Professional Jurors

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

We already have professionals on juries. I have served about 5 times because when they heard paralegal the attorneys ears all perked up. Do you mean an all attorney jury? Or do you mean nurses, doctors, plumbers, teachers? We need people from all walks of life on a jury, because one person may know more in one area than another. We need the housewife, receptionist, cook because each case is unique in it's own way and we need common sense and logic. The attorneys have jury consultants and voir dire to determine who is best for their case, if they lose, it's because they didn't prove their case to the juries satisfaction. IMO it is the best system out there and it works most of the time.
 
Salem said:
Great post JBean. I firmly believe this jury failed because they did not understand the purpose and use of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is key in many trials and it is necessary to define it and explain it, especially in a case as complex as this one.

Salem
Click to expand...

I agree. And Step 1 is talking heads on TV need to stop saying "circumstantial evidence" when they mean "weak evidence." The two terms are not synonymous!
 
otto said:
Thanks ... that's reassuring.
Click to expand...

Psssssst... Otto! It's nice to be on the same side again, if only for a few posts.

****


To the poster above who suggested that prospective jurors be tested on the meaning of "reasonable doubt," I've heard trial attorneys and judges have trouble defining that term. So good luck with requiring John Doe to define it on a test.
 
I would like to see someone (a jury proctor or facilitator) be present in all deliberations to ensure the jurors understand and follow the instructions given in a case. The facilitator would not deliberate the case, but would step in when/if the jurors got off track. For example, suppose the jurors started talking about punishment, motive or cause of death after being instructed by the judge not to do so. The facilitator would then step in and remind the jurors of the judge's instructions.

I also think that examination of the evidence by the jury should be made mandatory. The facilitator could ensure this was done as well.
 
Nova said:
Psssssst... Otto! It's nice to be on the same side again, if only for a few posts.

****


To the poster above who suggested that prospective jurors be tested on the meaning of "reasonable doubt," I've heard trial attorneys and judges have trouble defining that term. So good luck with requiring John Doe to define it on a test.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Like Jeff Ashton has said, it's important for the public to believe that the system works.
 
I would assume that a "professional juror" is someone whose profession it is to sit as a juror and who is a bit more familiar with the rules of the court room and of law in general, but I don't really know. What is a "professional juror" defined as?
 
Nova said:
Psssssst... Otto! It's nice to be on the same side again, if only for a few posts.

****


To the poster above who suggested that prospective jurors be tested on the meaning of "reasonable doubt," I've heard trial attorneys and judges have trouble defining that term. So good luck with requiring John Doe to define it on a test.
Click to expand...

I've also heard attorneys admit that the meaning of "reasonable doubt" is difficult to define.

I think one of the problems is that the concept of "reasonable doubt" is subjective and open to interpretation.
 
sorrell skye said:
I've also heard attorneys admit that the meaning of "reasonable doubt" is difficult to define.

I think one of the problems is that the concept of "reasonable doubt" is subjective and open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question here was: given the evidence of Ms Anthony from June 16 onward, the decomp car, the lying, the remains close to the home, th evidence in the trunk and on the computer and so on, is it reasonable to believe that she had nothing to do with the murder? I don't think so, but the jury seems to have bought into the idea that it's quite normal for a former police officer to stage an accident to look like a murder and put duct tape on the face of a child that accidentally drowned - apparently, that appeared more reasonable to the jury.
 
JB Fletcher said:
I would like to see someone (a jury proctor or facilitator) be present in all deliberations to ensure the jurors understand and follow the instructions given in a case. They would not deliberate the case, but would step in when/if the jurors got off track. For example, suppose the jurors started talking about punishment after being instructed by the judge not to do so. The facilitator would step in and remind the jurors of the judge's instructions.

I also think that the examination of evidence by the jury should be made mandatory. The facilitator could ensure this was done as well.
Click to expand...

The jury can ask the judge a question anytime they want from the jury room. If they don't understand a instruction. Who is this facilitator going to be? I think one judge is enough for the jurors.
 
legalmania said:
The jury can ask the judge a question anytime they want from the jury room. If they don't understand a instruction. Who is this facilitator going to be? I think one judge is enough for the jurors.
Click to expand...

Sure they can but what about if they don't think they need a question answered? What if they think they are following the judge's instructions correctly but in reality (like many believe happened in the Anthony trial) they have it wrong?

A facilitator would be a court employee whose job it would be to make sure the jury followed/understood the judge's instructions (and any other mandates set forth) while deliberating the case. This person would not be there to answer questions or take the place of a judge.

I am really just brainstoming here and have not fleshed this out thoroughly or anything. I do, however, think it is an interesting concept.
 
Quiche said:
Eh, I wouldn't want professional jurors, but I'd like to see potential jurors take a competency test-- especially for the comprehension of legal terms and concepts. I think this jury didn't understand what "reasonable" doubt was. :tsktsk:


eta: Also, I think there was a problem with the sequestration, it was just too long for these people to be together and away from home. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it needs to be looked at. Perhaps not having them all at the same place and taking every meal together. idk
Click to expand...

(bold mine)

I'd like to see potential parents take a competency test. :innocent:
 
JB Fletcher said:
Sure they can but what about if they don't think they need a question answered? What if they think they are following the judge's instructions correctly but in reality (like many believe happened in the Anthony trial) they have it wrong?

A facilitator would be a court employee whose job it would be to make sure the jury followed/understood the judge's instructions (and any other mandates set forth) while deliberating the case. This person would not be there to answer questions or take the place of a judge.
Click to expand...

IMO this would just confuse a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and works most of the time. If Casey was found guilty of murder , would you still see a need for this? There are hundreds to thousands of people found guilty or innocent under this system yearly and some are happy and some are not.
 
legalmania said:
IMO this would just confuse a system that has been in place for hundreds of years and works most of the time. If Casey was found guilty of murder , would you still see a need for this? There are hundreds to thousands of people found guilty or innocent under this system yearly and some are happy and some are not.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying. But, I do not believe that just because a system has been in place for hundreds of years it cannot be improved upon. Casey's jury is used as an example because it has prompted so many to question the current system.

Guilty or innocent, I believe it is important for the jurors to follow the instructions set forth by the judge.
 
legalmania said:
We already have professionals on juries. I have served about 5 times because when they heard paralegal the attorneys ears all perked up. Do you mean an all attorney jury? Or do you mean nurses, doctors, plumbers, teachers? We need people from all walks of life on a jury, because one person may know more in one area than another. We need the housewife, receptionist, cook because each case is unique in it's own way and we need common sense and logic. The attorneys have jury consultants and voir dire to determine who is best for their case, if they lose, it's because they didn't prove their case to the juries satisfaction. IMO it is the best system out there and it works most of the time.
Click to expand...
No professional jurors would be those that choose it as a career path and sit as a juror for wages.

I concur that we have a good albeit imperfect system that works most of the time. I am opposed to prfessional jurors, but find it an intersting discussion.
 
The topic in here is whether you think professional jurors are a good or bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 3,040 (members: 82, guests: 2,958)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
2,958
Total visitors
3,040
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,380
Messages
18,155,498
Members
231,715
Latest member
Iwantapuppy
Back
Top