I've been picked a few times, but usually manage to talk my way out of it.

I could not more wholeheartedly disagree. The voir dire system has been in place for nearly 800 years and is part of a legal process that is much bigger than you or I. There are a lot of people who frankly want to get on the jury for particular reasons, and peremptory strikes help as a hedge against that.

 

Your assertions that neither side is committed to justice and that juries are stupid is offensive, and frankly is a departure from your usual avoidance of Oprah Winfrey-ish type TV opinions.

I am sorry that you find my opinion to fall in the Oprah Winfrey-ish category. I see no problem with the process of challenging the seating of a juror for cause. However, attempting to shape a jury by race, profession, or purely socio-economic reasons is wrong, IMO. Has allowing each side's attorney in a trial to cherry pick jurors based on the expectation that they will render a favorable (versus fair) verdict been part of the process for 800 years?

 

Why should an engineer or lab technician be disqualified from serving on a jury hearing a case of alleged negligence for example? Admittedly, my objections to the process are based mostly on my very limited experience in a jury pool but I found attempts by plaintiffs to stack juries with people less likely to understand science or business very disturbing. The system should work to place people on juries who are fair minded and who have no demonstrable bias against either party, IMO.

 

Juries composed largely of uneducated and unemployed people are much more likely to turn a trial into a lottery, with the winner being the party needing money the most. If you disagree, then how do you explain that certain federal jurisdictions attract class action lawsuits like magnets?

It is attitudes such as those expressed in the first paragraph that merely reinforce why peremptory strikes are necessary.

:lol: Talk about rushing to judgment! I heard the facts of the case and you did not. I actually asked to be excused from the process on the day that I was selected for the case that I described and during voir dire recounted my negative experiences with the hospital emergency room in question. However, when asked if my opinion of the hospital would influence my ability to render a fair verdict, I answered the question honestly and replied that it would not.

 

During deliberations, I argued in favor of the hospital's position and the hospital prevailed 11-1. I concluded that the case was precipitated by a billing dispute following an accident in the emergency room. Apparently, the plaintiff's attorney convinced his client that more money was available for a negligent suit than simply suing over the billing dispute. I would have loved to have stuck the hospital with the bill but the sleazy lawyer was greedy and wrongfully accused the hospital of negligence.

 

I actually expected the hospital to ask to have me struck from the jury. I guess the plaintiff's lawyer thought that I seemed biased against the hospital, which I was, and expected me to ignore the facts of the case. He got what he deserved, although I felt sorry for his client who relied on his bad advice.

 

To further illustrate how unfair the process is, this was the only time during the entire time that I spend in the jury pool that I asked to be excused. I had a tax filing deadline at work approaching and needed the day to prepare returns. In other cases, the judge, whose wife was a teacher, excused teachers in the pool because they had in-service days scheduled. The judge told me that the large out of state company that employed me could do without me for a day.

 

I am exactly the kind of juror that you would want if you wanted a fair verdict. Had the woman in the case I described above sued over her bill, I would not have hesitated to have sided against the hospital.

 

I have nothing against attorneys in general, but we have as many ambulance-chasing John Edwards-types in eastern Kentucky as any part of the country. They scare off legitimate businesses. I am a native of eastern Kentucky and it is among the last places in this country where I would want to conduct business.

 

A prominent attorney from Huntington once told me that he calculated that the Paintsville-Prestonsburg-Pikeville area had three times as many lawyers per capita has Huntington had. I am sorry that you took offense to my characterization of some of your fellow attorneys but I have seen first hand the kind of damage that they have done. There are certainly other reasons preventing areas like eastern Kentucky from reaching their potential but a surplus of sleazy lawyers is a contributing factor.

Amen.

 

Jury duty should be viewed as a privilege, not an obligation. I often begin my opening arguments with a brief reference to the Magna Carta and nearly 800 years of western law.

 

Well, I would be asleep about 30 seconds into that.:lol::lol::flame:

I was picked once, and told that I could not serve because of my profession. I asked the reason for this, knowing what the answer was going to be. I was told that I would be looking outside the box and going inside the head of the person. I was told that I would not be listening to what was being said and would be coming up with my own conclusions. Then, I was told that I should take it as a complement....That I was being told that I was more intelligent than most and they liked people on the jury to be "normal" joes! I laughed and still laugh when I think about this....what a line of bull!

:lol: Talk about rushing to judgment! I heard the facts of the case and you did not. I actually asked to be excused from the process on the day that I was selected for the case that I described and during voir dire recounted my negative experiences with the hospital emergency room in question. However, when asked if my opinion of the hospital would influence my ability to render a fair verdict, I answered the question honestly and replied that it would not.

 

During deliberations, I argued in favor of the hospital's position and the hospital prevailed 11-1. I concluded that the case was precipitated by a billing dispute following an accident in the emergency room. Apparently, the plaintiff's attorney convinced his client that more money was available for a negligent suit than simply suing over the billing dispute. I would have loved to have stuck the hospital with the bill but the sleazy lawyer was greedy and wrongfully accused the hospital of negligence.

 

I actually expected the hospital to ask to have me struck from the jury. I guess the plaintiff's lawyer thought that I seemed biased against the hospital, which I was, and expected me to ignore the facts of the case. He got what he deserved, although I felt sorry for his client who relied on his bad advice.

 

To further illustrate how unfair the process is, this was the only time during the entire time that I spend in the jury pool that I asked to be excused. I had a tax filing deadline at work approaching and needed the day to prepare returns. In other cases, the judge, whose wife was a teacher, excused teachers in the pool because they had in-service days scheduled. The judge told me that the large out of state company that employed me could do without me for a day.

 

I am exactly the kind of juror that you would want if you wanted a fair verdict. Had the woman in the case I described above sued over her bill, I would not have hesitated to have sided against the hospital.

 

I have nothing against attorneys in general, but we have as many ambulance-chasing John Edwards-types in eastern Kentucky as any part of the country. They scare off legitimate businesses. I am a native of eastern Kentucky and it is among the last places in this country where I would want to conduct business.

 

A prominent attorney from Huntington once told me that he calculated that the Paintsville-Prestonsburg-Pikeville area had three times as many lawyers per capita has Huntington had. I am sorry that you took offense to my characterization of some of your fellow attorneys but I have seen first hand the kind of damage that they have done. There are certainly other reasons preventing areas like eastern Kentucky from reaching their potential but a surplus of sleazy lawyers is a contributing factor.

 

I won't go into detail on this because it belongs in P&R. However, if you will re-read your earlier post you:

 

1. Labeled the attorney a "slip-and-fall attorney." I don't know the lawyer but I would be fairly confident in suggesting that he probably does a whole lot more than that;

 

2. I am more than confident that you did not hear, during the trial, that the attorney for the plaintiff "convinced" his client not settle and to hold out for more money, since any discussion of settlement negotiations is inadmissible at trial, as is anything the attorney told his client. I can only surmise, then, that the allegations made by you are mere presumptions;

 

3. You stated that the lawsuit was frivolous. I'm not going to argue with you much about it, but if the lawsuit was frivolous the defense could and probably would have prevailed on a Rule 11 motion or a summary judgment motion, or been granted a directed verdict at trial. The fact that it went all the way to jury verdict tells me there were material issues of fact. Just because the plaintiff lost does not mean the lawsuit was frivolous.

 

If you have pre-conceptions about lawyers and jury trials that is fine, but your personal biases (as do everyone's) find there way into your view of cases. That is why peremptories exist, and they exist for both sides equally.

I have only served one time and I also enjoyed the experience. The expression on a slip and fall lawyer's face when he loses an unwarranted suit after advising his client not to settle is priceless. The incompetence of a couple of public defenders was also a real eye opener for me.

 

I was shocked at how poorly prepared one lawyer in particular came for a murder trial. The same public defender handled the case of the two young armed robbers that I mentioned above in my previous post. The murderer was obviously guilty and I would have gladly voted for the death penalty for him had it been an option but every American citizen deserves a competent defense and he did not receive one, IMO.

 

I got to witness one of our lawyers get pie in his face. We had elected a new judge , and it wasn't one of your good ole' boy judges . She was starting court that day and this lawyer who has always been pretty cocky started acting his normal self. She stopped court and asked the baliff to escort him out. He was shocked. She told him when he decided that he would act like a mature adult and not a little child he could come back and she would hear what he had to say. I wish you could have heard the laughter and snickering as he was led out. PRICELESS.

 

I was picked to serve on a actual case only once and then was one of the one's downsized because the prosecution didn't like my answers to some of his questions. :irked:

I won't go into detail on this because it belongs in P&R. However, if you will re-read your earlier post you:

 

1. Labeled the attorney a "slip-and-fall attorney." I don't know the lawyer but I would be fairly confident in suggesting that he probably does a whole lot more than that;

My hometown is small and while I am sure that the firm in question does other work, it specializes in negligence suits and those types are the focus of its large billboard ads.

2. I am more than confident that you did not hear, during the trial, that the attorney for the plaintiff "convinced" his client not settle and to hold out for more money, since any discussion of settlement negotiations is inadmissible at trial, as is anything the attorney told his client. I can only surmise, then, that the allegations made by you are mere presumptions;

At the time of the trial I did not know about the settlement offer. A friend of the plaintiff told me the details afterward. According to the friend, the final settlement offer was for $35,000 and the plaintiff's lawyer convinced her that she would get much more at trial.

 

3. You stated that the lawsuit was frivolous. I'm not going to argue with you much about it, but if the lawsuit was frivolous the defense could and probably would have prevailed on a Rule 11 motion or a summary judgment motion, or been granted a directed verdict at trial. The fact that it went all the way to jury verdict tells me there were material issues of fact. Just because the plaintiff lost does not mean the lawsuit was frivolous.

Actually, I did not say the suit was frivolous, I said that it was not well founded and that it stemmed from a bona fide financial dispute. There was a legitimate injury, which was not disputed, but the facts did not support the negligence claim. However, I do not fault the judge for allowing the case to go to trial. The facts were in dispute and he was right to allow the jury to hear testimony.

 

FYI, in eastern Kentucky there is a heavy political element at play in our justice system. I had pretty extensive business dealings with Ross Harris and he would never have been convicted if he had been tried in Pikeville. If you have no Ross Harrises in your part of the state who warp the justice system for fun and profit, consider yourself lucky. Judges do sometimes wrongly allow cases to go to trial and sometimes political influences affect the outcome of appeals.

 

If you have pre-conceptions about lawyers and jury trials that is fine, but your personal biases (as do everyone's) find there way into your view of cases. That is why peremptories exist, and they exist for both sides equally.

I only have pre-conceptions about a certain segment of the legal profession. Lawyers who post large billboard ads encouraging people to visit them (the lawyer) if they need to see a doctor are the dregs of society, IMO. I have nothing against lawyers in general, including those who take personal injury and negligence cases.

 

I understand that you are a lawyer but your opinion of peremptories is not more valid than mine just because I am a layman. I believe that people should be dismissed from juries only for cause. Lawyers do attempt to pack juries to win cases without regard to justice. If they did not, jury consultants would be out of work.

 

In the case that I mentioned, I honestly believe that the plaintiff had a very solid case had she sued the hospital over its harassment of her over a bill that the hospital apparently agreed to cover (or at least implied so). I had considerable sympathy for her because as I mentioned earlier, I had some not so positive experiences with the same hospital myself. Of course the young woman may have insisted on pursuing the negligence claim, but it seems unlikely.

I have been called once. Got my number picked for one trial, I believe it was a civil trial, but didn't make the second cut. I would like to have served on at least one.

I have never been picked, but I figure while I am in college these are my prime-picking years. I asked my dad about it, and he said he has never made it to the jury because they don't like to have jury members who make their own money and have their own responsibilities, because those people feel little sympathy for criminals.

 

Being a very dependent college kid, I think they'd love me on a jury. :lol:

Only been selected twice in my life time so far. JD

I have served on Federal jury duty. Only sat in on two trials during the one year of serving. I was notified of potential trials about a dozen times. It was interesting and certainly something to learn from.

 

The one year was a long time serve.

Momma has two trials with her two car accidents, in the future.

Served once, four years ago

It looks like I got out of it. :ylsuper:

 

Before anyone flames me about this, I'm moving at the end of the month. I didn't want the burden of not being able to schedule meetings with the lender, walk throughs, closing, etc with not knowing if I'd have to go to the courthouse. It's hard enough to schedule this around work, but add in jury duty and it would've been a nightmare. I just asked for a postponement to just get me through the move, but they excused me for now. There's 1 load off my shoulders.