I have been pretty impressed with the juries that have been selected in my judge's court, where educated and intelligent (not the same thing) people are not excluded, and where the jurors pretty much do a conscientious job. I can think og one exception with the jury as a whole, and then there was the male juror who tried to pick up my last year's co-clerk (a very attractive woman) . . . .
--jks
>
>At 11:33 AM 3/29/01 -0800, Chuck wrote:
> >
> >Jury Duty. An anathma to justice.
>
> >I almost burst out laughing, because the attorneys had practically
> >leaped out of their chairs to get to the judge first with the name
> >Grimes on their lips.
>
>
>I've been excluded from all jury panels but one by defendants' attorneys.
>I have alway wondered why - because of my skin color (white) or
>institutional affiliation (Hopkins) or educational level (PhD) or what. I
>suppose they believed I would be prejudiced against their clients (black
>males).
>
>Well, one day I had a chance to sit on a panel. The case was against some
>poor schmuck allegedly selling pot. After the DA presented her case I had
>sufficient reasonable doubt in this case - even before the defendant opened
>his mouth (the poor fellow could not even utter a complete English sentence
>in his defence and of course he had no attorney). I thought to myself what
>the other eleven were thinking and if I would have any difficulty to
>convince them that looking suspicious is not enough to prove guilt beyond
>*reasonable doubt.* However, I did not have a chance to find out. The
>judge dismissed the case when the key witness (the cop who allegedly saw
>the "crime" did not show up).
>
>I think, however, that jury selection is a joke - it is process of
>ascertaining that only those who have no opinions whatsover and an IQ of a
>vegetable will serve.
>
>wojtek
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com