Jury Duty Simulator

[Welf]

Seems I'm not the only one who thinks he's pro-plaintiff but gets sorted into the pro-defendant camp. I wonder if there is truth to that. As trained economist I'm way more open to econimic arguments that would be rejected by the average person. And I'm more open to logical arguments. So even if I think bankers are criminals on general I'm more likely than other people to consider the arguments for the defendant.

[Spekio]

A professor told me once juries run on emotion, not reason. I only ever tried mock juries (and in here the jury is only used in criminal court in cases that involve murder or abortion), so I'm not experienced enough to really disagree.

I also would be excluded for apparently being way too pro-defendant.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Appropriately enough I came across this on Facebook just now:

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street.

A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”

[Raw Shark]

Heh, normal pay, I wish. 30 dollars a day can get railed right up its flacid asshole, hence why I move the heavens to get out of jury duty whenever it rolls around.

Maybe that's a state thing. The last time I had to go when I had a real job, the company bitched but I talked to HR and they forked over a whole day's pay.

[Raw Shark]

A professor told me once juries run on emotion, not reason. [snip]

There's an excellent reason for that. As Eternal_Freedom's quote and this simulation illustrate, the court specifically does not really want to choose smart, logical people, unless one side thinks they will be very sympathetic to it and the other side does not think they will be so unsympathetic that it's worth expending capital to get rid of them, and preferably persuasive to the other slack-jawed sheep in the box.

Anecdote: One time, two years ago, I had to testify in a murder trial. I kind of flirted with a juror at the coffee machine (she was totally my type, what can I say? Long story short, I wasn't looking at her nametag) and the Defense Attorney freaked right the fuck out and tried to get my testimony kicked out. The poor guy (who knew his man was guilty as sin and just pulling out all the stops to get a technicality or something) was possibly kind of justified, though: I think I might have sort of influenced her decision, because when I looked at her in the jury box while I was testifying, she looked completely horrified, like she sympathized with me personally, but considering that the defendant tried to stab me this one time and the judge allowed me to stay, I don't feel so bad about it.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Is there such a thing as jury selection in British or other European courts? No-one in my family in the UK has ever been called up so I have no idea how it works.

[aerius]

And I'm rejected (plaintiff's lawyer hates me). Can't say I'm surprised, I've been called up for jury selection several times and every single time I've been rejected pretty quickly.

[Teebs]

Is there such a thing as jury selection in British or other European courts? No-one in my family in the UK has ever been called up so I have no idea how it works.

In general I don't think European courts have juries (although I understand some use professional jurors). The British courts do use juries, but only for criminal cases, not civil ones. Defendants also have the option to be tried by a judge instead of a jury if they want. When it comes to jury selection there's nothing like the US system. Lawyers can get someone removed if there is a clear risk of bias i.e. they know one of the parties, they're neo-Nazis and the defendant is black etc. However, all the factors listed in that NYT article would be irrelevant. You're not getting rid of someone because they happen to know someone who works in the same industry as the defendant (not that you'd have a jury for a professional negligence case anyway).

[Welf]

Is there such a thing as jury selection in British or other European courts? No-one in my family in the UK has ever been called up so I have no idea how it works.

Germany used to have those for a few decades. In 1848 there was a democratic revolution that lead to the creation of a constitution that required a jury for all criminal cases. They did that for a good reason, since most judges were from the upper classes and nobility. They were often biased against the lower and middle class. Although the revolution failed some German states adopted that system to appease the reformers. The procedure was similar to the US one, with a judge checking the legal aspects and the jury deciding over the question of guilt; but they did not decide the degree of penalty. This was finally abolished in 1924 since it created a lot of costs and apparently there were a lot of wrong decisions.
Instead there are now "honorary judges" (German: "Schöffen"). Those judges are not lawyers but normal citizens. Like juries they are suppose to check the judiciary, but unlike jury members they act as judges with their full rights (more or less). In minor cases (less than 4 years of possible penalty) there are even 2 honorary judges and only one regular judge, so the honorary judges can overrule the regular judge. They get chosen for a 5 year period. If there are not enough volunteers random citizens can be drafted. But I never heard of that happening. However, in practice the honorary judges are quite weak and due to reforms from the early 90s there are much less cases decided by honorary judges. Their rights are also cut by numerous little rules and laws. There is also a discussion to get rid of the honorary judges because they are inefficient and allegedly don't serve their original purpose of guaranteeing the rule of the people in the judiciary. Which may be true, but then again I doubt lawyers like outsider in their precious courtrooms.