TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

seamusTX wrote:It is not a crime to have a certain ... employer.

Unless you are employed by the mafia or a drug lord.

Your can call yourself a businessman and say that you are work in a variety of areas such as import-export and personal services.

In reality, people like that either have a job with a front company or they are felons or non-citizens and won't be called to jury duty.

- Jim

Dudley wrote:

marksiwel wrote:when they call on you, they can ask you all those questions as well

Is there a law requiring innocent people to testify about themselves in court? Do only the guilty ones have civil rights?

You can always claim your rights under the 5th Amendment during voir dire questioning. Likewise when the question is on a questionnaire you receive from the court or clerk.



Jim

frazzled wrote:Don't go.

That's actually illegal and an offense that will win you a fine. But I appreciate the suggestion!

5thGenTexan wrote:Just try not answering and let us know how that goes for you. My bet is not real well starting at the point where you ask the court clerk why you need to answer some of the questions. Judges even the ones that are good people out of the court house tend to be a bit narrow minded when it comes doing and providing exactly what is asked for in THEIR court.

I'm not looking to 'make a statement' with this...it was only a question on whether or not this is required of me.

Purplehood wrote:I don't like the intrusion into my privacy, but I would imagine that it is the only "reliable" method of gathering a jury of your peers.

And that's perfectly fine...but ask me those questions. Don't force me to fill it out and provide it to you so it can end up in a dumpster once they no longer need it.

pbwalker wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I don't like the intrusion into my privacy, but I would imagine that it is the only "reliable" method of gathering a jury of your peers.

And that's perfectly fine...but ask me those questions. Don't force me to fill it out and provide it to you so it can end up in a dumpster once they no longer need it.

That is a valid point, but I see some potential (i.e., imagined) problems.

Large jury pool = Ask each candidate, in private? Or ask them to fill out a paper and turn it in. Watch them shred the questionnaire afterwards?

Communist Overlord Thug Judges = Many judges are convinced that they have absolute power in their courthouse and will jail you for perceived offenses that have nothing to do with the law, calling it "contempt". Telling them you won't do something sometimes does not go over well.

These are my perceptions and I respect yours.

seamusTX wrote:You're not being asked to incriminate yourself. It is not a crime to have a certain religion or employer.

Are you saying the defendant has to answer those questions too?

Dudley wrote:

seamusTX wrote:You're not being asked to incriminate yourself. It is not a crime to have a certain religion or employer.

Are you saying the defendant has to answer those questions too?

IANAL, but as I understand it, if the defendant goes on the witness stand, his fifth amendment right is limited to statements that could incriminate himself.

Whether he is an Episcopalian or a electrician would not seem incriminating.

- Jim

If the defendant can take the fifth and not answer questions about religion, then a juror should have the same rights. Either it's self incrimination or it isn't. It's irrational to have a double standard, and any government that really believed in equal protection under the law would allow equal protection under the law.

seamusTX wrote:

Dudley wrote:

seamusTX wrote:You're not being asked to incriminate yourself. It is not a crime to have a certain religion or employer.

Are you saying the defendant has to answer those questions too?

IANAL, but as I understand it, if the defendant goes on the witness stand, his fifth amendment right is limited to statements that could incriminate himself.

Whether he is an Episcopalian or a electrician would not seem incriminating.

- Jim

If i might respectfully revert back to another thread arguing in favor of conciseness, or short posts --

Nowhere in our Constitution, Jim, as you know so well, are we given a "right to remain silent." That shorthand "concise" statement incorrectly states the law, but we tend to use it so often, myself included, that we often come to believe it. Now if we tentatively step forward into a more "lengthy" post, all the 5th Amendment says with respect to this issue is that we "shall [not] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against [ourselves]."

Even my direct quote itself does not go far enough. To faithfully learn what those words have come to mean requires reading, absorbing, interpreting, and, hopefully, understanding volumes of court decisions, but I will content myself with the quote alone, in the interest of conciseness, and anyone who chooses to read this lengthy post must understand that even a quote of the amendment is incomplete, as it has itself become too concise.

Those four words, "right to remain silent," demonstrate how dangerous a "concise" statement can be, when it lacks completeness and clarity. That is, we have a right to remain silent, if... Leave the word "if" out, and the words following it, and we invite misunderstanding possibly the greatest right bestowed by the Bill of Rights, which many, I must say, consider even more important than the 2d Amendment.

BTW - if I may again be somewhat concise, in general if a criminal defendant chooses to take the stand and testify he has thereby waived his "right to remain silent."

Jim

Jim, as usual, I bow to your superior knowledge and experience.

With regard to jury questioning, the first thing to keep in mind is that the defendant in a criminal case is at risk of going to prison or paying substantial penalties. That is why he has the 5th-amendment protection.

The jurors are either going to serve on the jury or go home. They are not on trial for an offense.

Those who are interested might want to read Article 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly Art. 35.12 and 35.16: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#35.12" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said earlier, if you are on trial, you do not want jurors who are prejudiced against you for any reason; and as a member of the public, you want the justice system to be fair and credible.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:If the case involves complicated financial dealings, neither side wants jurors who can't do simple arithmetic.

Don't be too sure about that.

For those people who think that some of the potential questions for the jurors are irrelavent or invasive, please picture yourself as the defendant. Wouldn't you want the judge and your lawyer to have this information so that you could remove a juror who is biased against you?

I've helped Plaintiffs and Defendants exercise their "strikes" before since I worked for lawyers for over 25 years, and the information helps eliminate/strike potentially biased jurors.

I recall sitting through Voir Dire once on a panel myself.
One Prosecuring attorney asked "Do any of you know the Defense attorney?"
I raised my hand
Mr. ___ would knowing him bias your opinion?
No.
Ok, "Do any of you know ME, the Prosecuring attorney?"
I raised my hand
Mr. ___ would knowing ME bias your opinion?
No.
Ok, "I guess I'll ask .... Do any of you know the JUDGE?
I raised my hand
Mr. ___ would knowing the JUDGE bias your opinion?
No.

Judge speaks:
Ok MR. ___ would you approach the bench along with the counsel for both parties?
I go up there and they each ask where I know each from etc, I explain that I had taken courses from each Atty and the Judge handled a Mock Trial at school once ... they decide I'm not biased and I go sit down...

Prosecuting Atty continues:
Ok Mr. ____ I see you are ___________ religion, would you have any problem giving someone the death penalty?
No, not if they deserved it.


Denense atty asks ... again Mr. ____ I see you are ___________ religion, would you have any problem giving My Client the death penalty?
Answer: Well, not having heard any evidence yet, ....(pause) ... if there is evidence LATER to support what I HAVE heard so far, I sure would NOT give the defendant the death penalty, because it sounds like he was defending himself from the other guy who broke into his house at night and was on drugs, even IF they were historically enemies from birth.. Even if the Defendant told the guy 2 days earlier that he'd kill him if he ever saw him again. IF the dead guy came into HIS house, not the Defendant going out to hunt him down then I can't see anything premeditated on the part of the homeowner, in his house at night, that ....

Judge (before I even finished speaking)
MR. ______, YOU ARE EXCUSED, PLEASE LEAVE THE ROOM IMMEDIATELY.

Me: Yes your honor

As I'm leaving, I see both lawyers smiling and approaching the Judges bench, they are all sort of chuckling by the time I reach the door.

Each attorney gets a limited number of "strikes" to eliminate ones they believe will be unfair/biased ... I saved the attorneys the trouble by letting the judge eliminate me "for cause" because BOTH attys would have EACH used up a strike to eliminate me anyway. And I got to go home early so I wouldn't "poison" the panel.

Yes, the attorneys/parties use that info to attempt to get jurors which are most likely to be sympathetic/have things in common with the party they represent by eliminating those who aren't...... Defense wants a jury of "peers" , Prosecutors want the opposite of what the Defendant is.

Amazing how folks like us who know they would make great jurists, don't get the nod, because that is basically what most lawyers (on both sides) do not necessarily want...

I was in a jury pool for a Pasadena court to hear several cases that day, I recall them being 6 civil, and 1 criminal case (trial)...The judge had quite a docket that day...

The jury pool was seated on one side of the pews, and the folks having their cases heard that day were on the other side...The officers of the court, the lawyers, DA etc etc were all up in the front, and the first question was this...

"Does anyone in the jury pool "know" any of the folks across from them, or any of the people in the front here?"

I was BTW, Mr. Row 1, Seat 1...

So I raised my hand and said, "Yes, I know the judge."

Judge "R" had been writing some things down up on the bench, and suddenly stopped, looked up, squinted his eyes and kinda recognized me...

But he had to say for the record, "How do you know me?"

"Well, I helped, volunteered, and endorsed your opponent in the last election."

His reaction was priceless...

He said that was the best one he heard in a long time...And no, you are not excused for that reason...

So even if you are honest (which you should be anyway) you might just get lucky and serve...

But in the long run we got done, and Judge "R" and I had a great conversation after all was said and done that day...

But I'll still help out the guy who runs against him...

I've also never really worried too much about the "pre" voi-dire questionaires and the info they want...The worst is you'll have to sit all day and maybe serve...

I recently got the call to serve, and the questionnaire too. I REALLY didn't like the fact they asked these questions, as well as asking for my social security number! Begrudgingly I filled out the form anyways. When folded and sealed the way they wanted it (two pieces of tape, only on the sides) I was able to pop open the middle and read my SS number! Any joe blow could have too, so I disregarded the instructions and taped it so it could not be opened and read with out some work on the tape. Though that doesn't change the fact my SS number now has more potential to end up in the hands of the wrong person/s.


I ended up losing 5 hours of work, and some cell phone minutes, but i didn't get picked after all. They sent me a 7 dollar check and I just tore it up and trashed it, what a joke.

I wanted to serve, and would like the experience, However I do not agree with the process, and definitely not with the questionnaire.



A few years ago I did the same routine for Harris county and was not asked these questions.