by Sol Reform 51 Replies latest social current
during jury selection, every juror was asked whether they would be unable to serve because of their religion
Why?
My daughter just finished jury duty. Two people said they 'could not sit in judgment of another.' One was a yoga instructor; the other was a Buddhist.
It's a problem, so attorneys try to weed it out during voir dire to avoid this very scenario.
BTW, the last talk I ever gave was why it is O.K. to be a juror.
I've been on jury duty many times and I don't remember being asked my religious affiliation, only if there was anything that would hold me back from being able to render a judgement. Religious affiliation does not necessarily mean a person holds or follows any specific beliefs (there are sects and levels of adherence).
the last talk I ever gave was why it is O.K. to be a juror.
That's kind of fitting--aren't you an attorney now?
I was in NY in my jw days, and here it was only technically a conscience matter. If you did serve, you would be marked and stuff like that. And you could not just say, "I'm a jw," you had to say specifically why you personally could not serve.
There was a major obscenity trial when I was called for jury duty in college. All the NY and Hollywood literary figures were scheduled to testify. Merely knowing that Shakespeare wrote plays or that Dickens' wrote fiction-eliminated. College-eliminated. College track in high school - eliminated. They still had a jury pool. One woman said she believed she could serve. They entered film into evidence. After she saw the film, she changed her mind about serving. She was very aware of the costs involved.
I don't remember being asked my religious affiliation,
They aren't being asked their religious affiliation. They are being asked whether their religious affiliation would render them unable to serve. A simple yes would suffice; they wouldn't even need to disclose the affiliation.
What a total tosser.
The fact that she remained a jury member during the trial and then waited until they were to decide the case to notify the court of her belief , she wasted the courts time and money, showed a lack of respect to the superior authorities and has brought reproach on Jehovah and JW' s everywhere!!
Exactly - there was a proper time to object to serving and that was NOT at the end. All the time and money wasted not to speak of the emotional anguish for those concerned in the case.
Totally unforgivable and she should be held in contempt for it.
I wonder if she was pressured or had some input from others, maybe local elders, about serving? It would explain why it was OK initially and then she decided later that it wasn't ... with the lame excuse that she doesn't know any of the parties involved (she's getting confused - you're not able to serve if you *do* know them).
If that is the case then she could also be in contempt for discussing the case and whoever gave her the advice should also be in contempt for interfering with the court process.
Hang 'em high.
I was in the jury pool after college. With the exception of one obscenity case, the cases were so boring. I planned to go to law school, if one would accept me, so I paid attention to the process. Voir dire interested me. I was surprised at how candid people were with the judge. There were several lines of questiong that had my head spinning. If I were being questioned, my answer would be a resounding, :I don't know. It is nuanced." This was not Manhattan where PhD political scientist candidates are selected for important political trials.
Someone volunteered on his accord that he could not sit in a domestic violence cases b/c his father beat his mother. I was considering speaking to the judge privately with lawyers present to get excused from jury duty. Anyone with academic track high school or higher was excluded. Divorced people were excluded. The obscenity case was troubling to many potential jurors. If you have ever heard of Shakespeare, Dickens, Melville, or Henry Miller,, you were excluded. Celebrity witnesses were flying in from around the worldl to testify. If you wore a wide tie, you were excluded. What community standard was left? People were bitter.
This was not a sophisticated jury pool. People erred on the side of revealing any twinge of prejudice. I kept debating on how much of a bias must I have to report it. It was all academic b/c I never even warmed a juror's seat. Oh, I would have burst out with something about unfair the system was or what but I had already invested years in late night and weekend studying. I was at the breaking point. Jury of peers.....what a laugh.
There would be an alternate juror to fill in. So the case should be intact, right?
There would be an alternate juror to fill in. So the case should be intact, right?
The article says a mistrial was declared, so no, they have to try the whole case over. In the federal system and in some states, alternates can be substituted even during deliberations in criminal trials-although they would have to start deliberating all over. But in other states (which I assume includes Maryland), once the jury starts deliberating the alternates are dismissed and can't step in. It's a matter of criminal procedure, so it's not uniform in every state. In criminal trials I have been familiar with, the judge keeps all of the alternates around until a verdict is reached just in case of some nonsense like this. What a waste of everyone's time on account of this nut. I suspect she won't face any consequences, though.
The juror then said she didn’t alert the court sooner because she needed to “do research about her beliefs to discover what her beliefs are.”
A Maryland judge declared a mistrial Thursday in the case of a man accused of causing the death of a 23-year-old Prince George’s County officer during a police chase, after a juror declared that she could not participate because of her religious beliefs.
The juror sent a note to the judge about 1 a.m. on the day deliberations were supposed to resume in the trial of Kevon Neal, 24, of Fort Washington.
Neal is facing manslaughter and other charges in the death of Officer Adrian Morris, who was killed Aug. 20, 2012, when his cruiser crashed during the chase on Interstate 95 in Beltsville.
The note — which came well after deliberations were underway and after three days of testimony — said that the juror was a Jehovah’s Witness and that her religious beliefs did not allow her to “sit in judgment of another human being,” Prince George’s State’s Attorney Angela Alsobrooks said.
When asked to elaborate, the juror told Circuit Court Judge Michael R. Pearson that “she didn’t have a dog in this fight” and that she wasn’t sure whether there was enough evidence and she didn’t want to be involved, Alsobrooks said.
The juror then said she didn’t alert the court sooner because she needed to “do research about her beliefs to discover what her beliefs are.”
Three alternate jurors had been released before deliberations began Wednesday afternoon. Alsobrooks, who did not identify the juror, said the judge could find her in contempt if he determines that there was a deliberate attempt to be uncooperative.
The juror must report for a contempt-of-court hearing Feb. 24, officials with the state’s attorney’s office said.
“I think this was disgraceful on the part of this juror,” Alsobrooks said. “We expended tremendous resources presenting this case.”
Neal is alleged to have been driving a stolen car that Morris and his partner were pursuing when the fatal crash occurred. Morris lost control of his cruiser on Interstate 95 near Powder Mill Road and was thrown from the vehicle.
Morris’s family had attended the trial along with county Police Chief Mark Magaw and other members of the department. Alsobrooks and Magaw said the case would be retried, although a new date has not been set.
“It’s been a painful three days, not only for the police department but also for Adrian’s family,” Magaw said.
But if a retrial “is what we need to do to uphold his memory and honor him, that’s what we’ll do.”
