"Juror Qualification Questionnaire"

[buford t justice]

The attorneys are not just looking for a fair shake, the are looking for the inexperienced
so they can brow beat them.

 

[Destro]

Sadly, remembering it, we were instructed as so many others have been, that we were to judge the facts of the case and the judge would tell us what the law was. Sitting in the jury box, as young and inexperienced as I was, that made sense. In principle, of course, it doesn't, but in that specific case, it was fairly cut and dried: The defendant was accused of murder, and as such, there wasn't really a question of whether the law was just and needed to be enforced or injust and needed nullified.

wow...good thing you were not on the Casey Anthony jury

 

[Bill of Rights]

wow...good thing you were not on the Casey Anthony jury

What? I'm saying that the validity of the law against murder is not in question. The facts of the case are what's relevant there. Conversely, if there's a law against, say, owning guns, and the accused clearly states that he did, in fact, own guns and showed multiple photos of them along with his purchase records for them, the facts of that case would not be in question, but the validity of the law would be. This is why jurors are expected to judge both the law and the facts of the case.

Did you misunderstand me, perhaps?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

Doesn't matter what comes out of a lying judges mouth. The Indiana state Constitution is our guide on the matter.

Section 19. Criminal cases--Jury determination

Section 19. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

 

[Destro]

This is why jurors are expected to judge both the law and the facts of the case.

Jury Nulification, in my book, is liken to judicial activism

 

[Fletch]

Jury Nulification, in my book, is liken to judicial activism

It's another check against government power, which is probably why you don't like it.

 

[Destro]

Doesn't matter what comes out of a lying judges mouth. The Indiana state Constitution is our guide on the matter.

Plenty of courts have upheld Judges need not allow nullification as a judgement, and state that in instructions....so its not a lie per say, but what goes on within closed doors is another thing

 

[Destro]

It's another check against government power, which is probably why you don't like it.

Im sure it has worked the other way around too...I could easily see somebody being found innocent because their "crime" was not a crime under Sharia Law

 

[Bill of Rights]

Doesn't matter what comes out of a lying judges mouth. The Indiana state Constitution is our guide on the matter.

This was in Texas. I don't know that that was in the Constitution there at the time, nor even if it is now.

Jury Nulification, in my book, is liken to judicial activism

Perhaps, and you've every right to think so. However, you are in conflict in that opinion with Mr. Jefferson:

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by
man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges
are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this
power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the
exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of
English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnond, 1789.

"If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point
of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may
be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and
fact." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

If that's judicial activism... Count me in.

Are you saying that if a law was passed tomorrow, saying that ownership of firearms was henceforth unlawful in Indiana and that LEOs shall make a house-to-house search for such "contraband", seize and destroy it, and prosecute the offenders for that possession, you would enforce it and expect the persons involved to be found guilty and punished?

Or what about a similar law that stated one could not possess any religious book other than the King James Version of the Bible? Could I expect you to show up at my house to confiscate and destroy the "prohibited" Torah and other holy books I have? Do you think that little of the process of jurisprudence and of our Constitutional precepts that you would "just follow orders"?

I'm glad that there are officers who don't choose to use our Constitution and Bill of Rights as just so much toilet paper!

Please tell me I've misunderstood you or that you don't really think that way.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Im sure it has worked the other way around too...I could easily see somebody being found innocent because their "crime" was not a crime under Sharia Law

"In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s." (despite that the above quote was found on wikipedia, it is still correct.)

 

[mrjarrell]

This was in Texas. I don't know that that was in the Constitution there at the time, nor even if it is now.

Just saying that in Indiana our Constitution is clear on the matter, regardless of a judges opinion.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just saying that in Indiana our Constitution is clear on the matter, regardless of a judges opinion.

I understood that, then and now, but thanks for clarifying. I was just saying that IN's Constitution had no bearing on that specific case (though the principle of which you speak existed long before that judge was born, let alone rendered his first opinion.) If I ever serve again, one of my considerations will be the validity of the law, as envisioned by our Founders and guaranteed by them and the Framers.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[miguel]

I agree with several of the previous comments encouraging jury participation. I was on a Grand Jury many years ago and it was a more than enlightening experience. By luck, I had a high-profile case that anyone over the age of 35 or 40 from central Indiana would immediately recognize. It is much cooler to see your trial talked about on TV that night than not, let me say! That said, I did park my car well away from the court house and took a circuitous route to it at day's end...

For those who don't know -- and you legal beagles correct me if I stray from reality here -- a Grand Jury determines whether or not charges are brought against someone, not whether they are guilty or not. There were six of us and two charges against the person in question. We sat in a room while the lawyers did their thing: witnesses came in, video and audio were played, etc. The person being accused was a no show and the prosecution made a big deal of that to us.

Anyway, of the six of us, it was 6-0 on one of the charges. Nobody couldn't claim he shouldn't be hauled up on Charge #1. On Charge #2, I had reasonable doubt. I was just out of college and had a chip on my shoulder and despite the **** thrown my way to make it 6-0 on charge #2, I called bull****. To this day, I would argue that the evidence they presented was not in line with the law. Period.

You should have seen the looks on their faces, they were pissed. They kept referring to Charge #1 and I kept saying, "I voted 'yes' on Charge #1, this is totally different." but they couldn't understand that. Again, this guy would be persona non gratta in the trial locale (Hamilton County) so I think they were just trying to go balls out to get him.

Vote ended 5-1. If I recall, they still brought Charge #2 against him, since they only needed 4-2 on the Grand Jury. I was so mad they were blowing me crap and making comments on my hold out, I stopped paying attention after we voted. Just wanted to go home and gripe to my folks.

My primary gripe with the form is asking these questions before you even select me. I understand the discovery process for bias, etc. (a relative of mine actually ran a company that did surveys for lawyers to try to determine statistically which types of jurors would be better than others for their specific case...) but ask me when I'm called, not when I'm in my easy chair.

Peace, my brothers and sisters!

 

[Prometheus]

I understood that, then and now, but thanks for clarifying. I was just saying that IN's Constitution had no bearing on that specific case (though the principle of which you speak existed long before that judge was born, let alone rendered his first opinion.) If I ever serve again, one of my considerations will be the validity of the law, as envisioned by our Founders and guaranteed by them and the Framers.

Blessings,
Bill

+10000000

For those who don't know the difference between laws:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road. In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because the act is prohibited by the law of the state.


Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2] Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson [3]:

Criminal offenses can be broken down into two general categories malum in se and malum prohibitum. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community," whereas a malum prohibitum offense is wrong only because a statute makes it so. State v. Horton, 139 N.C. 588, 51 S.E. 945, 946 (1905).
"Public welfare offenses" are a subset of malum prohibitum offenses as they are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize.'" Bash, 130 Wn.2d at 607 (quoting Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255-56, 72 S. Ct. 240, 96 L. Ed. 288 (1952)); see also State v. Carty, 27 Wn. App. 715, 717, 620 P.2d 137 (1980).
​

Some examples of mala prohibita include parking violations, copyright violations, tax laws, cultural taboos, and doing certain things without a license.

 

[2A_Tom]

I have been summoned twice, both at county level, 6 week tenure sat on 3 trial juries.
First hesaid he didn't car jack her at gunpoint. He didn't know where he was but he knew he wasn't there. She positivly ID'd him . Guilty.
Second he beat up another guy in front of others. The other guy fell hit his head on a rock and was knocked unconcious. Any time you loose conciousness there is a possibility that you will die, that makes it battery with intent. Guilty.
Third police raided house and confiscated a large plano box with little bags of powder and tiny rocks. The defense lawyer tried to have the evidence thrown out on technicalities,but failed. We were not supposed to know that, but the defense lawyer let it slip. There was one wittness, one of the guy's pushers, whom the defense led us to believe was going to get a plea deal for testifying.
Guilty.
We found out later that the son of the guy on trial, tied up the pusher in a barn and lit it on fire, before, he turned states evidence.

When I was seated for my fourth I begged to be released, because I needed to work to support my family.

 

[littletommy]

I have been summoned twice, both at county level, 6 week tenure sat on 3 trial juries.
First hesaid he didn't car jack her at gunpoint. He didn't know where he was but he knew he wasn't there. She positivly ID'd him . Guilty.
Second he beat up another guy in front of others. The other guy fell hit his head on a rock and was knocked unconcious. Any time you loose conciousness there is a possibility that you will die, that makes it battery with intent. Guilty.
Third police raided house and confiscated a large plano box with little bags of powder and tiny rocks. The defense lawyer tried to have the evidence thrown out on technicalities,but failed. We were not supposed to know that, but the defense lawyer let it slip. There was one wittness, one of the guy's pushers, whom the defense led us to believe was going to get a plea deal for testifying.
Guilty.
We found out later that the son of the guy on trial, tied up the pusher in a barn and lit it on fire, before, he turned states evidence.

When I was seated for my fourth I begged to be released, because I needed to work to support my family.

Wow, I"ve never heard of that. When I served, after it was over, the judge told us we were free of any more jury duty for 24 months. That would get old real quick.

 

[Palarran]

Served on a Marion County petite jury about a year ago. Public indecency, along with fleeing, resisting, and battery of a police officer. I was the foreman. It was very interesting, although much less fun than I had thought. We all took it very seriously, and the defendant certainly received a fair trial. We reduced the battery charge from a D felony to an A misdemeanor, as there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused bodily injury when she struck the officer.

We were clearly instructed by the judge that we were the deciders of both fact and the law. Everyone was very appreciative of our service. I would certainly do it again.

 

[VaqueroEM]

Wait... it asks if you are a citizen? I thought everyone had to be a citizen to serve on a jury? Oh wait... Im sorry. You don't even have to be a citizen to vite anymore! Stupid me...

 

[Bucky623]

I received a Juror Questionnaire some years ago. I don’t remember much about the questions but in the last few lines it said that it was an honor to be chosen for jury duty and if I didn’t accept that honor I would be fined and possibly jailed.

 

[littletommy]

I received a Juror Questionnaire some years ago. I don’t remember much about the questions but in the last few lines it said that it was an honor to be chosen for jury duty and if I didn’t accept that honor I would be fined and possibly jailed.

From what I understand, there are so many people who disregard a jury summons, the court doesn't even bother anymore. When I served, the summoned 60 people, 27 of us showed up.