Sup /his/, I couple weeks ago I got my court summons for jury selection. Has anyone here sat on a jury before? There's still a small chance I'll actually be selected to be on a jury but I think it would be an interesting experience.
Also common law thread.
>>795976
I've not done it in your country, but did it a few years ago in a Crown Court here in London. It was surprisingly enjoyable. Make sure you actually take notes and don't make any snap judgements for fuck's sake. You literally have one job. Oh and don't even think about sending any messages, tweeting or god forbid googling somebody's name. You can destroy the entire case and be charged with a criminal offence (at least here).
I expect there isn't much difference between Canadian and UK law on such matters however. Just don't be an idiot and you'll be fine. Soak the experience up, you'll be performing literally the only public duty a person can be conscripted to do in the 21st century western world, it's that important.
>>796836
cool thanks for the input
I`m not officially a juror yet, I just have to go for jury selection
>>795976
>french obligatory
>not in quebec
Seriously?
In any case, burger here. I went in the jury selection, and honestly there's a ridiculously easy way out (at least here) that doesn't require any lying or trickery.
They ask if you could fairly deliver a verdict about the violation of a law, no matter your opinion on the justness or fairness of the law itself, or the punishment in case of conviction. They went down the line, everybody answering yes.
Literally fucking cattle, I swear to god. I said, "No. I could never send somebody to prison or penalize them at all if I don't think what they did was wrong. Even though that's not necessarily true in this case."
And that was the end of it. The judge thanked me for being honest, they asked all of us or some people at random a few questions, six people most satisfactory/neutral were selected, and we all went home.
I just don't understand what a sheep you have to be to declare somebody guilty of a "crime" you don't even consider wrong.
>>797909
French is secondary outside of Quebec, while English is secondary in Quebec
>>797909
Got Jury duty this summer. Hope their just as easy about my moral/religious exception.
>>798398
>on-Quebecois Canadians outside of Quebec that don't understand English better than French
In northern Ontario there are all French communities, Franco-Ontarians
New Brunswick is the only province which is officially bilingual and there are only French speaking communities
Acadia which is part of Nova Scotia is only French, and part of Cape Breton island in Nova Scotia has French only communities
Manitoba has a large French speaking population and French communities
Not sure about out west though
Like 12 million Canadians have French as their first language. French as first language are distinguishable from French Canadians who are descendents of French settlers in New France, now Quebec
>>797909
I don't want to get out of it, I think sitting on a jury would be cool and I don't care if I miss work.
Also in response to
>I just don't understand what a sheep you have to be to declare somebody guilty of a "crime" you don't even consider wrong.
You're duty is upholding the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not. Everybody has their own opinions and beliefs but that's ultimately the role of the jury, disregard those believes and produce an objective judgement based on the law. I'm not sure if jury trials can set precedents though. Probably in civil trials which would be cool because essentially the jury's decision would create law
>>795976
Oh God these phone calls would be hilarious
>>800032
The law of the land isn't a hammer to be used by the government to create criminals. It's a statute generally agreed upon by a population, that must be flexible in its interpretation.
So if the letter of the law says one thing, but a jury of peers disagrees, how is the law right? The power of a law derives from the support of citizens.
>>798398
You've never seen Canadian Bacon?
>>800107
>Implying statutes aren't guidelines for the judiciary
>Implying the vast majority of law in common law countrues isn't codified
>Implying jury rulings can't set precedents
>Implying the judiciary isn't separate from government
>Implying in Canada and the US we don't have judicial supremacy
>Implying jury nullification isn't a thing
Seriously though, look into jury nullification, it addresses your concern
to;dr: it's when s jury acquits somebody even though they believe they committed the crime but they don't believe he should be punished for it
>>800483
...I know man. That's what I was saying, that a jury has the right and responsibility to find a person not guilty if the law is unjust in their eyes.
It's also wrong then, I think, to disqualify somebody from a jury because they could potentially disagree with a law, and act on that disagreement by giving a verdict of not guilty even though they know otherwise.
>>800523
>It's also wrong then, I think, to disqualify somebody from a jury because they could potentially disagree with a law, and act on that disagreement by giving a verdict of not guilty even though they know otherwise
The reason that anon, or was it you, was disqualified from being a juror was probably because the prosecution didn't want somebody who'd be on the fence about the law. You still have the right to sit on a jury and maybe a different prosecutor or defence would like the answer you gave
>>795976
Does only Anglo law have juries?
>>801967
Yes, juries are from the magna carta so judges appointed by the King couldnt arbitrarily convict people, it was to be a jury of your peers
>>795976
> Has anyone here sat on a jury before?
I served jury duty twice.
20+ years back, I got picked for a jury in the Macomb County Circuit Court here in Michigan and we tried a child molestation case that lasted almost a week (we sent the pedo uncle up the river, it was his third time…) and ‘round about 10 years back, I got picked for jury duty in the City of Warren 37th District Court, but we all went home after two days of sitting around doing nothing, when all the cases were either settled at the last minute (several truancy cases) or witnesses didn’t show up and arrest warrants were issued for them.
>>802639
What were deliberations like? Did everyone agree, yep he did it?
>>801967
Depends on what you mean by jury. In Slovenia, according to my grandfather, juries are composed of retired judges, not peers.
A double edged sword, I think. Their decisions are bound to be better informed and logical, but more politically sensitive and open to corruption.
>>802840
>more politically sensitive and open to corruption.
This is the reason for juries in Anglo law
Land owners like barons and Earls wanted more rights from King John because he kept increasing taxes, so they made him sign the magna Carta in exchange for increased taxes essentially
The magna Carta was the first bill of rights for Britain
There's a clause in the magna Carta about judged by your peers, the purpose was because judges were still appointed by the King
>>802822
> What were deliberations like? Did everyone agree, yep he did it?
The first day we took an informal vote and it was around 2/3 in favor of not guilty because at first, it kinda seemed like a White trash family feud but in the end, it got down to one hold out (a history teacher in fact) who finally agreed to vote guilty.
This trial was the uncle’s third time in court for molestation charges but the previous two times the girls had apparently froze up on the stand but this little girl's testimony pretty much sealed the uncle's fate, as his defense lawyer was hounding her about not remembering, not telling the truth, etc. and she finally barked back at him; "I am telling the truth!".
When I showed up at court, there were a hundred or so people in the huge waiting lobby and I figured I’d never be chosen, as I was 23-24 and hadn’t read the back of the jury summons, that said; WEAR A SUIT, DUMBASS! and had showed up in jeans and a casual button up shirt.
But I got called down with the first group and was picked for the first trial, the lawyers only asking me if I new or was related to any cops (yes, no) and could I accept the testimony of a 7 year old (yes).
One of my fellow jurors turned out to be the mother of a guy I knew in high school.
>>803274
>trial, the lawyers only asking me if I new or was related to any cops (yes,
My dad is a lawyer, I wonder if that would disqualify me
>>805569
Most likely. Even taking a highschool class in law is likely to disqualify you from jury duty.
Lawyers don't want people with any formal or in-depth knowledge of the legal system. Not for any malicious reason though, they aren't trying to select oblivious idiots, but anyone with more than average understanding of the legal system is likely to be very biased.
>>805649
I work at my dad's firm too but doing meme work not actually legal shit
I kind of want to go to law school so I was thinking that sitting on a jury would be a good experience
I also did the high school law class too
I'm obligated to attend jury selection so I guess I will find out
>>805689
Yeah you definitely won't ever be selected for jury duty.
On the bright side, you are completely free to walk into a court house and watch any court proceedings you want. Just take a day to sit around at the back of the court and see how people do things.
>>805710
>On the bright side, you are completely free to walk into a court house and watch any court proceedings you want
A friend of mine is a court reporter; she's the one who transcribes the proceedings, and she tells me all about shit that goes on
Once I went to see the Crown's closing submissions for a case where a cop shot a guy who was standing on an empty streetcar with a knife 15 feet away
'R v. Forcillo' is the case
The verdict was pretty meta; he was found not guilty of second degree murder because he lawfully killed the guy because he had a reasonable belief that he could lunge off the street car with the knife
But, after he killed him he unloaded another 5 shots or something like that into him
So he was found guilty of attempted murder for attempting to murder the person he was found to have lawfully killed.
It was cool stuff
There's a couple YouTube videos of the shooting, "Sammy Yatim shooting" if you're interested
>>795976
>they still have slave duty in America
>>806332
>Ontario
>>806568
>Canada is an Asian island now
>>807189
>no
>>805649
>but anyone with more than average understanding of the legal system is likely to be very biased.
nice fantasy
you know that the explicit goal of a national education in any liberal doctrine is to pop out citizens, which therefore must know the law (and embrace the liberal doctrine) ?
i got back from my first summons today, but didn't actually sit. they whittled down to 13 people (12 jurors and an alternate) from a group of almost 100, for a "sexual assault against a child" case.
honestly, it was pretty interesting, but I live on the edge of the longest county of my state & wasn't fond of having to drive 50 miles one way to the court house on the other one. much less when i needed to be there at 7 AM
the part I didn't quite understand, was why they had such a large pool of people to pick from. i get back ups and all, but only 2 of the original 13 people were even replaced from the other 70-80 of us.
it makes me wonder, have there been times where multiple juror boxes are dismissed en masse? i'm definitely interested in going again, but i'd like a more uhh, tasteful(?) case.
>>805689
>I'm obligated to attend jury selection so I guess I will find out
at mine, we got questionnaire's that we had to fill out, and multiple questions dealt with knowing/being related to officers, lawyers, judges, etc.
i'm not too sure how much it matters though, because during the questioning, one of the jurors was asked by the defense's counsel to confirm that she is "related' to a lawyer (her husband) in response to her word choice in previous responses. she was later dismissed when the lawyers did the jury selection, but not among two women that were dismissed hours prior for "bias" issues
>>807743
>but I live on the edge of the longest county of my state & wasn't fond of having to drive 50 miles
OP here, this is my problem. I can't drive, for medical reasons, so I have to take a highway bus then a city bus to get to the courthouse, so it will take me at least an hour in the morning. But because muh accessibility and muh current year, I could probably get accommodation, at the very least a ride from the bus terminal to the courthouse and travel compensation.
As you said though, with such a large pool of people my chances are slim. From what I understand from someone I know who works at a Superior Court in Ontario is they take 200, and take one or two juries from them. It would be cool to be selected, but I'm not holding my breath.
>at mine, we got questionnaire's that we had to fill out, and multiple questions dealt with knowing/being related to officers, lawyers, judges, etc
I got a questionair in the mail which asked profession which I put file clerk. Because that's what I do at the firm. I didn't specify 'law firm'. They also deal exclusively with real estate law, not litigation or court either. I'm sure I am more legally minded and aware than most people given my father being a lawyer and my interest in pursuing law, but I won't make that known unless I'm asked.
You could just not go, that's what I did.
Not only do I not have a warrant for my arrest they never summoned me again.
>>807852
It says on the form it's a crime not to go. I want to go anyway just got the experience
>>807870
Yeah I know that's what it says, but I don't think it's ever enforced, same thing happened to my dad and my neighbor, nothing.
>>807884
something dumb might happen, like you get a traffic ticket and have to go to court, and while you're there your outstanding warrant is also executed
I was a juror on a murder trial. AMA.
>>807803
>I could probably get accommodation
godspeed with that. the courts here offered to pay for bus rides to the court house, but the nearest bus stop was still over 25 miles away so i figured i may as well drive myself
>they take 200, and take one or two juries from them.
that sounds about right. there were two cases for my time slot, one criminal (the sexual assault one) and one civil. the criminal pool started at 100, and the civil at 80
>I got a questionair in the mail which asked profession which I put file clerk
ahhh yeah, you may be getting another at the actual court office once you check in, but im unsure. it can vary a fair bit on state, let alone country haha
i feel like things are much smoother once/if you're sat on a jury because after the first day, you show up and get right into the court stuff.
>>807852
lucky bastard. i missed my first date because i didn't have a car, and the clerk person i was corresponding with said i could only get dismissals for "hardship" in person. basically told them tough shit 'cause i couldn't afford a cab to the nearest city bus stop, then 6 months later, on the fucking dot, i got a notice saying i missed the first date, with a new summons attached.
>>807884
yeah, it's very, very unlikely an arrest warrant will go out, but it's definitely a bit of a gamble
>>807905
even worse, if it comes up during a warrant/ID check when you're pulled over, you could be proper arrested on the spot
>>807927
did you reach a verdict? if so, how difficult was it to reach? what changed the mind of the last person to change their vote, in order to make it unanimous?
also, general case details would be neat. like, if it was domestic, or some rando stabbing, pre-meditated, etc.
thanks
>>807944
>>807927
Sure
In order:
Yes, guilty
It took us a few days. About half voted to convict from the start, and the others too some convincing
The last person was holding out due to their difficulty with the idea of sending a person to life in prison.
Case involved a drug dealer getting shot. Not unusual, but this case involved the ex-husband of the woman he was dating. The dealing moved into the house and started dealing drugs around the ex-husband's kids. So he called the dealer up and arranged a meeting in a parking lot. He pulled up, fired a .45 several times, and struck the dealer, and drove away. On the way there and the way back, he called up his wife on the phone, yelling and berating her about the relationship, while she yelled back.
The forensics on the gun matched the body. He owned the firearm. He purchased the bullets found used at the scene a few days prior. And everywhere along the way he drove, he pinged a new cellphone tower, leading a trail to where the body was found, despite his claims that he was at home, sleeping.
The prosecutor did not want to go for capital punishment, so the buy got life. His appeal, which I read a few years later, was rejected. Guy is currently in prison. I've been tempted to go visit sometime. See how he's doing, put a little money into his account in order to buy some honey buns. But then I decided: If, for whatever reason, he gets out, I don't want him remembering me. I have a nondescript face, and I had a beard then, which I've shaved since then.
>>807977
i appreciate the response man
>The forensics on the gun matched the body. He owned the firearm. He purchased the bullets found used at the scene a few days prior. And everywhere along the way he drove, he pinged a new cellphone tower, leading a trail to where the body was found, despite his claims that he was at home, sleeping.
christ, that definitely seems pretty straight forward. that'd be a pretty nice case to serve on. were ya sequestered for the duration of the trial? yeah i can definitely understand not going to visit the dude. probably wouldn't be too happy to see one of the folks that sent him there
it's pretty nice to hear about having all that evidence to consider, though. the case they were selecting for this morning apparently only had testimonial evidence for an incident from 6 months ago. sounds like it'd be a muddled mess
>>808044
>were ya sequestered for the duration of the trial?
No, shockingly. We weren't allowed to talk to anyone, including spouses, about the case.
We did have one individual who was hesitant to convict because, in her words "Police be suspicious"
>>795976
Yeah man I was on a murder trial. Some dude (allegedly) stabbed another guy who lived in his building complex for sleeping with his girlfriend. It was a pretty ghetto area and they had an older black guy there who recanted his eye witness 6account of the stabbing once he got on the stand, and the consensus in the jurors room was that he had gotten his ass kicked so that he wouldn't testify. One woman who clearly didn't know how things worked in that part of town couldn't convict, so we had a hung jury.
>go look up the defendants lawyer after
>she was arrested for visiting a client, handing him pills, a turkey sandwich, and copy of 'Felon magazine'.
I know it sound unbelievable but here's the article: http://nypost.com/2005/09/17/out-to-lunch-lawyer-nailed-giving-jailed-client-loads-of-pills-with-sandwich/
>>805569
>My dad is a lawyer, I wonder if that would disqualify me
Probably, as neither the prosecution or defense would want some wet-behind-the-ears Internet "lawyer" second-guessing them and talking shit to other jurors.
Of course, that only matters if they specifically ask you about dad or where you work. You're not required to give them some kinda life history of yourself, just basic yes / no answers to their questions.
Though if you are asked and lie about it and it comes up somehow afterward, the judge with shove contempt of court charges up your ass sideways, and so much for you future legal career...
I sat. I've been called three times, 18, 22, and 25. I finally served at 25 when I basically said "I want to be here." You know, since most people would rather be anywhere else.
>>808235
My experience
>"What is your profession?"
>"I'm a law student"
After that, I always get struck. Sometimes for cause, sometimes without.
I was called for jury duty but the guy plead out before trail
It was a fraud case
>>808223
>One woman who clearly didn't know how things worked in that part of town couldn't convict,
Did the judge give a verdict?
>>795976
Why does Anglo law have juries? What use are a group of strangers with no knowledge of law to make decisions on law?
>>809303
It reduces institutional bias. So for example in Weimar Germany you had a lot of right wing judges which made life difficult for the lefty government, there are obvious downsides to juries but it is a pretty good system IMO.
>>795976
>Hmmm I have jury duty comming, I want to know more about it from people who have done it. Where should I ask?
>reddit.com/r/legaladvice
No
/adv/ - Advice
>No
>/b/ - Random
No
>/his/ - History and Humanities
Perfect
>>795976
Read up on jury nullification.
It's when a jury agrees the defendant is guilty, but doesn't think the defendant should be punished. Apparently, knowing about it gets you out of jury duty.
>>809560
Oh, I already knew that
>>809346
Ma' lady
>/adv/
99% relationship and social anxiety threads
>/b/
artistic works of fiction
>/his/
This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.
>Law
>>795976
Did it over the pond (got my summons four days after I turned 18, ffs). Was fairly enjoyable, and got let off after a few days, which was annoying, because I'd had to set aside two weeks.
>>809346
I think it's an appropriate thread for this board
Better than choose your medieval waifu threads
>>809560
Are juries allowed to do this?
>>808223
Nah, we were dismissed and they retried as far as I know. She looked out the window and saw news vans and shit and was worried about the press and such. It had zero to do with us but it's not like you can look at her and go "Listen, Lady, a black guy with 'Blood' tattooed across his black got stabbed to death in the ghetto, nobody gives a shit about this murder. This is making no news channels." She just didn't get it.
They found a knife in a sewer grate out front of his house that matches his kitchen set, and also matched the wound channel. They provided the jacket the guy was wearing as well as the knife, and I tried to put the knife in the jacket to see that they lined up, which they did. They found the dude in another town living with his aunt, and when the two cops pulled up one cop said he saw him run away and the other cop said he didn't see him run away, but wasn't looking. On top of Willy's (the old black dude) testimony and the fact that the guy that was stabbed to death was fucking the defendant's ex, I was pretty convinced. I was trying to bring up good points and shit in the room, and I feel like the other jurors appreciated my input, but it was mostly from a guilty standpoint since that's the way I saw it. The defense lawyer was a goon, as stated, but the DA was a caricature too.
I feel like I swayed a few jurors guilty, since after I started asking questions the half and half turned mostly guilty real quick, it was only that one girl that couldn't convict. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing, but I'm kinda glad he didn't get convicted. I would have felt responsible and the fact that it wasn't really concrete probably wouldn't have sit right with me.
>>810849
Jury can do what they want
They don't have to justify the verdict but it could probably be appealed
>>810969
>They provided the jacket the guy was wearing as well as the knife, and I tried to put the knife in the jacket to see that they lined up, which they did.
You were allowed to handle evidence? That's cool
>>810969
>fact that it wasn't really concrete
If there's reasonable doubt m8 the verdict is not guilty, and that's all the defence has to raise is reasonable doubt.
Have you seen 12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda?
>>795976
I was called for selection
Waited like 4 hours and wasn't selected. I was told I could be called back later that year but I haven't heard anything
uo
>>807664
That is why I said more than average you mong. Understanding the law and having both an in-depth understanding of court procedures and therefore exposure to many cases are two seperate things. The latter of which would make someone incredibly biased as a jury member. Why do you think absolutely no legal team chooses Trial By Judge over Trial By Jury? Besides courts fully educate the selected jury members of what is expected of them, so this isn't a matter of lawyers choosing idiots.
I'm not sure what kind of fantasy land I'm living in when many people in this thread have said that they were asked about their exposure to the legal system during jury selection. This shit is all Law 101.
>>807664
In Ontario in high school a mandatory class is civics which we learn about government and the courts
In grade 11 and 12 there is a law course which I took
more stories please
>>816518
Bump
>>816518
This
>>795976
My dad sat as a juror on a civil trial, I shit you not a paper boy was delivering news paper to a front porch, took a short cut through the garden and tripped on garden gnomes then broke his arm
The homeowner was found 25% liable for leaving hazardous items on his property or something like that
