TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone who thinks a jury will be intelligent, educated, and reasonable has to understand that all the smart people have been excluded.

Well, that leaves defendants nothing but a jury of their peers, which is their constitutional entitlement.

Unless you're the defendant.

The phrase "jury of your peers" is not a element of American law. It meant that a British commoner would be tried by a jury of commoners, not aristocrats, or vice versa. We don't have that class division.

The jury system has pretty much been gutted in the U.K., in any case.

- Jim

dac1842 wrote:Gee, I never made it that far in voir doir, They usually ask something about predetermined thoughts as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and I always answer " If he wasnt guilty of something he would not be here and neither would I!" They usually cant get me out of the court room fast enough!

Man, coffee coming out your nose hurts.

Dragonfighter wrote:

dac1842 wrote:Gee, I never made it that far in voir doir, They usually ask something about predetermined thoughts as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and I always answer " If he wasnt guilty of something he would not be here and neither would I!" They usually cant get me out of the court room fast enough!

I hope this is in jest...really.

Great Question with Great Responses!!!

Luggo1 wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

dac1842 wrote:Gee, I never made it that far in voir doir, They usually ask something about predetermined thoughts as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and I always answer " If he wasnt guilty of something he would not be here and neither would I!" They usually cant get me out of the court room fast enough!

I hope this is in jest...really.

Whether dac1842 is jesting or not, I have heard people make similar statements in voir dire. It is clear they don't want to serve and they will make some really blatant remarks to try and make sure they aren't chosen. One lady in the last panel I was in on the DWI case stated 'I will have a hard time believing he is not guilty because of his clothing. He is wearing a black leather jacket and that makes me think he is a hoodlum'. The black leather jacket was a nice dress-type jacket that well suited his black slacks and white button-up dress shirt.

My own experience of jury-selection is simply waiting for the lawyer to ask, "please raise your hands if you have ever been in jail".

I raise my hand (along with any others) and get dismissed. I don't mention the short-duration (hours), the date (about 35 years ago) or any other details.

EDIT: It is kind of funny, as this experience was when I lived in Matagorda County. I have now resided in Harris County for almost a decade and never been called for jury duty.

Even if I had not read the responses here, I would have answered the question truthfully — based on the assumption that the attorney, whether prosecutor or defense counsel, is at that point an officer of the court. I hate the idea of being asked, but the outing and the sense of violation are more than offset by my not wanting any legal fallout to descend on my shoulders for failing to answer the question.

The only time I've been through voir dire (back in California, many years before obtaining my CHL), I made it all the way through until the judge — a good friend of mine — asked the jury panel if any of us were personally acquainted with or related to anyone else in the courtroom, including the accused, either attorney, the clerk, the bailiff, or anyone else. I raised my hand. My friend, a superior court judge, said "Yes, Mr. Annoyed Man. I suppose you think that I should probably disclose to everyone here that you and I know each other from church, are members of the same Sunday School class, eat dinner together occasionally, and go camping together every year? Do either defense counsel or The People have any objection to this? Please approach the bench to consult." Neither attorney had any objection, and I made the jury.

We were told to return to the courtroom the following morning for the beginning of trial, so I reported bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, eager to experience my first courtroom drama. Upon arrival, I was informed by the clerk of the court that the trial had been postponed — the prosecutor having just been assigned the case the day before with no time to prepare — and that all the jurors were dismissed. That counted as fulfilling my jury duty obligation, and I was released from having to appear any further. Thus endeth the only time in my life that I have actually been summoned for and actually served on jury duty in my entire life.

So far, the courts in Tarrant County seem to have been content to muddle along without me.

Purplehood wrote:My own experience of jury-selection is simply waiting for the lawyer to ask, "please raise your hands if you have ever been in jail".

I don't know why having been arrested would be a disqualification. I've been picked for juries twice after answering on the questionnaire that I had been arrested and not convicted.

I think they used to be pickier than they are now. It used to be that anyone who had any connection at all with the legal system was dismissed. Now judges are sometimes called to serve on juries, and as everyone knows, Gov. George W. Bush was also.

- Jim

I was surprised at how many in our panel had either been arrested for DWI or had a spouse that had been. It was probably 20%.

ELB wrote:Not answering any voir-dire question truthfully can lead to serious trouble. Aside from the possibility of mistrial if you are found out, you swore to tell the truth, and if you do not you can be prosecuted.

Isn't there some process for jury selection questions that aren't appropriate to answer in front of everybody? I can think of several things that an attorney would effectively alienate potential jurors by forcing them to answer in the presence of the entire jury pool, but which could be very relevant to a case.

Good question, and, in general, good comments. Once again, kudos to another Jim, my good friend in Galveston.

It might help us here to remember the words of the Bill of Rights rather than just what we may have picked up through osmosis here and there.

The First Amendment, of course, protects our right to speak, saying nothing about any right to be silent.

The Fifth Amendment, the one in issue here, only provides that you may not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself -- it might be better to refer to a right to not being compelled to incriminate yourself rather than a right to be silent. The latter is a much too broad statement which just confuses the issue. We have no all-encompassing right to be silent. The right to be silent is very narrowly circumscribed. In other words, you can be silent only "if you take the Fifth." Even then you can be compelled to speak, for example, if you are granted immunity from criminal prosecution. In that case you would no longer be a witness against yourself in a criminal case.

In passing I would suggest not making wise cracks during voir dire in an obvious effort to avoid your citizen's duty of jury service. In flagrant cases persons have been held in contempt of court and spent some time behind bars for doing this.

And lastly, the bad guy has no more constitutional rights than does the good guy. Both are equally protected against self-incrimination.

Jim

Good to see you back, Jim. I hope things are getting to the "new normal."

KD5NRH wrote:Isn't there some process for jury selection questions that aren't appropriate to answer in front of everybody?

I don't know.

Most of the questions are either routine things like your name, address, profession, employer, and so forth, or matters of public record like arrests and convictions.

If the case concerned some sexual offense, I can see where the questions would get touchy. I don't know how they handle that.

The defendant, personally, has a right to know that he is getting an unbiased jury. There have been cases where the jurors' personal information has been kept secret because of the possibility of retaliation. I don't know what legal maneuvers allow that to be done.

- Jim

I think it is important to just answer all questions as truthfully as possible, even if it is the CHL question. It is just the way the system works. Personally, I have been called for Jury duty dozens of times. I really don't know how I got in the cycle where I get called about once every 2 months. I have had the pleasure of making it all the way to "the elimination round" probably half a dozen times. I never get picked. At first I thought I was just getting lucky, but the last couple of times I noted that anyone who stood up and answered the questions confidently and expressed an opinion based in logic did not get picked. The super quiet ones who were melting into the corners all got chosen. Don't know if it is a pattern everywhere else, but it seems to work this way in El Paso.

The last time I was "excused" was on a criminal case. The defense attorney asked the panel if anyone knew what an indictment meant. As you can guess, I answered. Then he asked some questions about the presumption of innocence which I also answered. Obviously the prosecutor bumped me.

A lady I knew was on the jury. She told me later that the guy was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and they sentenced him to 20 years for shooting his "girlfriend."

- Jim