Of course. If you have no other inclination, defaulting to tribal considerations is better than nothing. It just takes a long time to get that far down the list. For example, I don't want a woman who is the primary caretaker of a child under the age of 16 on my jury. If my jury is hung 5-1 or 9-3, I need people who are willing to stick to their convictions under pressure, even after to Sun has gone down. If a juror is going to start looking down at her watch starting at 3:30, wondering if anyone remembered to pick up little Timmy at the bus stop, we have a problem.

Now, race is very common as a secondary characteristic. That woman in the post above that I'm looking for because her relative got screwed over by the cops? She's probably black. My NRA self defense nut? Probably white. It frequently shakes out that way, but it's not something I'm actually trying for.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Joshjrn

Baton Rouge

Member since Dec 2008

27062 posts

Posted on 3/15/14 at 2:37 pm to Zach

And Zach, yeah, she was an idiot. The problem with having idiots on your jury is the same problem you run into playing poker with someone their first time: you can never predict what they are going to do

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ChineseBandit58

Pearland, TX

Member since Aug 2005

42573 posts

Posted on 3/15/14 at 3:10 pm to Joshjrn

quote:
I need people who are willing to stick to their convictions under pressure, even after to Sun has gone down.

You would probably want me on your jury.

I actually have sand-bagged you. I did serve on a jury once. It was a forgery case where a guy had forged some social security cards.

He pleaded guilty but wanted a jury to decide the sentence.

So - we went thru the full trial to hear all the evidence.

When we went to the jury room, it was full of 'hang em high' folks, including a black man who was wearing the cloth of a catholic person. (btw - the defendant was black.)

Some heavy set idiot appointed himself foreman on the basis that he once lived next to some bad-arse maximum security prison in Illinois (would remember the name of it if someone mentioned it - Joliet maybe?)

Anyway, he was advocating the maximum sentence = there were something over 50 counts (the state dropped some of the counts even though he had already pleaded guilty to them) and the guidelines for each one was something like 1 to twenty as I recall. He wanted the max years on each, to run consecutively = essentially wanted him to spend the rest of his life in jail.

I argued against that as being too extreme but he wanted a vote right away = it was 11 - 1 for the 100+ year sentence.

I then told them that justice would be better served to go extreme on the fine and lenient on the time-in-prison, with the remainder on probation.

I argued for one year prison serve concurrently, 50K fine, 19 years probation. I also told them that I was prepared to stay in there for a month for a more reasonable sentence. (It was the Friday before Christmas and I was already packed for my annual 2-week hunting trip.)

They finally beat me down and I settled for 2 years prison concurrently, 50K fine and 19 years probation.

Ted Poe (currently Texas Representative) was the judge at that time. He called us back to discuss our verdict after the trial and remarked that we had rendered a very fair sentence.

I was proud of meseff.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Joshjrn

Baton Rouge

Member since Dec 2008

27062 posts

Posted on 3/15/14 at 3:21 pm to ChineseBandit58

I'm proud of you, too

Everyone says they will stick to their guns, but peer pressure is a bitch. When you have people saying that you are keeping them from their business, their families, it's damned hard.

Understanding the burden of proof and being willing to hold to their position are the two most important things I look for. If you give me those two things, I can work with the rest.

Page First 11 12 13