TexasCHLforum.com

This is trial voir dire. You have to answer and failure to answer truthfully, if discovered could lead to bad things happening.

US Magistrate Robert Faulkner on June 6, 1995, set aside a Texas state judge's contempt ruling against Dianna Brandborg, who invoked privacy rights in refusing to answer some jury-selection questions. As a prospective juror for a capital murder case in Jan 1994, Brandborg declined to answer 14 of the 110 questions on a form, so Judge Sam Houston cited her for contempt and sentenced her to three days in jail and a $200 fine. The district attorney's office may appeal the ruling, which observers say could limit other lawyers' voir dire questions.

author: Keton, Jeannette S.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Law/Feder ... z0ToxQSeLF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting. I wonder how much her legal bills amounted to?

Here's some more detail on that case:

During preparations for a murder case in the 211th Judicial District Court of Texas, Dianna Brandborg was given a questionnaire that had been approved by attorneys for both sides. It contained nearly 110 questions, and Brandborg thought that 14 of them were too personal. The contested questions dealt with her religion, income, political orientation, automobile, and favorite television programs.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Federal,+ ... a017746232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Automobile? Are people who drive a Toyota likely to have different prejudices from people who drive a Chevy?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Interesting. I wonder how much her legal bills amounted to?

Here's some more detail on that case:

During preparations for a murder case in the 211th Judicial District Court of Texas, Dianna Brandborg was given a questionnaire that had been approved by attorneys for both sides. It contained nearly 110 questions, and Brandborg thought that 14 of them were too personal. The contested questions dealt with her religion, income, political orientation, automobile, and favorite television programs.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Federal,+ ... a017746232" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Automobile? Are people who drive a Toyota likely to have different prejudices from people who drive a Chevy?

- Jim

I bet its more like "people who drive a Toyota Prius have different prejudices than people who drive a Ford Powerstroke."

seamusTX wrote: Automobile? Are people who drive a Toyota likely to have different prejudices from people who drive a Chevy?
- Jim

It is interesting you mention this. Forbes had an article on this last week:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/06/car-pe ... ncome.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think car ownership is an unreliable means of drawing conclusions. Obviously there are some general trends. However, my wife and I have bought three Fords and three Hondas in the past 14 years, while our education level, income, and attitudes about life have not changed much.

(In case you're wondering, we lost three cars in floods, one was wrecked, and one was scrapped with almost 200,000 miles on it.)

- Jim

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.

Not really. I have used that, only because I already know that most defense attorney's wont let me be seated anyway. Something about being an ex-cop really makes a defense attorney use a preemptory strike really fast. The time I did use that line was in a capital murder case. I told the attorney I preferred not to answer his question in front of the whole panel as I did have a great deal of respect for our system and did not want to taint the rest of the jury pool.
The judge replied " I gotta hear this, Mr. XXxx please approach the bench" I told him if the defendant wasnt guilty of something he would not be there and neither would I. The judges reply "What agency you with? Only a police officer would answer the question that way! He was laughing and smilin real big when he said it!!

ELB wrote:I grew up in a small county, registered to vote as soon as I hit 18, and bingo, was on a jury in no time, along with several neighbors and acquaintances. It was a civil trial venued from a big city. When the out of town lawyers asked if anyone in the pool knew anyone else, they were shocked to have 90% of the pool raise their hands. The judge (who knew most of us as well, and was a friend of my family) laughed and told them if they tried to get a jury of strangers, we'd be voir-diring for weeks. The lawyers conferred quickly and decided to press on with us. When selection was done, I knew at least eight of my fellow jurors. Didn't prevent a hung jury tho.

troglodyte wrote:On the other hand, most of the people I have ever sat on a jury with have a hard enough time remembering what went on in the trial much less how I may have answered a question in weeding out process.

seamusTX wrote:This is a non-issue. In most counties, you will be in a room with 50 or so strangers who will not remember your name or anything else that you say. What could they do with any personal information?

I was on a jury with 11 other people for 10 days. We deliberated for two days. Think about what that means (as in Twelve Angry Men). I never saw or heard of them again. I couldn't have told a single one of their names a month later.

(I do remember some of their personalities, and some of the telling points that they made. That was around 1985 -- I don't even remember the year precisely.)

KD5NRH wrote:I don't live in most counties. Last time I was called, I ran out of fingers counting other potential jurors I had gone to school with, worked with, or whose daughters I had failed to get home on time at some point over the years.

Interesting to note how many people there knew each other.
In a small town, you're just not going to get a courtroom full of people who don't know each other.

I grew up in this county, but despite being away more than there for the previous 20 years or so, I knew about half the jury.
One was a nurse and has worked at the hospital with my mom and known me since I was a little kid.
One was the wife of a guy I'd worked with on and off for twenty years.
One was the mother of a girl I graduated high school with and played in the band with.
One was a guy who I've known since I was a kid and whose house I painted when I worked with my granddad doing contractor work.
One was a guy who came in the store I worked in just about every day.

Several of the witnesses were people I recognized from seeing around town.

I grew up going to church with the DA and his family. I know his daughter slightly from school.

During jury selection, there were a lot more people there that I knew. Some I knew well and some only slightly.

The defense attorney was not even from there, but from another little town about 60 miles away. He recognized someone in the pool of potential jurors as someone he'd seen at the last family reunion. It was determined that they were distant cousins.

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".

They asked us if anyone knew the defendant. I was sitting next to a buddy of mine from high school. He raised his hand. When they asked where he knew the defendant from, he said he spent time in jail with him. I think he was one of the first people excused.

seamusTX wrote: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.

dac1842 wrote:Something about being an ex-cop really makes a defense attorney use a preemptory strike really fast.

We had a former sheriff's deputy on our jury (from our county who knew everyone in the courthouse). I understand that it's extremely rare to have an LEO or former LEO on a jury.

mgood wrote:Interesting to note how many people there knew each other.
In a small town, you're just not going to get a courtroom full of people who don't know each other.

That would have been the situation for 90% of the time that the common-law jury system has been in existence. There were only a few big cities where people were anonymous until around 1900 (London, New York, Philadelphia).

- Jim

Last jury call I answered there was no question of CHL brought up. Which considering the dirt bags defense claim suprised me. It was a Federal Weapons charge. FWPD & DEA busted the guy in his apartment w/a rather healthy assortment of illicit pharmacological substances, and a couple of strategicly placed handguns.

His claim was that the handguns were not involved in his illegal drugstore business as evidenced by the fact that he did not try to shoot the officers, but were only there because he enjoyed shooting at a local gun range with his buddies. Funny that a Colt 1911 loaded, and cocked was under the couch he was sitting on and a 357 was on the counter just feet from the front door. And he had kids under 8 yo on the premises.

His guilty verdict took 30 min and 25 of that was convincing one member that th only scenaro that made sense was he used them to control his customers if they got rowdy. I never thought they would pout me on thee since my brother is former SO and brother-in-law is an arson investigator and I had attemted to get on the local agency that made the bust.

WildBill wrote:US Magistrate Robert Faulkner on June 6, 1995, set aside a Texas state judge's contempt ruling against Dianna Brandborg, who invoked privacy rights in refusing to answer some jury-selection questions. As a prospective juror for a capital murder case in Jan 1994, Brandborg declined to answer 14 of the 110 questions on a form, so Judge Sam Houston cited her for contempt and sentenced her to three days in jail and a $200 fine. The district attorney's office may appeal the ruling, which observers say could limit other lawyers' voir dire questions.

author: Keton, Jeannette S.
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Law/Feder ... z0ToxQSeLF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She still spent 3 days in jail that she will never get back and probably spent more than the $200 fine clearing her name. There was no justice for her.

Do you have to respond if they ask all Baptists to raise their hands?

What if they ask how you voted in the last city or county elections?

Neither voting nor religions are crimes either.