- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you lie during voir dire, to get onto a jury?
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:you act like the patient isn't already dead
Jury nullification and lying during voir dire are both daggers through the heart of the jury system.
0
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:39 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Scrooster, "WTF?" was not much of a contribution, and I thought the question interesting enough to start a thread, rather than derailing the other one.
I was on jury duty a couple of weeks ago. General Sessions.
I cannot fathom anyone lying in an effort to be seated on a jury.
I was actually passed over twice (and was thankful) before unfortunately being picked the third time around.
Huge pain in the arse.
We started out with a pool of 358 on a Monday morning and that was cut down to 171 before the first trial ... by the time everyone was either DQ'd or granted a temporary reprieve from having to sit.
The remaining pool of 171 was used to seat three juries of 14 (2 backups) during the course of the week. All three ended up in plea deals .... none of us ever reached the point of having to deliberate.
Unfortunately I was part of the third jury and it carried over from Friday to the following Tuesday.
Wasted days I'll never get back.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:41 pm to SallysHuman
To use as evidence. lol. hypothetically speaking.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:43 pm to SallysHuman
quote:If you do not want to answer the question, don't answer the question.
Now why on earth would ANYONE answer this?
You have proven to be quite adept at declining to answer questions.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:44 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I suspect that a fair number of posters, if honest, support jury nullification when the result fosters THEIR idea of "justice," but oppose it when it fosters someone ELSE's idea of "justice." And they see no inherent contradiction in those positions, because (of course) THEIR notions of "justice" are always objectively correct.
It takes 12... not one.
Again, jury nullification is legal, rare and in line with centuries of precedent and practice.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:45 pm to scrooster
quote:
Wasted days I'll never get back.
Well that’s not a preferable attitude to have about it. Hopefully you took it very seriously during the actual proceedings, despite your negative feelings towards the time required. The trial aspect of our criminal justice system is actually the very last line of defense one has against that ultimate government overreach - seeking to take from you your literal freedom. That’s likely one of the most consequential proceedings in the American system of government.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:45 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
You have proven to be quite adept at declining to answer questions.
You're adept at inviting people to incriminate themselves on the basis of "anonymity".
Thankfully... you didn't get a lot of bites.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 8:46 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:The Anglo-Saxon jury system wasn't created for the population we have today.
Jury nullification and lying during voir dire are both daggers through the heart of the jury system.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 10:30 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Not even a good try, narc.
Posted on 11/13/25 at 10:54 pm to davyjones
quote:
Hopefully you took it very seriously during the actual proceedings, despite your negative feelings towards the time required.
I've usually been overseas when I've gotten a summons, but have been able to serve twice. I've taken it extremely seriously. I know I can be on the other end of some manufactured bullshite, and I'd want someone paying attention. Unfortunately, the plaintiff didn't show either time, so I had no influence for good. Drive 30m, check in, get dismissed in under an hour.
I'd volunteer to serve 10 hours a week of jury duty in perpetuity.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 4:02 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I do not expect an answer from YOU. You have demonstrated that you will not engage in good faith discussions of interesting topics. It is what it is.
Hmmm...You've been on this site for less than 2 months and KNOW this?
Alter much?
Posted on 11/14/25 at 4:09 am to RelentlessAnalysis
I would not lie. And I've been to jury selection process 3 times and each time I watched voir dire but selection ended before I was called up. I regreted not being called because all of the lawyers I watched were dumb as shite. It makes you wonder what the standards are at law schools.
This post was edited on 11/14/25 at 7:16 am
Posted on 11/14/25 at 4:39 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I would not lie
quote:
RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 11/14/25 at 4:39 am to RelentlessAnalysis
I never lie, and I would not, but some people would because they don't have anything better to do.
There is incentive to lie for some folks. It pays 10 bucks a day, plus gas money. Many employers pay the difference on what you get for serving while you are on jury duty and if they hate their job that is like a vacation.
Even if they do not hate their job it may be that they want to experience something new, learn about the system, who knows why?
Not me, but I don't mind jury duty, been on 2 different juries, one civil and one criminal, and both were interesting.
There is incentive to lie for some folks. It pays 10 bucks a day, plus gas money. Many employers pay the difference on what you get for serving while you are on jury duty and if they hate their job that is like a vacation.
Even if they do not hate their job it may be that they want to experience something new, learn about the system, who knows why?
Not me, but I don't mind jury duty, been on 2 different juries, one civil and one criminal, and both were interesting.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 5:40 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
and you WANT the defendant to be acquitted.
That's not how it works, at least not for me. I can have my preconceptions ahead of time, but I would be going in with the understanding that I probably don't know all of the evidence and that what's presented could paint an entirely different picture.
All that said, I would love to be on a jury which, based on the evidence and scenario, found someone not guilty by reason of jury nullification.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 5:44 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Would you lie during voir dire, to get onto a jury?
No, never
But I reserve the right to change my mind on things regarding how I'd make my decision immediately after
Like right now I support Jury Nullification but I might change my mind just before voir dire and change it back immediately after
Posted on 11/14/25 at 5:51 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 11/14/25 at 6:05 am to AUJACK
I’d love to be on a jury. Haven’t been picked yet. Been called 3 times. Got close on one.
Posted on 11/14/25 at 6:26 am to RelentlessAnalysis
The older I get the more I realize Mister Shakespeare was correct
Posted on 11/14/25 at 6:41 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The role of a jury in our system is to apply the law to the facts, NOT to engage in some subjective, rogue search for an idea of "justice" in the eyes of those 12 people.
What if the prosecution and judge were rogue? Then jury nullification is a valid means of arresting that. It can also be a form of rebellion such as the case below:
quote:
John Peter Zenger (1697-1746) was the printer of the New-York Weekly Journal, the only independent newspaper in the colony of New York. The Journal was critical of the colonial governor, William Cosby, accusing him and his administration of tyranny and violation of the people's rights.
Crosby decided to take action against the Journal by targeting Zenger, perhaps figuring that, without a printer, the Journal could not be published. On November 17, 1734, Zenger was arrested for "seditious libel," which is the act of publishing material that brings the government into contempt. Under British law, truth was no defense to the charge, and the jury's role was limited to determining whether the accused had published the material. If the jury found in the affirmative, then it was up to the judges, who were loyal to Cosby, to determine whether the statements were libelous.
At trial, Zenger was represented by the brilliant Philadelphia attorney, Andrew Hamilton. During his opening argument, Hamilton admitted that Zenger had published the Journal as alleged. Hamilton asked the jury to consider the truth of the statements published and advised that their verdict would "affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America." While the court instructed the jury that their role was only to determine whether Zenger had published the Journals, the jury instead acquitted Zenger.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News