Jury Duty

[PerfectDark 292]

I served Jury Duty today! For those of you not old enough, or just haven't been called ever, this shall be interesting! I think

I was called to appear at 7:45 AM, and because I work night crew at my local grocery store, that was a pretty hard task as that's the sweet spot right around when I like to get to bed. Needless to say I just woke up (bed at 1pm....lol).

 

First off, Jury Duty isn't something where they only call 12 people from around the county. County not Country Someone on reddit got that confused, and it's alright. Actually, they call 300+ people (at least our county does, here in Oregon its pretty populous, currently over 500,000. They open the couthouse doors and everyone goes through security screening not unlike that at the airport. Cellphones and headphones, laptops, keys are allowed. Obviously no knives or firearms or illegal substances . We moved to a large room and were informed there were 3 Judges presiding today, and that if you happen to be under a certain other judge, you did not have to join in the festivities today. I say festivities lightly. I would equate the entire wait for being called as to pulling teeth, for 4 hours straight. That however did not mean you were off scott-free (correct spelling?), that just means I think that you were to be called next week with another summons. Jury Duty for those of you not in the know is a civic duty, to be observed by your place of work, and missing or being absent means they hold you in contempt of court, a crime with possible jail time or a fine.

You fill out a form about past jury duty serves and things, then you wait. They play an orientation movie, usually court-related. Then they play a longer movie, this one was The Ultimate Gift.

It was possible that you were never called and you'd stay there the entire day, from 8 AM to 5 PM too. When they call you, they called about 40 other people and we all go up to the Courtroom upstairs. I thought that since we've all seen it on TV there'd only be 12 of us with the families and things, but this was different. 40 total people in the room, with the defendant and his attorney, plus instead of the plaintiff, because this was a criminal case and not a civil case, they would not be appearing. In their place was a State-appointed Prosecutor. Instead of the family suing it was the State pressing charges, get my drift? In this type of case, it was criminal as I said. The other type is civil where it can have traffic laws broken or DUIIs or things.

This particular case had a gentleman seated there and the defense attorney gets up and firstly states that this individual was charged with sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 14 (this happened when she was 8, back in 2008), sexual penetration, sodomy, and rape. Six counts in total, and he stressed that you need to be as unbiased as possible, so if the jurors have any objections to any of this content, or any relevant experience you are allowed to be either dismissed to go see another case, or dismissed for the day, both were under the decision of the judge. A lot of people said they have children and this was a sensitive subject.

The defense attorney then asked is there anybody who works full time, brings in the big bucks to the family, has children that cant have any other guardian watch or other things that might impede them from sitting through this. A lot of people raised their hand, they had children to watch, single parents and things, and because this particular case was planned to end on Thurs and today is only Tues still more people came forward. Especially there was a food cart employee working near PCC campus and said he would stand to lose $500-600 a day if he missed out. Court does not pay more than $10 a day haha, so he asked to be excused. Judge has the sole right to either say yes you can leave, or no you cannot but that does not mean you wont be excused later on.

Then the attorney looked at me fidgeting because of an old back injury I sustained as a kid. I was hanging on a door hinge and fell the 5 or 6 feet on my back I don't remember much but I remember getting up and having the wind knocked out of me. It hurt. A lot. I never told my grandparents whom I lived with at the time, and thus because I never sought treatment it healed improperly. Enough so that I'll now have back pain probably my whole life. It's not unmanageable, just uncomfortable. Especially sitting in those gothic church pew-style seats they have us in. Also, it was hot, with 40 other jurors the heat got too much for one guy and he got excused because he was constantly fanning himself and the judge thought he might pass out.

Turns out I was excused too. Next thing I know I was told I could leave too, so I didn't get chosen for the 12 and didn't get to hear anything about the case after that. But the reason they have so many jurors in the room was so that if a number of people left there'd still be quite a few more to take their place.

My question to you guys: The prosecutor said there are two types of evidence. Direct evidence like shell casings and dna from a murder, and circumstantial evidence like a trail of clues. Also he mentioned that cases like these often only have one or more witnesses, or even just the child herself to testify, using herself as evidence. That must've been tough.
Do you all think you could only use the little girl's word against the defendant, or would you need hard evidence? The prosecutor also said that because children often wait a long time before telling anyone, cases like this are thrown out a lot because of decay of dna or evidence.
Would that be enough for you or would you need hard evidence? If you said no you'd need hard evidence and not just the word of the girl, you were excused.

It's in our nature to need hard evidence, it's what makes science possible. But cases like these are tough because they often only have testimony. The little girl's words, her emotions in the courtroom, things like that might sway your decision. A lot to think about.

Sorry for the long ass post too

Edited May 20, 2015 by PerfectDark

[TCK 2,164]

It's a sad case if it does happen where no one can do anything about it, but the cold truth is that if we rely on anything but hard evidence then children could lock their parents up whenever they got sufficiently angry with them just by lying. I mean I know that's happened before.

 

Better to let a guilty man go than to imprison an innocent one.

 

So what you're saying about being excused if you said you needed hard evidence - that actually infuriates me. The prosecutor was straightforwardly allowed to select jurors who were prone to sway by emotional appeal, to make his case against the man easier since he already knew he had no evidence aside from an emotionally-charged testimony? That's fucking evil.

[PerfectDark 292]

No I don't need hard evidence, thats the whole point the prosecutor said was if you do, leave now. I was excused because of my back problem I imagine, because I was fine just seeing one witness.
Apparently it was enough.
 

 

Then the attorney looked at me fidgeting because of an old back injury I sustained as a kid. I was hanging on a door hinge and fell the 5 or 6 feet on my back I don't remember much but I remember getting up and having the wind knocked out of me. It hurt. A lot. I never told my grandparents whom I lived with at the time, and thus because I never sought treatment it healed improperly.

Edited May 20, 2015 by PerfectDark

[TCK 2,164]

I was talking about this:

If you said no you'd need hard evidence and not just the word of the girl, you were excused.

[tarikja 918]

Turns out I was excused too.

lol, i read that as 'executed'.

@Topic:

I would definitely need a 'hard evidence' to judge someone guilty.

A accusation which stands only on emotions or memories without actual physical or intellectual damage isn't defensible (How would you even proof there is a damage in the first place?). Especially since there can't be a perfect crime generally and with our current technological possibilities imo.

But I can't tell that for sure because I didn't study law and therefore can't tell the absolute precise definition of a crime.

Also if the damage is mostly emotional or psychological nature it should be easily mended. Respectively it mostly depends on the willpower and the desire to overcome of the damaged party.

[PerfectDark 292]

How would you even proof there is a damage in the first place?

 

Well, the correct route would be to take vaginal swabs and dna from that area, but she probably waited too long. These charges were made in 2008 lol and the guy was just going to court yesterday.

That's the beauty though (or not) of our legal system. Sometimes all you have are victims and their word ...their emotions and stuff while in the courtroom. if that's not enough to convince the jury then it's tough luck really. If the jury doesn't believe her, then the guy goes free, what's called "acquitted" for lack of evidence.... Sad, but it happens.

Edited May 21, 2015 by PerfectDark

[tarikja 918]

How would you even proof there is a damage in the first place?

Well, the correct route would be to take vaginal swabs and dna from that area, but she probably waited too long. These charges were made in 2008 lol and the guy was just going to court yesterday.

That was actually a question about how to proof an accusation without physical or intellectual damage. But yes, you're right. The biological traces are long gone. If the girl had a bone fracture you could still see part where it healed together. But even then it would probably be hard to prove this was an physical assault and not an accident.

 

That's the beauty though (or not) of our legal system. Sometimes all you have are victims and their word ...their emotions and stuff while in the courtroom. if that's not enough to convince the jury then it's tough luck really. If the jury doesn't believe her, then the guy goes free, what's called "acquitted" for lack of evidence.... Sad, but it happens.

No justice system is perfect. But one can come close to it. To ensure a progressive justice system there has to be ongoing work of the legislature.

Sadly this isn't as easy as it sounds. With more laws comes more observation of these and therefore a lack of individual freedom.

You have to find a way to ensure everyone has an alibi without installing cameras everywhere. Which is impossible imo.