHL due to something minor. I wouldn't wish on my worse enemy to have to deal with the justice system. They R Ruthless!

Post: #4

You didn't say those things in front of the prosecutor, did you? If you did, it's why you didn't get picked.

The defendant would be there at the trial, it's just that he wasn't planning to testify. One reason might be is that he had prior convictions that could be brought up and would prejudice the jury.

The alleged victim might have reconciled with the defendant. I don't know Texas evidence law, but there's an exception to the hearsay rule called "excited utterance" where the cops could testify as to what the complainant told them at the scene.

Post: #5

Any observations about the people who showed up for jury duty? Did any of them express any of their own views?

Post: #6

As far as general observations about the people who were picked for the jury or the people who were summoned, I don't think anybody was under the age of thirty. Everybody seemed to be pretty white. There isn't really a lot of time for open discussion.

I don't think the people really wanted to express opinions that much. Most of them spoke when one of the lawyers spoke to them. The lawyers were always present.

Post: #7

Wait, so the jury is picked only after the case is explained to a much larger group of potential jurors who get polled then?

In other words only people with opinions agreeing on those of judge/prosecutor are picked?

It seems to me that system is a fraud.

Post: #8

I never saw an open discussion about the case with potential jurors in my state. Might be a good way to draw out biases, but a sword that cuts both ways.

In my state, only specific questions to them about whether they knew or were related to any of the parties, lawyers or witnesses or had strong feelings about the type of case.

The lawyers can kick off jurors for "cause" ie could obviously be prejudiced for some reason, or "preemptory," you can kick some off just because you don't like the way they look, and the next in line looks better.

Both the prosecution and defense can do this equally.

Post: #9

I don't believe its ethical for them to ask you all these questions. The only things they should be worried about is as follows.

1. Are you a felon?
2. Do you personally know the two people? (they should reveal pics at the very least)
3. Are you affiliated with a gang?

From there let the cards fall where they may. If the prosecutor is going to filter the jury through all of these different questions related to the case its obvious she's pursuing a particular result.

Scary to know this is happening in this anti male climate.

Post: #10

I was in that same building few weeks ago to renew my passport (Postal worker told me I could get it faster there, which I discovered it was not the case). Saw the jury duty door in the second floor (end of the hallway).

As mentioned, looks like a fraud system for them to “filter” jurors. At least they won’t bother you anymore.

And we now know the best thing to do is go with the flow (raise the hand when they expect you to do). Then give the red pill to the rest of jurors when you’re discussing the case in trial.

Post: #11

(04-23-2019 06:47 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I never saw an open discussion about the case with potential jurors in my state. Might be a good way to draw out biases, but a sword that cuts both ways.

In my state, only specific questions to them about whether they knew or were related to any of the parties, lawyers or witnesses or had strong feelings about the type of case.

The lawyers can kick off jurors for "cause" ie could obviously be prejudiced for some reason, or "preemptory," you can kick some off just because you don't like the way they look, and the next in line looks better.

Both the prosecution and defense can do this equally.

Not quite equally, IIRC the defense gets a few extra tools in their toolbox.

Post: #12

(04-23-2019 07:58 AM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  I don't believe its ethical for them to ask you all these questions. The only things they should be worried about is as follows.

1. Are you a felon?
2. Do you personally know the two people? (they should reveal pics at the very least)
3. Are you affiliated with a gang?

From there let the cards fall where they may. If the prosecutor is going to filter the jury through all of these different questions related to the case its obvious she's pursuing a particular result.

Scary to know this is happening in this anti male climate.

Both sides are filtering for best result, the defense with slightly more tools. If the stuff the prosecution is filtering for is sketchy, the judge is supposed to put a stop to it. Most of the stuff described sounds like it's just trying to find people that are capable of following the rules of the system, most of which actually make some kind of sense as a system.

The charges without a complaining victim are an extreme thing that was pretty much unheard of in the criminal justice system until angry activists/angry bigots made them policy for DV cases. This follows a similar pattern where they were corrupted the law enforcement end of things with subtle, not very well understood guidelines that had extreme power. Mandatory arrest? How come we never needed this for robbery, rape or murder, but suddenly need it for these situations?

Good job by OP raising issues in the jury room.

Post: #13

(04-23-2019 06:11 AM)Mage Wrote:  Wait, so the jury is picked only after the case is explained to a much larger group of potential jurors who get polled then?

In other words only people with opinions agreeing on those of judge/prosecutor are picked?

It seems to me that system is a fraud.

I've watched a few episodes of this TV programme called Bull. Before the trial they choose the jury who best suits their interests. Them being the lawyers.

Is that shit for real? No wonder the system is fucked.

Post: #14

It's all black magic wizardry. A magi-strate wearing black robes summons dead things to enter his vessel and be looked down upon by him. Then live people show up and claim to be said dead things, so end up getting fleeced by their own consent. Put your hand on a bible that isn't in English, under threat of going to the penitent-iary. Hold on to your balls when you testi-fy.

Oh and that's why regardless of anyone filing charges or not, the state prosecutes all cases in criminal matters. They have to administrate their own property, and when some poor show sap shows up and puts a claim on something that's not his, they end up winning like 90%+ of the time. It's funny right. Like if I harm you, and you file charges, you don't prosecute me in court, the state does on your behalf, because it has nothing to do with you and me.

Post: #15

I used to defend the validity of the US criminal justice system. Not any more. It is entirely corrupted, serving only the purposes of the prosecutors.

It's anti-male of course. Filled to the brim with women prosecutors and judges whose pussies tingle with delight at seeing a man crying in horror being put in jail for decades for some minor transgression. Even bigger tingles thinking of the man's wife and children digging in dumpsters for food.

Post: #16

Most judges are former prosecutors. They’re not going to be impartial and are swamp creature almost by definition.

If you don’t want to get picked for jury duty the best way to do it is show up with a suit on and carrying something like the Wall Street journal or The Economist.

Post: #17

In Australia it is 12 member jury and filtering is normal but not to that extent.
They only wanna know if you are related to the accused, know him personally or maybe working in the same company or field would disqualify you but you could easily fool the system by saying nothing even though defendant is your best friend.

Defendant can reject jurors(up to 3-4 I think) if he doesn't like something about him/her. i got rejected once and then I got on the other case.

Jury duty is fun, i wouldn't mind doing it part time if possible

Post: #18

(04-23-2019 07:58 AM)Thrill Jackson Wrote:  I don't believe its ethical for them to ask you all these questions. The only things they should be worried about is as follows.

1. Are you a felon?
2. Do you personally know the two people? (they should reveal pics at the very least)
3. Are you affiliated with a gang?

In many states it does not work like this. In TN, for example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may dismiss a potential juror for nearly any reason, even if, for example, they don't like the color of your socks.

The state is trying to pick jurors that they think will vote their way. And because many prosecutors have many years of experience, some of them get good at sniffing potential jurors that could be harmful to their case out.

Almost can't blame them, as if a case goes to trial, it just takes one juror to hang a jury.