So the court Internet doesn't block reddit, imgur, or youtube. It does block quickmeme for some reason. If I tethered, I could get all the prons. But who wants pron on jury duty?
That's one thing I never got. So many people go to such pains to look at the pornographies in public. That's private time in my book.
Hmm, so does New York law require you to be on jury duty for a minimum period of time (like a week or whatever)? In Mass., it's "one juror, one trial" -- which basically means that you show up for duty and only have to serve for one trial, no matter how long or short it is. When I was called for duty a few years back, I was accepted onto the jury, but left roughly around mid afternoon as the trial I was assigned to ended in less than a day. After that, I was done with jury duty until the next time I get selected (which is currently about 15 years and counting).
Seeing how Supreme Court cases have upheld pr0n as speech over and over again, I wonder what the justification is for that block. I doubt very much that kind of overt censorship is legal. That would be a good one for Ray to tackle.
Seeing how Supreme Court cases have upheld pr0n as speech over and over again, I wonder what the justification is for that block. I doubt very much that kind of overt censorship is legal. That would be a good one for Ray to tackle.
It's just a gov't policy of no prons on their network.
I was waiting in the jury pool a month or two after I started listening to Geeknights. I waited in there all day with a copy of Wind, Sand and Stars desperately hoping I would get called up for something so I could get out of purgatory.
Groups of 10 - 18 people had been called up all day. I waited and read until around 4, expecting that it was too late in the day for anything interesting to happen in the courthouse, when an announcement came: they needed 50 now.
Half of us crammed into two freight-elevator-loads, waited in a really hot hallway, then filtered into the courtroom. We were each given a thick packet of paper and a pen. The packet contained neverending lists of names and places. The last pages had only a few questions:
Are you familiar with any of the people or places listed? No...
Have you or a member of your family ever been the victim of a violent crime? No? I wonder what this is about.
Have you or a member of your family ever been the victim of a violent crime? Oh shit...
The packets are collected and the judge briefs us. 36 of us will go back to the jury pool. The remaining 14 will sit on the jury. The defendant is charged with Murder in the 1st Degree and Murder in the 1st Degree while committing a drive-by.
We swore not to speak or read about the case to anyone until it ended. We were specifically warned to avoid looking up the defendant online or tweeting any details about the case. The most we were allowed to say was that we were on a jury for a criminal case.
I was dismissed for a day, so I went to work. The day after, I returned to the courtroom for Voir Dire. I waited in the attached jury room until the clerk came to get me. I get quite nervous and worried even over insignificant stuff, so sitting in the witness stand was awful. I was shaking for no reason in particular and my hands were cold and sweaty.
The lawyers asked me things about my job, my education, and my family. They asked my opinion of North Minneapolis. I knew it had a reputation for being the least safe part of the city, but I had no first-hand experience to support or dispute that. They asked if my father being a police officer would cause me to value the testimony of an officer over that of anyone else. I said no.
Neither lawyer had any problems with me or my answers. The judge asked whether I believed I was a reasonable person who could make decisions based on the evidence alone. She said I'd be coming back in the morning to hear the case.
I showed up twenty minutes early to get through security. It took forever to get through, but the judge and some of the other jurors were late so those of us who got there on time ended up waiting a couple hours. We were allowed to keep our phones until deliberation, as long as they were off before entering the courtroom.
The judge repeated some instructions for the jury, and the clerk passed out notepads. Opening statements were given. The prosecuting attorney's name was Borg. He explained the nature of the case, and we were given details (extremely slowly):
A man was shot twice in the back on the stairs of his home during the night. A white Cadillac was seen speeding backward down the one-way street that passed the house just after the gunshots were heard. The victim was in a relationship with the defendant's wife. The defendant drove a white caddy, and he and his wife were separated. None of the 911 callers saw the shots or the driver's face. Someone heard moaning. Police responded to the 911 calls, but did not see the victim on the porch as they drove by. We were shown grim photographs of the victim. His family members left the courtroom crying. It is unknown whether he was still alive during this first pass. The M.E. said even if they had found him at that time, it was not possible he would have survived. I still wonder about this.
A man from a cell company (Sprint, I think) flew in to present phone records and explain how a phone's approximate location can be determined from the tower numbers and tower face numbers in the spreadsheet he brought. They showed the defendant's calls and texts, and that he was in the area. He denied it at first, but later said he was nearby to pick up a bottle of alcohol. A friend of the defendant testified that he told her in person he planned to kill someone earlier that day. She hadn't seen him in years.
The attorneys bashed arguments about the times everything happened, the timestamps in the traffic videos showing his car in the area, whether the police found the defendant's gun legally, and whether the bullet found in his pocket when he was taken in for questioning was planted.
After about two weeks of testimony from experts, friends and family, the heap of evidence accumulating on the table was looking ready to slide off. When the time came for us to begin deliberation, we were instructed by the judge to determine which criteria for three possible charges were met, and to disregard our own feelings in the process. I was surprised when the judge told us that circumstantial evidence is not worth any less than actual evidence.
To me, whether he was guilty or not, the ad-hockery of the defense's arguments was staggering. We took a vote immediately just to see if we even needed to go further. Guilty was the minority. Most people couldn't decide one way or the other. We deliberated for six hours.
We ended up making a timeline, taping things to the walls all around us. We went through this timeline once for every criterion of each charge. The possible charges were murder II, murder I (which was murder II plus premeditation), and murder I while committing a drive-by. It would end up either murder I, murder I + murder I while committing a drive-by, or just murder II since murder I would cover that.
We argued over whether someone else could have done it and once we decided no, we argued much longer about whether there was premeditation. I thought the latter was stupid since there was a witness and evidence from the phone company that he said he might kill someone hours before the event that the others claimed drove him into a blind rage. It got pretty heated here. People were screaming at each other, crying and interrupting all over the place. This was the worst part for me. Even worse than all the bloody photos of the crime scene or the autopsy. I can't take that tension that comes from people yelling at each other til they're red in the face. I chimed in when I noticed people making logical fallacies and had to explain what that meant.
People eventually started to agree that they believed he was guilty, but surprisingly many of them admitted that they didn't want to be responsible for putting a man away for life. About half of them thought that was reasonable justification for saying not guilty. The rest of us had to remind them more than once that we were not responsible for the sentence, just the verdict.
We finally agreed that it was not reasonable to believe anyone else could have done it.
We voted a few more times to make sure.
About two hours later, the court convened to hear the verdict. Many of us were very nervous. Our foreman stood to answer the judge's questions. He was shaking. The defendant was staring us down. I'm assuming that's what caused the juror behind me to start sobbing. Guilty for murder I and Guilty for the drive-by. The defendant sank into his arms on the table. We were all surprised by what the judge said next.
"Mr. Rivers, in light of the verdict, would the defense like the jury polled?"
One of the reasons the foreman was nervous was because being foreman allowed the defendant to know his name. Many of us were very uncomfortable as we were each addressed by name and required to stand up to confirm our verdict. The sobbing juror hesitated. The silence was heavy. If she denied it at this point we would probably be sent back to deliberation. I'm not sure what would have happened. She said yes, sat down, and resumed crying.
The look the defendant gave each of us as we sat was hard to understand. It was chilling.
The court's clerk immediately escorted us to the judge's chambers. Other jurors hugged in the hallway. We waited in her chambers for a while. The clerk fetched water bottles for us.
When the judge walked in, she asked how we were doing. She explained that if any of us thought we needed therapy for anything related to the trial, that the county would provide the sessions at no cost to us.
A juror asked her if she believed we had made the right decision. She told us there was other evidence that was excluded on a technicality that would have made most of the rest of the trial unnecessary. She told us exactly what it was and why it proved he was guilty, but sadly I can't remember this part. We all felt a better knowing this.
Then she told us she was taking bagpipe lessons and got everyone laughing. Once the court had cleared out we were escorted to our cars and bus stops by police. And like any group of people that gets stuck in a room together for an extended period of time, we friended each other on facebook and never talked to each other again.
It's not entirely true that you're not responsible for the sentence. That's one aspect of jury nullification.
I made sure to read all I could about jury nullification when I found out I'd be on the jury, so it was an option. We were specifically instructed to interpret the law in the way the judge explained it to us, but I knew there was no legal recourse if we disregarded that instruction.
I'd have brought it up, but nobody said they thought it wasn't right that a person should be in prison for life if they kill someone. They agreed that it was a fitting punishment, they just didn't want to be the ones to throw away the key.
If this was a pot possession charge I definitely would have mentioned it.
Comments
I would buy their stock so hard if they had stock.
Groups of 10 - 18 people had been called up all day. I waited and read until around 4, expecting that it was too late in the day for anything interesting to happen in the courthouse, when an announcement came: they needed 50 now.
Half of us crammed into two freight-elevator-loads, waited in a really hot hallway, then filtered into the courtroom. We were each given a thick packet of paper and a pen. The packet contained neverending lists of names and places. The last pages had only a few questions:
Are you familiar with any of the people or places listed?
No...
Have you or a member of your family ever been the victim of a violent crime?
No? I wonder what this is about.
Have you or a member of your family ever been the victim of a violent crime?
Oh shit...
The packets are collected and the judge briefs us. 36 of us will go back to the jury pool. The remaining 14 will sit on the jury. The defendant is charged with Murder in the 1st Degree and Murder in the 1st Degree while committing a drive-by.
[More later]
We swore not to speak or read about the case to anyone until it ended. We were specifically warned to avoid looking up the defendant online or tweeting any details about the case. The most we were allowed to say was that we were on a jury for a criminal case.
I was dismissed for a day, so I went to work. The day after, I returned to the courtroom for Voir Dire. I waited in the attached jury room until the clerk came to get me. I get quite nervous and worried even over insignificant stuff, so sitting in the witness stand was awful. I was shaking for no reason in particular and my hands were cold and sweaty.
The lawyers asked me things about my job, my education, and my family. They asked my opinion of North Minneapolis. I knew it had a reputation for being the least safe part of the city, but I had no first-hand experience to support or dispute that. They asked if my father being a police officer would cause me to value the testimony of an officer over that of anyone else. I said no.
Neither lawyer had any problems with me or my answers. The judge asked whether I believed I was a reasonable person who could make decisions based on the evidence alone. She said I'd be coming back in the morning to hear the case.
I showed up twenty minutes early to get through security. It took forever to get through, but the judge and some of the other jurors were late so those of us who got there on time ended up waiting a couple hours. We were allowed to keep our phones until deliberation, as long as they were off before entering the courtroom.
The judge repeated some instructions for the jury, and the clerk passed out notepads. Opening statements were given. The prosecuting attorney's name was Borg. He explained the nature of the case, and we were given details (extremely slowly):
A man was shot twice in the back on the stairs of his home during the night. A white Cadillac was seen speeding backward down the one-way street that passed the house just after the gunshots were heard. The victim was in a relationship with the defendant's wife. The defendant drove a white caddy, and he and his wife were separated. None of the 911 callers saw the shots or the driver's face. Someone heard moaning. Police responded to the 911 calls, but did not see the victim on the porch as they drove by. We were shown grim photographs of the victim. His family members left the courtroom crying. It is unknown whether he was still alive during this first pass. The M.E. said even if they had found him at that time, it was not possible he would have survived. I still wonder about this.
A man from a cell company (Sprint, I think) flew in to present phone records and explain how a phone's approximate location can be determined from the tower numbers and tower face numbers in the spreadsheet he brought. They showed the defendant's calls and texts, and that he was in the area. He denied it at first, but later said he was nearby to pick up a bottle of alcohol. A friend of the defendant testified that he told her in person he planned to kill someone earlier that day. She hadn't seen him in years.
The attorneys bashed arguments about the times everything happened, the timestamps in the traffic videos showing his car in the area, whether the police found the defendant's gun legally, and whether the bullet found in his pocket when he was taken in for questioning was planted.
[more later]
To me, whether he was guilty or not, the ad-hockery of the defense's arguments was staggering. We took a vote immediately just to see if we even needed to go further. Guilty was the minority. Most people couldn't decide one way or the other. We deliberated for six hours.
We ended up making a timeline, taping things to the walls all around us. We went through this timeline once for every criterion of each charge. The possible charges were murder II, murder I (which was murder II plus premeditation), and murder I while committing a drive-by. It would end up either murder I, murder I + murder I while committing a drive-by, or just murder II since murder I would cover that.
We argued over whether someone else could have done it and once we decided no, we argued much longer about whether there was premeditation. I thought the latter was stupid since there was a witness and evidence from the phone company that he said he might kill someone hours before the event that the others claimed drove him into a blind rage. It got pretty heated here. People were screaming at each other, crying and interrupting all over the place. This was the worst part for me. Even worse than all the bloody photos of the crime scene or the autopsy. I can't take that tension that comes from people yelling at each other til they're red in the face. I chimed in when I noticed people making logical fallacies and had to explain what that meant.
People eventually started to agree that they believed he was guilty, but surprisingly many of them admitted that they didn't want to be responsible for putting a man away for life. About half of them thought that was reasonable justification for saying not guilty. The rest of us had to remind them more than once that we were not responsible for the sentence, just the verdict.
We finally agreed that it was not reasonable to believe anyone else could have done it.
We voted a few more times to make sure.
About two hours later, the court convened to hear the verdict. Many of us were very nervous. Our foreman stood to answer the judge's questions. He was shaking. The defendant was staring us down. I'm assuming that's what caused the juror behind me to start sobbing. Guilty for murder I and Guilty for the drive-by. The defendant sank into his arms on the table. We were all surprised by what the judge said next.
"Mr. Rivers, in light of the verdict, would the defense like the jury polled?"
One of the reasons the foreman was nervous was because being foreman allowed the defendant to know his name. Many of us were very uncomfortable as we were each addressed by name and required to stand up to confirm our verdict. The sobbing juror hesitated. The silence was heavy. If she denied it at this point we would probably be sent back to deliberation. I'm not sure what would have happened. She said yes, sat down, and resumed crying.
The look the defendant gave each of us as we sat was hard to understand. It was chilling.
The court's clerk immediately escorted us to the judge's chambers. Other jurors hugged in the hallway. We waited in her chambers for a while. The clerk fetched water bottles for us.
A juror asked her if she believed we had made the right decision. She told us there was other evidence that was excluded on a technicality that would have made most of the rest of the trial unnecessary. She told us exactly what it was and why it proved he was guilty, but sadly I can't remember this part. We all felt a better knowing this.
Then she told us she was taking bagpipe lessons and got everyone laughing. Once the court had cleared out we were escorted to our cars and bus stops by police. And like any group of people that gets stuck in a room together for an extended period of time, we friended each other on facebook and never talked to each other again.
End
I'd have brought it up, but nobody said they thought it wasn't right that a person should be in prison for life if they kill someone. They agreed that it was a fitting punishment, they just didn't want to be the ones to throw away the key.
If this was a pot possession charge I definitely would have mentioned it.