Getting ready for jury duty

[hoosierdoc]

His brother is the judge, it's OK

 

[indybuell]

I've always wanted to be called in for Jury Duty, but it's never happened.

 

[churchmouse]

I've always wanted to sit on a jury.

I've always been kicked off the jury first round.

Someday. Someday.

Me to.

 

[Dirty Steve]

Got called one time. Was certain they would not pick me because of my relationship with some law enforcement folks and my profession which is very analytical. Got picked (found out later both attorneys were out of challenges and had to pick me anyway).

Ended up a child molestation case that lasted for 4 days. Sitting through all of that testimony and discussion of nasty things turned my stomach. Once they sent us to deliberation, we drew straws for jury foreman. Guess who had the short straw?...yep, me, and it was also on my birthday.

After some quick exchange of pleasantries, we decided to take a quick vote to see where we all stood before we started reviewing the evidence. It was 100% unanimously guilty. I decided that since they had held us for 4 days, we should order some pizza. We requested such and then sat in the room for about 2 hours and enjoyed ourselves.

I enjoyed the process and experience, but did not enjoy the having to sit through the evidence and testimony in that case.

Dirty Steve

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, I got out around 4:30. Overall, it was a great experience. It was an OWI case for a class c misdemeanor. The driver had a prescription for zanex and had told the officer that he was on it. The attorneys weren't abusive with the selection questions at all. Before they began questioning us, they asked if anyone had served in the last 24 months, on probation, yada, yada. One lady raised her hand and was immediately dismissed. They seated the first 6 and I thought surely that at least 3-4 would be dismissed but only 1 was. I was the next called up. They asked me a few questions and then they called the alternate and the jury was set.

The defendant was driving and a deputy came up behind him. The deputy testified that he was swerving within his lane and that he was going under the speed limit. He slowed down to 50 and was still gaining on him. He got close enough to see that his license plate was expired. He initiated the stop and noticed that his eyes were dialated. He also said the driver was "thick tongued" with his speech. He called in the info and then administered the 3 parts of the field sobriety test. He went into detail of what each point and step of the tests were and which points he failed. He failed the eye test and said that he was swaying. He stepped off the line and didn't properly perform the 9 step and return. One of the points he said he failed on the 9 step was that he turned right instead of left. He also said that his front lights were off and they weren't a distraction to the driver. He put his foot down after a few seconds on the 1 foot stand and was swaying. He said the driver mentioned having pins in his foot and they might affect his ability to stand on one foot so he let the driver choose which foot. The deputy seemed very confident in his testimony. Then the defense attorney questioned him and tore him apart.

She asked him if the defendant had committed any traffic violations and he said no. She asked if there were any things other than drugs or alcohol that could cause a person to fail the tests and he said yes. She asked him if he had instructed him specifically which direction he told the driver to turn on the 9 step test and he couldn't remember for sure. There was mention of the dashcam video a few times but at this point, I didn't know if we were going to see it.

They showed us almost 40 minutes of dashcam video. The driver did move around within his lane but didn't touch any of the lines with his tires. We couldn't hear any of the conversation outside of the car. The guy did have obvious trouble during the tests but not to the extent the deputy testified to. He placed him in cuffs and put him in the squad car. All conversation we could hear between the 2 were very cordial. Kudos to the officer for that. Once we could hear the driver, right away I thought his speech didn't seem to be any worse than it was in the court room.

He was taken to the hospital and was given a drug test. He had 69 whatever units of zanex in his bloodstream. The prosecution called the toxocologist doctor to the stand. He testified that 17 whatever units have been shown to cause impairments in studies. The defense attorney wanted to know if his level showed that he had abused the zanex. He said that with his prescribed amount, his body weight, and other factors, he should have a calculated 63 whatever units in his bloodstream. The prosecutor, toxocologist, and defense attorney all agreed that he wasn't abusing the drug.

The defendant got up and testified but in my opinion, he did more to harm himself than anything. Both sides rested and gave their closing statements. The prosecutor was much fuller of bluster than the young defense attorney.

During the jury deliberations, we took a quick straw vote to see where we stood. Pretty much everyone agreed that he was innocent. I asked if anyone thought with the defendant's demeanor in the courtroom that he could have passed the sobriety test right then and everyone said no. I also stated that with everything being exactly the same except for the tox screen being completely clean, this guy wouldn't be charged with anything. We all agreed with what we saw on the video being no worse than anyone driving while tired, etc. One guy did have an issue with the 69 level being over the doctor's level of 17 for impairment. We all pretty much agreed that there is no law that really covers this like a .08 level with a dui. There is no hard number of whatever units by law. I think we were done within 10 minutes. We all agreed to vote not guilty and waited another 10-15 minutes to go back to the court room.

Once back in the room, the fore person had to hand over the verdict. The judge read it off and right away, the defense attorney had a reaction where the defendant didn't have much of a reaction. As the judge was getting ready to dismiss us, the defendant got up and started to shake our hands. The judge was pretty peeved and told the defense attorney to get her client under control.

Again, all in all, it was a great experience. The biggest thing I was surprised about was how the young deputy got schooled by a young defense attorney. She asked him how he recalled some details so well while he couldn't recall others and it was like he was reading his arrest report verbatim. I think the defendant is a first class douche bag loser but I couldn't vote to convict based on the evidence we had.

I shouldn't have to report for another 2 years.

 

[hornadylnl]

One more thought. The prosecution acted as if the dash cam footage was the be all, end all evidence to convict. We as the jury thought the dash cam footage proved that he wasn't driving erratically. Had it not been for the dash cam, it would have been much easier to get a conviction based on the deputy's testimony.

Also, I'm convinced that the stop was going to happen even if the plates weren't expired. That's what the deputy used for stop.

 

[mrjarrell]

Video saves the day again! Good job, hornadyln! Looks like justice did get served today.

 

[hornadylnl]

More things keep coming back to me. The prosecution and the toxocologist kept bringing up that the prescription bottles for zanex had warning labels that state not to operate vehicles or heavy equipment. The also said that a prescribing doctors only liability is the health of the patient and not whether they're driving while on the medication or not. They said that if you went to the emergency room and were prescribed zanex, they would make you sign a waiver on release that you won't drive. I immediately thought the main reason that a hospital would make you sign the waiver is more for their liability than the actual interest of safety. The defense attorney was quick to clarify that the warning label holds no weight of law.

One of my other problems was that the defendant had been on this stuff for 10 years and is holding a job. If he's taking the same amount today, yesterday, tomorrow, 3 months ago, etc., he was just as impaired that night as any other night. In 10 years, he hasn't had any other traffic stops or problems with impairment at work? If there had been, I'm sure the prosecutor would have said so.

To the INGO cops. This happened back in March. I FULLY understand that this officer had slept many nights since the arrest and there's no way that he could possibly remember every detail. But to get on the stand and be so sure of his story only to get picked apart by the defense attorney made him look stupid. I'm pretty sure all of the LEO's here have been around long enough to know better but I thought I'd give a heads up how it looked from a juror's perspective today.

 

[jdude]

Have to report Aug. 20th for Jury selection. I have mixed feeling about this, it's something I have always wanted to do but I am self employed and VERY busy right now.Ii plan on going through the process and seeing what happens, I was called 10 or 12 years ago but had to ask to be excused because I was flying to Florida 2 day after the jury selection and couldn't change my plans. The funny thing is my sister also got called and I don't know it they is any conflict with both of us being on the same jury. Let you know how it plays out.

 

[Mackey]

Well, this is a first. The first time I got called for jury duty, I got canceled at the last minute no less than 3 times. I finally got to go and the guy failed to appear.

This time, I didn't canceled. We'll see if I get seated or not.

Vote guilty.
They're always guilty.

 

[AJBB87]

More things keep coming back to me. The prosecution and the toxocologist kept bringing up that the prescription bottles for zanex had warning labels that state not to operate vehicles or heavy equipment. The also said that a prescribing doctors only liability is the health of the patient and not whether they're driving while on the medication or not. They said that if you went to the emergency room and were prescribed zanex, they would make you sign a waiver on release that you won't drive. I immediately thought the main reason that a hospital would make you sign the waiver is more for their liability than the actual interest of safety. The defense attorney was quick to clarify that the warning label holds no weight of law.

One of my other problems was that the defendant had been on this stuff for 10 years and is holding a job. If he's taking the same amount today, yesterday, tomorrow, 3 months ago, etc., he was just as impaired that night as any other night. In 10 years, he hasn't had any other traffic stops or problems with impairment at work? If there had been, I'm sure the prosecutor would have said so.

To the INGO cops. This happened back in March. I FULLY understand that this officer had slept many nights since the arrest and there's no way that he could possibly remember every detail. But to get on the stand and be so sure of his story only to get picked apart by the defense attorney made him look stupid. I'm pretty sure all of the LEO's here have been around long enough to know better but I thought I'd give a heads up how it looked from a juror's perspective today.

I mean, the Duputy was doing his job right? Expired plates, failed sobriety tests, then arrest.

The attorneys (especially the defense) did their jobs, and you did yours, and it sounds like justice was served.

So, I don't understand your quote above.

Are you saying:

The Deputy should not have bothered with the stop?

The Deputy should have been more thorough with his testimony?

The Deputy should have appeared less confident in his testimony so as to help the defendant, who he believed to be OWI, get acquitted?

Just wondering...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'll have to tell Abby when I see her next.

Thanks for your jury service.

 

[hornadylnl]

I mean, the Duputy was doing his job right? Expired plates, failed sobriety tests, then arrest.

The attorneys (especially the defense) did their jobs, and you did yours, and it sounds like justice was served.

So, I don't understand your quote above.

Are you saying:

The Deputy should not have bothered with the stop?

The Deputy should have been more thorough with his testimony?

The Deputy should have appeared less confident in his testimony so as to help the defendant, who he believed to be OWI, get acquitted?

Just wondering...

The deputy stated he was swerving in his lane when he pulled up behind him. None of the jury believed his driving in the video appeared to be erratic. I believe the deputy had made up his mind that he was going to initiate the stop before he ever saw the expired plates and would have found any available reason to initiate the stop.

When the prosecution first questioned the deputy, the deputy said turning he wrong way during the 9 step and turn was a failed point. He said he instructed him which way to turn and on cross examination, he admitted he didn't. His testimoney didn't seem credible with all of the inconsistencies. If this guys driving was that erratic as to pose a danger, than they might as well ban senior citizens fro driving.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll have to tell Abby when I see her next.

Thanks for your jury service.

Hopefully she doesn't turn out like her Ted Kennedy father.

 

[looney2ns]

Strange how jury selection works, my father is 87 yrs old and has never been called.
I'm 58 and never been called.

 

[Clay]

Ive been called about 4 times. Had to show up 2 times, and only seated once.

It was an interesting experience, and Im glad I was able to participate.