@@whirledpeaz5758 what I did was I would wait until the sufficient number of people volunteered then I would and then be like oh already got the 6 you need. Then every 5 or 6 times I'd actually make sure I volunteered when it was a pretty easy detail. That way when shitty ones came around platoon sergeant knew I was someone that usually volunteered so if I didn't volunteer he'd go for someone else. He knew people did the fake too late volunteering and would pick them for the super crappy details but by making sure I get into one here and there it seemed like I was more genuine.
In effect you do, since you get a pittance per diem. You'll be lucky if it covers transportation and parking. The opportunity cost could be huge, depending on what you do for a living.
Jurors should be paid based on average wages in the county they are serving duty in. It would make getting jurors to serve much easier. Why should jurors be the only ones who lose money for being in court?
If punitive measures of this severity are applied to juror rule infractions, it will not help to get citizens to fulfill their duty to serve as jurors.
Just tell the judge you think Jury Nullification is a great idea (you're under oath so it has to be what you believe, but it is a pretty easy concept to believe in once you read what it is). The judge will excuse you, and usually give you a note for the clerk running the jury pool room to excuse you and send you home.
@@kevinjohnson1139 If I was a lawyer, I'ld argue he was never fit for jury to begin with (because dumb) and the court made a mistake by allowing him to be on the jury.
Why would someone be put off by it, all they have to do is obey the rules to be safe. Remember the outcome of their wilful ignoring of the rule, retrials cost money.
I had a math teacher get into trouble for telling other jurors that the prosecutor's numbers "didn't add up" and they should double check the math for themselves...
@@jadedandbitter Perhaps that should have been in the Jury's note to the judge, with the working out supplied...and a request that the Judge have the prosecutor submit his figures, after the Prosecutor has rechecked? Mathematics supplied by the Prosecution. and relied on as 'truth" which could lead to conviction, need to be impeccable....
Can you imagine if he refused to answer questions and forced a trial for the contempt hearing? The trial about the trial! The jurors would have to come in to testify! Another $11,000 of legal costs.
@@jvaneck8991 I'm curious who'd you appeal to. And what's there to habeas? The guy was charged with contempt of court, not thrown in jail with no charges.
While I understand the logic of not allowing independent research by jury members, we live in a world with near ubiquitous access to information. I have to wonder how long the current system of jury deliberation will last as it moves further and further away from the way people live their lives and interact with information.
It's a civil duty Andre. I dont think it's beyond our ability to follow basic jury instruction. He wasn't fined for going on the internet, he was fined for directly disobeying judges order/instruction by looking up something specific to this case. What is so difficult about not doing that?
I see it as stuff to keep the trial fair. If you've seen how badly a news article can spin a story (even someone giving a harmless interview about a public pool or someones lawn or something, and the article comes out and makes the person giving the interview appear to talk badly about tje subject) i sure would hope that if i had a trial that it would be fair as possible. I know people do look things up, but there is such a bias on cases once an article hits the news, and like the McDonalds coffee case that info is usually always wrong and biased. It's the duty of the defendant and his lawyer to give their evidence... Not for someone else to tell me.
@@allaboutroofing2 if you think its ok to steal 1100 from a juror and treat him like a criminal because a judge thinks his word is god and without question in a judicial system that is broke down and corrupt which seldom holds these same officals accountable then you ought to be held accountable for being a traitor , they dont live by the same harsh laws and penalties that they impose on citizens ..FACT
@@hungsolow4851 Maybe you meant to reply to someone else? I didn't say anything of what you are speaking of nor did I say anything about the fine. Do you always reply out of context?
I just can't accept the premise of a law requiring you to be ignorant about a decision your forced to make. If I was in that position I would discreetly nullify.
You are not ignorant about that decision. You are starting from a presumption of innocence and it is the prosecutor's responsibility to present enough legal evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of plaintiffs guilt. If the prosecutor fails to convince you then you shouldn’t vote guilty. You are voting based on the evidence as presented not on all the evidence that exists.
Wouldn't be nullifying. Nullifying is knowing a person is guilty, but finding them non guilty because you disagree with the law. That's entirely different from declaring non guilty because you have reasonable doubt about their guilt.
@@NOTSOSLIMJIM I was very careful not to discuss ANY thing with my wife about her jury duty until the cases were resolved. The first one was declared a mistrial because two jurors wanted to play Nancy Drew and conduct their own investigation.
@@capnbobretired the case I was on wasn't a "known case" and was not in the news at all. Telling my wife my thoughts didn't harm the case at all. We didn't even find out about his previous criminal history till after we found him guilty due to him not testifying.
@@NOTSOSLIMJIM Not testifying is not a legitimate reason to find someone guilty. Weren't there any instructions to the jury to attach no meaning to him not testifying?
I'd say that's being too generous. Any "how good are you at following instruction" tests I've ever taken were a bit tricky in nature and designed to get you to fail. In this case, jurors were provided instructions in no tricky or uncertain terms and he still couldn't follow them, lol.
Pet theory, this started because he has noisy kids and his neighbor Karen doesn't like them. Karen should be given a retirement home in Mexico and pay 11,000 in HOA fees
So you ass hats have a problem with a juror rating out a racists in uniform!? Fuck those rules! A bad officer just got exposed. Yes the juror deserves the fine for breaking the rules. I'm sure a go fund me is open for this jurors fine. A Federal officer who took a constitutional oath is wearig a white supremacy patch on his federal uniform!? This is America..
@@chrisjohnson4666 This is the correct response. Police are paid to go to court, thus they are on duty. The Supreme Court has held that police are allowed to lie in the course of their duty, thus they are allowed to lie on the stand. All police testimony, in my eyes, is automatically a lie.
Many years ago I sat on a Jury for an attempted murder trial, and you're 100 percent right about how some things are not to be discussed during the course of the trial. We sat in deliberation and had several questions that we sent out and were told that they couldn't give us an answer at that time, we had to work with the information we were given. After we reached our decision and were dismissed by the judge, he offered to come explain to any of us that were still there why some of the items were not to be discussed, and it was interesting how much information was withheld from us because of how it would have swayed our decision making process. We reached a logical decision on the information provided, and after he gave us the information, we agreed that it would have only made our decision making a longer process for no necessary reason. Even more interesting was that BOTH councils were there to answer questions along with the Judge, so we got to see that the defense knew about the items and agreed that it would have only added unnecessary time to our deliberations. Considering that we deliberated for about 6 hours and were all super tired afterwards, I appreciated it!
Would you have came to the same conclusion knowing the information that was withheld during the trial? Personally off the top of my head, I think I would find it difficult to find someone guilty knowing that I am purposely not being told something, but I've never been in the situation.
So you sat as juror on a case that was already decided by the court and you were denied information about that trial based on the court's decision that such information might make you think about the verdict longer than they wanted you to. After the guilty verdict came in, possibly vetted information was given to you to appease you about your decision. Doesn't sound corrupt at all. Defendant's lawyer was super legit.
@@momosgarage Nothing. And when that judge walked in after that trial, I would have told him that the not guilty verdict was because I did not believe I had all the information I needed to justify a guilty vote.
As a former juror it was not until 6 months later that I found out the man we convicted, who was sentenced to 13 years, was really innocent and I could do nothing about it.
Given the apparent restrictions placed on juries’ ability to perform their job, I’m glad I’ve never been called to sit on one. As someone who has been falsely accused and acquitted, I would want to know as much as possible regarding all facts and circumstances before I convict someone and send them to jail.
Yeah, I'm not a law expert, but I think that running tests and visiting the scene [if it isn't being reasonably locked down], should be allowed and encouraged.
@@eugenetswong The fact that we expect the juries to cast their vote for guilt or innocence without presenting all the facts to them, AND without answering any questions or doubts they have is a major indictment of our legal system.
... it sounds like this juror came up with fake news to fit their narrative. That's not justice. This is why these rules are put in place. Have I seen justice not work in the favor of the likely innocent, sure and it was about facts and evidence and generally sucky situations that can go wrong. But you cannot make stuff of to move a decision the way you want to.
Be careful what you wish for. I was on a jury once and I can say it was a good a group of people as any one could wish for. Black, white, asian, young and old, we took our responsibility serious. Now it was an attempted murder case and we were instructed to only deliberate on the facts of of it alone, even though we were told he had been in jail before. The trial lasted 2 days and we argued and pleaded with each other when deliberations came up and finally voted to convict. I thought that was the hard part but then we had to decide what kind of punishment he deserved, after hours of arguing (diplomatically) and bargaining we all find a sentence we could agree on. Case over lets go home. I went home and immediately googled him and started fuming! The next day I saw most of my peers and found they had done the same and had we known he had raped a 14 year old girl before going into that jury room, it would have been the fastest conviction and sentencing the world had ever seen. And that is why you don't do research on cases. We sentenced him on the case at hand and not one he had already been convicted of.
@@johngori9477 There are a number of problems with "self research" so to speak. For starters, not all reports are factual. Especially not in today's world, a lot of reporting have political agenda behind it, is sensationalized(and therefore exaggerated) or is merely going off of rumors or "junk science", if you will. Then we have things that are technically true but not admissible. Say a cop raid their home for evidence without warrant. The evidence obtained could not be used in court. But they can put it on social media or whatever, and then you found. Should we make judgement based on such evidence? On the one hand, it does serve actual justice for the particular case. On the other hand, however, it means that it would motivate the law enforcement to do things that are not allowed to people, potential innocent people, just so that they can get whatever evidence they could so that they can go into the "side channel". It's why the rules about non-admissible evidence in the first place, so that law enforcement don't get randomly harassed in hope of getting something. Now, I would prefer an alternative where if someone is so harassed/searched and found innocent, proper compensation be given to the "victim", partly out of the pocket of the acting officer and department thereof. This would allow the law to catch more guilty while still protecting innocents. But I realize that the execution of such a system would be problematic to say the least. So our current system of non-admissible evidence is, unfortunately, the best we can do. (I would argue that the search first, compensate for innocent later could be implemented for certain serious crime, such as murder and rape. And any evidence of any other crime so discovered would still be inadmissible. So even if you found a literal ton of cocaine while searching a murder suspect's home, that gets hand waved. Unfortunately, while this should be overall be better, it is a slippery slope and I don't trust law enforcement to not slide down.) Now, I do feel that jurors should be able to ask certain questions. With, however, the possibility of the answer being along the line of "we have considered it, but was unable to produce any relevant result" as an answer, which could mean a wide range of things. Including that it is simply irrelevant, something was found but was inadmissible for any reason, a deal was brokered to dismiss that particular fact or, in case of "tests", that the test actually don't mean what the juror think it does. It will allow the juror to not wonder if it was ever considered while not necessarily produce a result one way or another, due to various reasons.
Imagine a world where the attorneys had actually done the research and presented it to the jury so the juror didn't need to go do their own research to be informed... Or when jurors needed information not presented by the attorneys to make an informed decision they were allowed to submit the questions back to the judge for answering. Judges hate the idea of independent juries and jury nullification of injustice. They prefer to be able to instruct the jury in such detail that they are actually determining the verdict you return, or at least restricting the jury to very narrow bounds.
@@roberthubbard7827 throughout history a whole lot of horrible crimes have been justified by the statement "I was just doing what I was told." If juries are just there to do what they're told based on incomplete information then the jury is not contributing to a just outcome. Juries can submit a question back to the judge but he frequently won't answer if it's about info that was not presented in the trial, or concerns evidence that was excluded. Given that juries are to be kept in the dark and given detailed instructions on how to vote, we should do away with the expense and just let the judge decide instead of having rubber stamp juries. The phrases "convicted by a jury of his peers" or "exonerated by a jury of his peers" become meaningless unless the jury is fully informed. Lawyers are trained to reject the idea that juries should be fully informed and involved in the process. The jury is just there to validate their work. I think we can do better.
@@johngori9477 The attorneys and judges who conduct trials know far better than jurors, mostly, what constitutes untainted evidence, and thus what is acceptable to give to the jury. It's the quality of defense attorneys that frequently leaves a jury less-informed, but they can still only consider the evidence presented to them. I was a juror in one trial in which, right in the middle of a witness's testimony, a recess was called; when we returned, they dismissed that witness. After the trial the judge met with us and explained what had happened. If the witness had brought up a certain conversation with a police officer, there was a good chance of a mistrial due to fifth amendment concerns. After the judge and attorneys conferred about this, they continued the trial without that testimony. We, the jury would have had no idea how to handle a situation like that, so it was right for the judge to delay continuation of the trial to get it right.
@@paulcrumley9756 I disagree. If one side is trying to introduce tainted evidence, then the fact that they are doing so is VERY relevant to the jury's decision as it speaks to their credibility on other evidence they present. Present all the evidence AND the taint or doubt around it. But that will never happen in our legal system, so let's do away with juries. If we're only going to show the jury a carefully selected (by the judge & attorneys) sub-set of the facts then the process of selecting those facts is what is actually determining the verdict. It also leads to attorneys preferring to seat jurors they believe they can manipulate with their selective presentation. At that point the jury system is not contributing to achieving a just verdict, but merely rubber stamping what the court already decided for them. So skip the theater and save the cost & hassle of a jury. Of course that would deny the courts the excuse of "its what the jury decided" and put accountability for a just outcome back on the judge and the attorneys. Ever notice that a defense attorney who gets a heinous pedophile & child murderer off on a technicality will defend his actions by saying his job is to provide his client the best defense, the prosecutor will blame someone else for the technicality, and the judge will say he just administered the law. The jury gives them cover for their failure to achieve justice. I say take it away and hold the judge & attorneys accountable for the results of court trials.
I had an idea that there should be some kind of training to be on juries. Jurors would be paid a decent wage for their time (not the insultingly low amount they're paid now) but in exchange all jurors would have education in burden of proof, the constitution, etc...Additionally, jurors would be allowed to submit questions directly to the defense and prosecution. Of course, there would need to be some kind of system in place to handle questions that deal with suppressed evidence or would require the defendant to take the fifth, but they would be able to ask something like "Hey, what's that patch the officer's wearing for?" or "I notice that the victim was wearing the same clothes in the photos they were when the defendant left, but he said that the victim was taking a shower. Could you explain this?"
When I served jury duty, we had several intelligent level-headed citizens who could follow directions, eight complete morons, and three alternate morons. I was drafted -- not elected -- foreman. (Foreperson, in today's society.) It was like teaching second grade.
I think you might have had a rather unusual experience (although I don't know where you served.) In the last 50+ years I have served on five juries (all criminal) and been the foreperson on three of those. I was quite impressed with how attentive and serious the jurors were and never had more than one or two "problematic" individuals to deal with. In Colorado the jurors are now allowed to ask questions through the judge, who decides if they are appropriate. One time we had the young son of a sitting judge on the jury -- so we elected him foreperson. I have generally been impressed with the fairness of the verdicts.
@@machintelligence Your operative phrase is "in the last 50+ years". The problem is that in the last 30+ years The mental gene pool in the shallow end of the pool has increased exponentially. The ability to access the internet guarantees the shallow end will continue to increase unabated.
I've often wondered how any jury panel could have enough competent, common sense people on it. I've never been selected personally, but I've sat in the pool room enough times to be utterly dumbfounded by the level of "duh" displayed by the majority of people sitting there. Most can't follow the simple instructions in THAT room. I can't imagine them having any concept of being able to take instructions from a judge.
11k would place myself and most other average people in such Financial disrepair they never would recover, and after not being able to pay I'm sure they put a warrant out suspended driver's license and thoroughly ruined your life. Police officer causes a mistrial and doesn't even lose his job and no fine and white-collar crime only results and probation. To tiered system
As a juror, if I was curious enough to want to do experiments to recreate some aspect of a claimed event, I would simply acquit due to my reasonable doubt.
Typically, the attorneys would have any relevant experiments done if they thought it would further their case. The two main reasons for the prohibition are that they need to know what information the jurors have and that experimenting at home can lead to unpredictable results.
sure, because "some post I saw on the internet" is not something the court can deal with. How does the opposing attorney rebut such a statement when the jury is in deliberations??
Juror has mostly memorized the list of logos on the ADL web page list of hate symbols. He's pretty sure this is one of them. He goes into the jury room and says "that's a white supremacist patch". That's fine. He used his life experience. Now another juror is pretty sure that's such a patch, but before he spills it to the rest of the jurors he wants to double check. He looks it up (again) and sees it. Goes and tells the others. BZZZZT. Law should not be this illogical.
I find it really difficult to believe that an ICE officer would be allowed to have a patch glorifying white supremacy emblazoned on his uniform. I kind of suspect that white supremacists have co-opted the logo because immigration enforcement uses it officially.
Yep. This is an odd thing; the juror could ALWAYS be wrong - whether he googled it two years earlier or the night before. The juror who complained even acknowledged that the jurors were aware of this. All of the jurors are using knowledge outside of what is presented - it would be impossible to function otherwise as the trial would need to establish and explain literally everything that has any bearing - what food is, how water is wet, etc. We have to expect that a foundation of knowledge exists and does not need presenting in court yet is functionally necessary. In this particular case, that the knowledge in question is less common is not understood to be problematic - yet a quick google search for it is? Surely the instruction should be to disregard speculative knowledge not presented to the court and to only using knowledge not presented in the court to fill in gaps when absolutely necessary. In this case, the potential fact that the badge represents a certain thing DOES have potential bearing on the case, but is speculation and not necessary for the case presented to be understood and thus should be disregarded in deliberation. The searching of such knowledge while in the middle of a court case should be discouraged, but realistically there is always going to be such knowledge that the jurors are aware of unless they have been grown in a vat or some such - so trying to gatekeep this is pointless. Instead, gatekeep the use of it.
Or just say that you don't agree with ANY of the rules for sequestration when they interview you for jury duty. You won't get picked every time, guaranteed.
I have never been selected, but from what I heard, if you really wanted to get out of it and didn't care what people thought of you, you used to be able to just go into some kind of racist or sexist diatribe and get immediately dismissed, but nowadays, I bet even doing that could come with repercussions.
Great . . . We can now expect prosecutors and defense attorneys to keep track of the Internet history of jury members during trial. Add in the $50 bucks per day and being on a jury is a dream come true.
Washington they pay $10 per day for jury duty and get no pay from job while away on jury duty, I can also say clerk at Stevens county courthouse is a bunch of words that shouldn't be typed here most polite would be bully, you have a total of 5 days of receipt of jury summons to have reply at the court... not business days and not postmarked, medical exemption must be original written and signed letter from physician, fax/printed/emailed copy not accepted.
@@ghostshadow9046 Depends on what company you work for. Some companies pay you your full wages and hours wheel on jury duty. The problem is you work piles up and you are behind a day, 2, 3, a week or however long you need to be on jury duty.
I remember wanting to research sooo much the last time I was in jury duty. I resisted tho. I want to be informed. And on a jury, you only get part of the story. You only get some it the law. And the undefined areas are anxiety inducing. I thought the da and the defense did a bad job. We asked questions and NONE were answered. It was super frustrating.
@@chrisjohnson4666 Nullify!!! Perfect example...your vote should have been not guilty if it wasn't...and do it quietly...know what nullification is before belonging to any jury please...
@@rodkewer3389 - When I did a search on 'nullification', all I found was that it has never been upheld in court. So, what is the point you're trying to make?
I was called for jury duty (candidate), and my question from one of the lawyers was "can you follow the judge's orders", or something like that. I said no, and they asked why. I said because I'll decide what I do. They said bye, have a good day. Gave me a tiny check and never called me again.
@@stevelehto He should have asked for his own jury trial. What's the probability a random juror thinks this is streigh up nuts? 1 in 6 makes for good odds of acquittal.
Now I want to know what was on the patch. It's worth noting that while the defendant was a legal resident, he'd had convictions that made him eligible for deportation.
Theoretically, knowledge of that sort can be filtered out during jury selection, but in circumstances like this I find it difficult to believe any attorney would be able to even anticipate it. Still, if something you know isn't relevant to the facts in evidence, you shouldn't bring it up even if you know it. People are going to, and do, and I 100% have let a person onto a jury knowing and expecting that they'd use their external knowledge and experience to skew deliberations, so as always the law and rules are more suggestions and this guy's problem was admitting he Googled it instead of just saying he knew it.
"Oh, you can just TELL that they are guilty by the look in their eyes!" I fear these tactics may correctly draw a contempt charge. Don't try to outsmart a judge - they don't like it and they can do something about it! I've been on two juries and it has become clear to me that you can get pretty easily out of jury duty - if you have no integrity. Again, I do not recommend that, eitiher.
Stuff like this is why I've never been on a jury and refuse to do jury duty. There is no real justice in the legal system, it's all just a game for lawyers to play, who can manipulate the evidence in their favor the best.
Our justice system isn't perfect, but I'd prefer it over China or Russia's "legal system". Allowing jurors to hop online and read articles that could also be biased in nature isn't exactly a good solution. Regarding calling our legal system a game, I guess it is. If we define a game as where you attempt to achieve an outcome and have to adhere to set of rules, then isn't everything in life a game?
@@Dbell12221 its hard to serve as a juror like that because no prosecutor will let you be chosen, and they ask questions to that effect. Lying about it gets you in trouble and a mistrial anyway. Part of the problem with the legal system is that easily swayed morons are the prime candidates for Jurors, and those who stand to benefit from the process are the ones who get to pick the jurors.
@@Dbell12221 you only can do that if you lie under oath except under very specific circumstancesthat. I am not willing to invoke God as a witness to the truth of my lie
This is why you should always do your best to convince either the D.A. or the defense attorney that you are too biased one way or another for them to want you on the jury.
I wonder if this system could be made just a little bit fairer to the jurors; They're made to tear a hole in their lives for minimal compensation. For this, they are told to deliberate in a very particular way, not just with incomplete information but with purposefully incomplete information, and an attempt to put in a genuine effort into finding out the facts of the case is punished with contempt of court. This sounds to me like one of the worst kinds of mental torture, especially for someone that cares, and perhaps that's not how people should be treated for doing their civic duty.
The one time I was actually on a jury, it was on an eminent domain trial. Basically, the state had taken a piece of land from a company which was not happy with the compensation they received for the land. The company sued for $400,000 for just under 2 acres taken for the right of way on a highway expansion. During deliberation, I argued that the amount was way over the value of the land, and although we should find for the complainant (the company), the amount awarded-- which was being paid by taxpayers-- was too high. I refused to go along with the other jurors until we reduced the amount of the settlement (by $100,000). Afterward, all of the other jury members basically shunned me after being very friendly for the whole week of the trial, even though I saved the taxpayers of the state $100,000.
@@jameskaraganis2569 That is my guess. The lawyers alone who have to start all over for a new trial could eat up most of that for both sides. If not more, let alone all the court costs. If you can’t follow orders, that’s on you. N my any people these days are just entitled and so can’t help themselves. This all isn’t a game, it’s real life.
That is exactly opposite why the instructions and the fine were issued. The guilt/innocence is to be judged on the evidence ... not what is suggested by google or others.
I know there are good reasons for it, but I've long thought it's fascinating how much the jury system has changed since it originated. Way back when courts wanted jurors who knew the parties to the case, had expert knowledge of the issues involved, and may even have witnessed the incident. I don't want to get involved in a debate, but I think you could make a strong case for either system.
"Way back when courts wanted jurors who knew the parties to the case, had expert knowledge of the issues involved, and may even have witnessed the incident" Those weren't jurors. Those would be witnesses. An "impartial jury" has been codified in America for centuries.
@@brianhelm2328 said: "America has only existed for a little over 2 centuries. Your comment suggests several." In response to wisenber's comment: "An "impartial jury" has been codified in America for centuries." Helm, the plural of a word "suggests" more than one, not more than two. Full stop. There is no reason to expect the word, "centuries" to mean more than 2. You actually used the word to indicate two centuries. The fact of your qualifier is irrelevant since any qualifier is equally as valid to narrow down the time frame and no qualifier stills indicates more than one but does NOT indicate more than two. That you "feel" wisenber's comment "suggests" more than what the words actually represent is irrelevant.
@@brianhelm2328 We're almost at 2.5 centuries. I know that for those of us that remember the bicentennial celebration it seems like we are just a bit over 2 centuries but that was 45 years ago.
No the judge was right. Not only is the $11,000 appropriate, the juror should have been sentenced to at least a year in jail. This is flat out juror misconduct. It's not even a close call. If you're on a jury, it's real simple, all you have to do is follow the judge's instructions. That's it. It's simple.
@jay klein yes and no. The rules governing your conduct as a juror are explained and are actually very clear. Remember, he was told on by the other jury members. However, I feel u because I hate jury duty...
@@viking956 I didn't say the judge was right or wrong or that the fine is too high. All I'm saying is that some people might find the judges instructions put too many restrictions on their day-to-day life.
@@AeroGuy07 But restrictions are the whole point. Every single time I've been called for jury duty, the first thing that happens after being sworn in, the judge asks if anyone has any hardships which would prevent them from serving. Then the judge calls up one at a time each person who raises their hand. THAT IS THE POINT where a juror needs to convince the judge that they can't live with the restrictions of being a juror. After that? You sit down, you shut up, you listen to the testimony and review the evidence and then render your decision along with the rest of the jury. It's really not that complicated. Of course there is that old maxim which dictates the only people picked for a jury are the ones too stupid to come up with a reason to be excused. I don't believe that's true......but it might be for some. Because the juror who got $11,000 in fines was a complete moron.
Since the photo was in evidence, why couldn't the jury simply ask for a clarification of the patch. If the judge grants it they learn (reliably) what the patch means. (If the judge didn't grant it I would immediately change sympathies to the defendant since the State is keeping secrets)
Best evidence would be the actual trade union logo (which the juror evidently looked up for himself). Why did the court allow the proposition that the logos were mistaken without both being presented for comparison? How else can a jury determine whether such a mistake is reasonable? I think it is quite reasonable, at this point, that the court is scapegoating the juror for pointing out his own procedural mistake.
If you're going to take this point of view, the court would have to address every single thing in the world- no matter how irrelevant- because otherwise it would have to fear that a juror would suddenly think it's important and go do "research" about it. "Hey, that cop was wearing yellow socks. I'm googled that on and found a post on REDDIT that says it means he's part of the KKK!"
@@claudiuspulcher2440 Recognizing facts and acknowledging possibilities is not opinion -- it is insight. The fact is that the logo he believed it to be and the actual logo are best evidence. How can the jury reasonably decide whether his claim that he mistook the logo to be X is reasonable if they cannot see both? As the trier of fact, it is indeed the jury's duty to decide whether this claim is reasonable. Had the jury been provided these, it is possible that his curiosity would not have been piqued. Either way, demanding that they do decide this without allowing them to see the similarities and differences for themselves is unreasonable -- and, I think, an error in judgement. Even if the KKK do wear yellow socks, other people wear yellow socks as well making this implication insubstantial. Wearing pointed white hoods and burning crosses is a bit more convincing. A white supremacist logo is rather exclusive to white supremacists. I suspect that the judge considers the logo more prejudicial than probative. Even so, it is possible to obscure (or even to change) the name of the 'club' and to present the logo's graphic for the jury to consider.
This sounds like a really good reason to avoid jury duty. I don't think I'd want to be on a jury in a jurisdiction were a previous juror was fined $11k.
Prosecutors withhold evidence routinely and it costs the state millions in jail costs, retrials and settlements: $0. Jury tries to find more evidence: $11000 fine.
People following simple instructions?.... Haha, that'll be the day. I was on a jury once. I discovered that most people have their mind made up on a verdict once they hear the charges....
@@MrJonsonville5 Anyone can all anything a symbol of white supremacy. Next how do you know you are even looking at the correct patch. Lastly you approached me so shove your statement about me wanting people like you eliminated 75 years ago where the sun does not shine, unless you are admitting you are a useless troll. . . .
@@johnmcmickle5685 F off man, seriously. your family were immigrants, mine were immigrants, so unless McMickle is a Native American name just leave it the f alone. You never had family killed in camps because of their heritage. My Grandparents fought the fascists in Europe and my uncle was a POW at Bataaan. So my family has blood, sweat and tears poured into this country. if it's a troll you're looking for, better find a mirror mate.
When I was selected for Grand Jury and Jury Trial, we were not even allowed to have a cell phone in the jury holding room, let alone in the court room. I do believe judges allow jury members to ask the judge for clarification on laws or other appropriate things, when done thru proper channels
@@Timothy-NH yeah, but I DONT go that period of time without my phone anymore. I can’t. My phone does usually work wherever I am. I usually stop every 2-3 hours for about 15 minutes to screw off on it. I couldn’t cold turkey that
I was on jury selection...once. It was a trial about assault on a woman by her ex boyfriend/work associate. When the jury was asked if any of us may not be able to fairly judge this case, I raised my hand. When asked why, I asked to be brought up to the judges bench to explain. The judge initially refused. I told him what I say might taint the whole jury, so they took me to the judges chambers with the two attorneys. I told them I knew of both the defendant and victim as fellow employees in another part of the facility I worked at, and as far as I was concerned, the victim was a bitch who deserved to be run over. I was excused, not only from the jury selection, but was released from any juries for the duration of that quarter.
@@veramae4098 one of the questions on the jury form was about whether they went to a blm protest, one of the jurors did but said he did not. This was exposed before sentancing but the judge ignored it.
@@calebfielding6352 I watched the jury selection. The black guy you are talking about, he did tell them that he went to the protest over the summer. They didn't ask him details about the protest but they did ask him about his views and opinions on things. He seemed very honest. He damn sure did not confess a deep love for cops. The defense didn't want him and the judge didn't strike him so he was up for the prosecution to take him onto the jury. You people have read bits and pieces of this stuff and it's apparent you don't have facts nor have you bothered looking for the facts. If it doesn't serve your narrative that you want to basically lie to people with, then you don't want all the facts. Facts are what matter in court, not your feelings and especially not your hurt feelings
@@whirledpeaz5758 who threatened all of that? Or you just making up more nonsense? Dude you got busted not knowing either by ignorance or just outright denying facts. But you got called out. Don't try and make things about something else. But go ahead and say something like black people went on a white person killing spree and they killed thousands of white people. I mean while you're making up dumb chit, go for the gusto
It's already hard enough to get jurors to show up, in many of these areas less than a quarter will show up when summoned. And the courts are powerless to do much about people who don't show up for a number of reasons. So you have to be real careful when you start to impose penalties like this, create any kind of perceived risk and even fewer people will show up as a result. So while the judge and everyone else in the case may be upset at the juror who caused a mistrial from his actions, they also have to consider the big picture and the effect it may have on the court and jury pools in the future.
I read some articles on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he had first asked what the patch was and the court provided an inaccurate answer which the man deemed suspicious- they said it was a trade union patch for a something he had previously done and was familiar with- and he realised that the patch wasn't the same. Yes he should not be disobeying instructions, but the court likewise has no business lying to jurors.
Or they took their role as a juror seriously enough to not blindly follow a judge's orders. A juror following a judge's instructions is hardly an unbiased juror.
So who the hell is he to give me any instructions, I'm here to determine whether he's guilty or innocent not you. You're just hindering me with the instructions to come to a conclusion. So the court limits you on the facts of the case, how is that even legal. There is Jury nullification. Then there is what and why was I.C.E. even there to investigate or arrest an individual? The time of visit, what was the agents agenda or mindset? In these days we see govt. agents always want to esculate anything for fear of their safety. They tell the man you need to come down to their office , so he's going to grab his coat.( Fact was he in his PJs, what was the temp that morning?) He reaches for something and your first thought he's reaching for a weapon, WHY? if your next to him how hard is it to wait see what's he is grabbing then make the decision, NOT ASSUME he's going for a weapon? Therefore it's the agents that caused the situation. The disorderly conduct and contact. The suspect is NOT GUILTY.
Where do most REASONABLE people keep their wallet n keys? Not in their PJ's it's either in pants or coat pocket, DUHHH. Cops are such stupid or suspicious individuals of your intent.
Thanks, Steve... A few weeks ago I got a jury questionnaire in the mail. I'm expecting a jury summons any day now. Thanks for the heads-up. Now, tell me, again, about _jury nullification_ ? (edited for grammar/punctuation/formatting)
So let me get this straight based on your last few sentences. I'm allowed to decide the fate of the case, possibly with life altering or ending ramifications based on what I think I know, but to verify it is wrong?
I can appreciate the problem of how to handle jurors, but I say there is absolutely no scientific evidence to demonstrate that jurors do their best job by totally obeying the instructions of a judge. These rules were worked out by lawyers and judges dealing with what they personally argue as fair based on their own perspectives and traditions, but they do so as arguments from scientific ignorance. I say it is impossible to be a juror who cannot interact with others for weeks to then be expected to arrive at a proper verdict. This is an unnatural process for how human beings think and process new information. As a college professor, I cannot imagine requiring students to never discuss the course with anyone until all students do a joint final. What could they possibly learn or clearly understand? Jurors should be able to ask their own questions of witnesses, of the judge and of the opposing attorneys. The court traditions for jurors are not based on an actual understanding of human nature. Instead jurors are treated as if they are totally inept to the process, and the result is too often for longer trials a very inept verdict. And then this inept verdict is defended with the unscientific argument that you were not on the jury.
I’ll agree with the point on jurors being able to ask questions, for clarity etc, but such questions should be asked through the judge, not directly, as they may involve prejudicial responses. Eg, a former felon’s criminal history when in actual fact they Are innocent of this particular crime.
@@paulcollyer801 I observed a trial almost 30 years ago where the person charged with a murder, killed a woman I know with a claw hammer. The defendant had a history of attacking people with various tools including an attempted attack on a prison guard with a hammer he had managed to get a hold of while awaiting trial. The judge ruled that none of this prior information was admissible because it could prejudice the jury. The jury, however, felt that the defendant was not guilty because they saw nothing during the trial to indicate the defendant had any such propensity for such violent behavior, and he was presented as an easy going person. When the jurors discovered the information later, they felt they had made the wrong decision because the truth was kept from them. Can jurors be prejudiced? Certainly, but the solution is not to leave them in the dark, but to help them avoid such prejudices. Even in the deliberation room, it would be helpful for a judge not involved in the trial proper to guide the jurors deliberation and steer them away from faulty assumptions. Later the acquitted defendant was found guilty of an attempted assault on the prison guard, but the consequences were nothing close to being found guilty of murder. Again, I am more interested in actual scientific evidence about how jurors can process information than the arguments based on mere legal rationalizations. Too many legal traditions have no scientific basis for believing them to be realistic.
@@RobertWGreaves, and therein lies my point, just because someone has done something similar or identical in the past, does not mean they have this time. Some people reform, others don’t. The case is the one at hand, not the previous ones.
Question how does this square with the first amendment? I was always taught that part of the freedom of the press clause was freedom to access published works and freedom from censorship including which works you could access. So wouldn't this jury rule be in violation of that or am I miss understanding/have been miss taught about our constitutional right to information?
The jury isn't allowed access to certain outside information because it violates the defendant's right to a fair trial. Restrictions on what jury members are allowed to do mostly just last until the trial is over. A juror is free to look up things after the trial, when it won't unfairly influence the verdict.
You are free to look it up after the case, however, the only evidence you can use in a trial is the knowledge you have before the case begins and what is presented in the case. That is, if he knew that didn't look like a union patch, he could bring that up. If he didn't know what the patch was, he can't say what it is, but his knowledge as a union man shows that probably not a union patch.
if he'd kept his research to himself, who knows... but by telling the rest of the jury, he affected the defendant's 5th amendment right to due process. hence why it's a mistrial and a dumb idea.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941. "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972).
That makes no sense. Jurors should absolutely be able to look up possible facts for themselves to determine if they believe someone's testimony or not. What if someone testifies as an "expert witness" regarding a topic. If the witness testifies falsely, shouldn't jurors be able to check the veracity of their claims?
Im actually kind of early for once. This is interesting. If Im on trial for something serious I we'd would want a jurer that actually cares enough to think about everything. Understand rules made for a reason but they sometimes hurt
OK, so this juror looked up what he 'thought' was the logo. Did he get it right?? Obviously not. The logo was clear in a photo and the defense would have studied it carefully because the defendant was asserting he didn't know who the guy was.
This is why I could never sit on a Jury, if I have to make a call on something I need all the facts pertinent to the question. let alone being told something then being told to "forget it".
As a juror, you may WANT all pertinent facts to make a decision, but you only NEED to make a decision based on the information you have when you first walk onto court and what is presented in court.
@@williama.millerii8972 I could not, on good conscience, make a decision that could impact someones else's life without all information relating to and encompassing the question/situation.
@@StormClaw2 If the prosecutor leaves out data or a judge refuses to answer your questions, there is always a two word answer for that..."Not Guilty!". I'll go for jury nullification in a heartbeat! We have WAY too many BS laws in the first place!
I was on a jury many years ago about a seat belt injury case. The defense argued that the owner's manual for the vehicle described how you should safely use the belt, and the injured party testified that they never read the manual. I actually owned the same vehicle and had the owner's manual [I don't know why I was not excluded from the jury]. I was sore tempted to read the manual but the judge's written instructions to the jury forbade something like that. So I did NO read the manual until AFTER the trial was completely over. I do agree with the judge's contempt ruling in this particular case, but I also understand how that juror felt wanting to get to the bottom of something that bothered him.
It's disgusting that a juror trying to get more information to properly decide the case gets fined. Guess they want everyone dumb, ignorant and completelt dependent on those dishonest fast talking lawyers.
I could see people looking up something that they saw that they didn't feel was directly tied to the case (curiosity) but... In this case, if he didn't look it up and had just said.....I think the boarder patrol agent had a white supremacy patch on.... that would have been okay.
I recently, last week, was called and empaneled on a jury. We reached a verdict on friday for 2/3 and couldn't agree on the 3rd. Our instructions were indeed to use common sense, our experience, to not perform independent research, visit, and so on. If we had we would have cast much more doubt on the victim as they have had some arrests since then that included charges for tampering with evidence, but we could only go off what was presented as evidence during the trial. It is what it is.
You could ask, but the judge would just say to only look at the facts and arguments presented in the trial. Jurors are limited to asking certain questions about the law in most jurisdictions, and in places where they are allowed to ask questions about evidence and witnesses, those would be brought up during the trial where the defense and prosecution can respond to them.
I was dismissed from a case after being selected because I read about the case (a year prior of my jury duty). The judge was asking each selected juror (and alternate) if they had prior knowledge of the case, and because it was already couple days into my jury service, judge just told me I can go home instead of going back into the jury pool for the next case.
@@frankyflowers that’s an inaccurate conclusion. My dad was a union pipefitter and never made even 20k a year. A lot of pipefitters work construction. Let’s not confuse pipefitters and plumbers.
@@RichieRich20000 was that back when 20k was work 200k? they get paid now. im just a normal certified welder not even certified on pipe and i can afford to pay that.
It seems odd that the worst thing justice fears is that the jury will get facts to make decisions with, even something as simple as photos of the patches being discussed.
When a jury member looks up stuff by themselves, there is no chance to defend against it or question the accuracy. There are rules for evidence. Both sides need the opportunity to look at the evidence to make sure there are no problems with it, and to argue about what it implies. There are also laws about what things are allowed to be considered. The news may mention things about a defendant that are not relevant to the case, but make them look bad. Then news might report on witnesses that the prosecution didn't/couldn't use because they weren't trustworthy.
What have we learned here kids? Never volunteer information to the government.
What we always learn from Leyto: the Law is an ass.
NAVY - Never Again Volunteer Yourself
Exactly
@@whirledpeaz5758 that’s hilarious. Couldn’t be more true
@@whirledpeaz5758 what I did was I would wait until the sufficient number of people volunteered then I would and then be like oh already got the 6 you need. Then every 5 or 6 times I'd actually make sure I volunteered when it was a pretty easy detail. That way when shitty ones came around platoon sergeant knew I was someone that usually volunteered so if I didn't volunteer he'd go for someone else. He knew people did the fake too late volunteering and would pick them for the super crappy details but by making sure I get into one here and there it seemed like I was more genuine.
The utter contempt with which lawyers and judges hold jurors is a major problem with our legal system.
Yup, don't serve on a jury!
the problem is most jurors have earned it.
Imagine *paying* for Jury Duty
You do it every day or year depending on the state you reside in.
In effect you do, since you get a pittance per diem. You'll be lucky if it covers transportation and parking. The opportunity cost could be huge, depending on what you do for a living.
You do pay for jury duty the lost wages when you're not at work. One day out of work and cost me $500.
@@stoneyswolf This is generally true, although some businesses do pay for your lost wages as a benefit for being employed there.
Jurors should be paid based on average wages in the county they are serving duty in. It would make getting jurors to serve much easier. Why should jurors be the only ones who lose money for being in court?
If punitive measures of this severity are applied to juror rule infractions, it will not help to get citizens to fulfill their duty to serve as jurors.
Good. It would be a big improvement to get an honest finding.
Just tell the judge you think Jury Nullification is a great idea (you're under oath so it has to be what you believe, but it is a pretty easy concept to believe in once you read what it is). The judge will excuse you, and usually give you a note for the clerk running the jury pool room to excuse you and send you home.
They only apply to people too dumb to follow instructions. Being dumb should have consequences.
@@kevinjohnson1139 If I was a lawyer, I'ld argue he was never fit for jury to begin with (because dumb) and the court made a mistake by allowing him to be on the jury.
Why would someone be put off by it, all they have to do is obey the rules to be safe.
Remember the outcome of their wilful ignoring of the rule, retrials cost money.
I had a math teacher get into trouble for telling other jurors that the prosecutor's numbers "didn't add up" and they should double check the math for themselves...
So wouldn't that be illegal for the prosecution to knowingly submit false evidence?
How did he get in trouble for that? Seems like that would be a normal topic of deliberations.
@@jadedandbitter
Perhaps that should have been in the Jury's note to the judge, with the working out supplied...and a request that the Judge have the prosecutor submit his figures, after the Prosecutor has rechecked?
Mathematics supplied by the Prosecution. and relied on as 'truth" which could lead to conviction, need to be impeccable....
Can you imagine if he refused to answer questions and forced a trial for the contempt hearing? The trial about the trial! The jurors would have to come in to testify! Another $11,000 of legal costs.
There is no contesting or appealing a judge's contempt order.
@@jvaneck8991 I'm curious who'd you appeal to. And what's there to habeas? The guy was charged with contempt of court, not thrown in jail with no charges.
@@oceandrew There is appealing a judges contempt orders. They are reversible.
Appeals courts handle them.
@@oceandrew 11,000 is no small amount... There should be an avenue for appeal.
@Donny D Blliing twice for something you have to do twice isn't double dipping.
While I understand the logic of not allowing independent research by jury members, we live in a world with near ubiquitous access to information. I have to wonder how long the current system of jury deliberation will last as it moves further and further away from the way people live their lives and interact with information.
It's a civil duty Andre. I dont think it's beyond our ability to follow basic jury instruction. He wasn't fined for going on the internet, he was fined for directly disobeying judges order/instruction by looking up something specific to this case. What is so difficult about not doing that?
I see it as stuff to keep the trial fair. If you've seen how badly a news article can spin a story (even someone giving a harmless interview about a public pool or someones lawn or something, and the article comes out and makes the person giving the interview appear to talk badly about tje subject) i sure would hope that if i had a trial that it would be fair as possible. I know people do look things up, but there is such a bias on cases once an article hits the news, and like the McDonalds coffee case that info is usually always wrong and biased. It's the duty of the defendant and his lawyer to give their evidence... Not for someone else to tell me.
@@allaboutroofing2 if you think its ok to steal 1100 from a juror and treat him like a criminal because a judge thinks his word is god and without question in a judicial system that is broke down and corrupt which seldom holds these same officals accountable then you ought to be held accountable for being a traitor , they dont live by the same harsh laws and penalties that they impose on citizens ..FACT
@@hungsolow4851 Maybe you meant to reply to someone else? I didn't say anything of what you are speaking of nor did I say anything about the fine. Do you always reply out of context?
@@hungsolow4851 glad to see you like your own comment tho. 🙄
I just can't accept the premise of a law requiring you to be ignorant about a decision your forced to make. If I was in that position I would discreetly nullify.
You are not ignorant about that decision. You are starting from a presumption of innocence and it is the prosecutor's responsibility to present enough legal evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of plaintiffs guilt. If the prosecutor fails to convince you then you shouldn’t vote guilty. You are voting based on the evidence as presented not on all the evidence that exists.
@@williama.millerii8972 Which is part of the problem.
Wouldn't be nullifying. Nullifying is knowing a person is guilty, but finding them non guilty because you disagree with the law.
That's entirely different from declaring non guilty because you have reasonable doubt about their guilt.
One of the most common jury violations is likely "Do not talk about the case to anyone".
I talked to my wife when I was on a three day felony case. The courts can kiss my a$$...
@@NOTSOSLIMJIM I was very careful not to discuss ANY thing with my wife about her jury duty until the cases were resolved. The first one was declared a mistrial because two jurors wanted to play Nancy Drew and conduct their own investigation.
@@capnbobretired the case I was on wasn't a "known case" and was not in the news at all. Telling my wife my thoughts didn't harm the case at all. We didn't even find out about his previous criminal history till after we found him guilty due to him not testifying.
What case?
@@NOTSOSLIMJIM Not testifying is not a legitimate reason to find someone guilty. Weren't there any instructions to the jury to attach no meaning to him not testifying?
Twelve Angry Men has a lot to answer for.
Henry Fonda needed to be fined for going out and buying his own switch blade.
I was thinking roughly the same thing. Now I'm wo:dering if there is a lawyer reviewing it somewhere.
I remember watching Twelve Angry Men in high school around 1971-72 in preparation for my entry into society ;-)
IKR‽ Prompted me to look up other issues with that film.
@@robpernick9744 Henry Fonda knew in 1957 that police were always lying when they testified in court.
This sounds like one of those "how good are you at following instruction" tests from elementary school.
This person obviously failed kindergarten at least 3 times and was eventually promoted for socially acceptable reasons.
I'd say that's being too generous. Any "how good are you at following instruction" tests I've ever taken were a bit tricky in nature and designed to get you to fail. In this case, jurors were provided instructions in no tricky or uncertain terms and he still couldn't follow them, lol.
To me, it has a "Don't discuss your salary with your co-workers" kind of vibe. We only want you to know what we want you to know.
Pet theory, this started because he has noisy kids and his neighbor Karen doesn't like them. Karen should be given a retirement home in Mexico and pay 11,000 in HOA fees
So you ass hats have a problem with a juror rating out a racists in uniform!? Fuck those rules! A bad officer just got exposed. Yes the juror deserves the fine for breaking the rules. I'm sure a go fund me is open for this jurors fine. A Federal officer who took a constitutional oath is wearig a white supremacy patch on his federal uniform!? This is America..
Why I will never serve on a jury.
I dont believe a thing any Federal officer says and the DOJ is the most corrupt dept in govt followed by the judiciary...
Yes and they don't pay my salary, and it's not my thing to sit for hours and be forced against NY will
@@drummergeorge9642 all you have to say is jury nullification and you will be gone.
@@chrisjohnson4666 This is the correct response. Police are paid to go to court, thus they are on duty. The Supreme Court has held that police are allowed to lie in the course of their duty, thus they are allowed to lie on the stand. All police testimony, in my eyes, is automatically a lie.
Many years ago I sat on a Jury for an attempted murder trial, and you're 100 percent right about how some things are not to be discussed during the course of the trial. We sat in deliberation and had several questions that we sent out and were told that they couldn't give us an answer at that time, we had to work with the information we were given. After we reached our decision and were dismissed by the judge, he offered to come explain to any of us that were still there why some of the items were not to be discussed, and it was interesting how much information was withheld from us because of how it would have swayed our decision making process. We reached a logical decision on the information provided, and after he gave us the information, we agreed that it would have only made our decision making a longer process for no necessary reason. Even more interesting was that BOTH councils were there to answer questions along with the Judge, so we got to see that the defense knew about the items and agreed that it would have only added unnecessary time to our deliberations. Considering that we deliberated for about 6 hours and were all super tired afterwards, I appreciated it!
Would you have came to the same conclusion knowing the information that was withheld during the trial?
Personally off the top of my head, I think I would find it difficult to find someone guilty knowing that I am purposely not being told something, but I've never been in the situation.
So you sat as juror on a case that was already decided by the court and you were denied information about that trial based on the court's decision that such information might make you think about the verdict longer than they wanted you to.
After the guilty verdict came in, possibly vetted information was given to you to appease you about your decision.
Doesn't sound corrupt at all. Defendant's lawyer was super legit.
@@momosgarage Nothing. And when that judge walked in after that trial, I would have told him that the not guilty verdict was because I did not believe I had all the information I needed to justify a guilty vote.
Courts are so out of touch with reality. They are so accustomed to handing out fines, that this seems totally normal.
As a former juror it was not until 6 months later that I found out the man we convicted, who was sentenced to 13 years, was really innocent and I could do nothing about it.
I NEVER EVER want to be on a jury EVER AGAIN!
Thanks to the juror who spoke up to protect the integrity of our judicial system.
Given the apparent restrictions placed on juries’ ability to perform their job, I’m glad I’ve never been called to sit on one. As someone who has been falsely accused and acquitted, I would want to know as much as possible regarding all facts and circumstances before I convict someone and send them to jail.
Yeah, I'm not a law expert, but I think that running tests and visiting the scene [if it isn't being reasonably locked down], should be allowed and encouraged.
@@eugenetswong The fact that we expect the juries to cast their vote for guilt or innocence without presenting all the facts to them, AND without answering any questions or doubts they have is a major indictment of our legal system.
... it sounds like this juror came up with fake news to fit their narrative. That's not justice. This is why these rules are put in place. Have I seen justice not work in the favor of the likely innocent, sure and it was about facts and evidence and generally sucky situations that can go wrong. But you cannot make stuff of to move a decision the way you want to.
Be careful what you wish for. I was on a jury once and I can say it was a good a group of people as any one could wish for. Black, white, asian, young and old, we took our responsibility serious. Now it was an attempted murder case and we were instructed to only deliberate on the facts of of it alone, even though we were told he had been in jail before. The trial lasted 2 days and we argued and pleaded with each other when deliberations came up and finally voted to convict. I thought that was the hard part but then we had to decide what kind of punishment he deserved, after hours of arguing (diplomatically) and bargaining we all find a sentence we could agree on. Case over lets go home.
I went home and immediately googled him and started fuming! The next day I saw most of my peers and found they had done the same and had we known he had raped a 14 year old girl before going into that jury room, it would have been the fastest conviction and sentencing the world had ever seen. And that is why you don't do research on cases. We sentenced him on the case at hand and not one he had already been convicted of.
@@johngori9477 There are a number of problems with "self research" so to speak.
For starters, not all reports are factual. Especially not in today's world, a lot of reporting have political agenda behind it, is sensationalized(and therefore exaggerated) or is merely going off of rumors or "junk science", if you will.
Then we have things that are technically true but not admissible. Say a cop raid their home for evidence without warrant. The evidence obtained could not be used in court. But they can put it on social media or whatever, and then you found. Should we make judgement based on such evidence? On the one hand, it does serve actual justice for the particular case. On the other hand, however, it means that it would motivate the law enforcement to do things that are not allowed to people, potential innocent people, just so that they can get whatever evidence they could so that they can go into the "side channel". It's why the rules about non-admissible evidence in the first place, so that law enforcement don't get randomly harassed in hope of getting something. Now, I would prefer an alternative where if someone is so harassed/searched and found innocent, proper compensation be given to the "victim", partly out of the pocket of the acting officer and department thereof. This would allow the law to catch more guilty while still protecting innocents. But I realize that the execution of such a system would be problematic to say the least. So our current system of non-admissible evidence is, unfortunately, the best we can do. (I would argue that the search first, compensate for innocent later could be implemented for certain serious crime, such as murder and rape. And any evidence of any other crime so discovered would still be inadmissible. So even if you found a literal ton of cocaine while searching a murder suspect's home, that gets hand waved. Unfortunately, while this should be overall be better, it is a slippery slope and I don't trust law enforcement to not slide down.)
Now, I do feel that jurors should be able to ask certain questions. With, however, the possibility of the answer being along the line of "we have considered it, but was unable to produce any relevant result" as an answer, which could mean a wide range of things. Including that it is simply irrelevant, something was found but was inadmissible for any reason, a deal was brokered to dismiss that particular fact or, in case of "tests", that the test actually don't mean what the juror think it does. It will allow the juror to not wonder if it was ever considered while not necessarily produce a result one way or another, due to various reasons.
Imagine a world where the attorneys had actually done the research and presented it to the jury so the juror didn't need to go do their own research to be informed... Or when jurors needed information not presented by the attorneys to make an informed decision they were allowed to submit the questions back to the judge for answering.
Judges hate the idea of independent juries and jury nullification of injustice. They prefer to be able to instruct the jury in such detail that they are actually determining the verdict you return, or at least restricting the jury to very narrow bounds.
The juries duty is to listen and decide based off what they hear. Not what they research. Imagine just doing what you're told.
@@roberthubbard7827 throughout history a whole lot of horrible crimes have been justified by the statement "I was just doing what I was told." If juries are just there to do what they're told based on incomplete information then the jury is not contributing to a just outcome. Juries can submit a question back to the judge but he frequently won't answer if it's about info that was not presented in the trial, or concerns evidence that was excluded. Given that juries are to be kept in the dark and given detailed instructions on how to vote, we should do away with the expense and just let the judge decide instead of having rubber stamp juries. The phrases "convicted by a jury of his peers" or "exonerated by a jury of his peers" become meaningless unless the jury is fully informed. Lawyers are trained to reject the idea that juries should be fully informed and involved in the process. The jury is just there to validate their work. I think we can do better.
@@johngori9477 The attorneys and judges who conduct trials know far better than jurors, mostly, what constitutes untainted evidence, and thus what is acceptable to give to the jury. It's the quality of defense attorneys that frequently leaves a jury less-informed, but they can still only consider the evidence presented to them. I was a juror in one trial in which, right in the middle of a witness's testimony, a recess was called; when we returned, they dismissed that witness. After the trial the judge met with us and explained what had happened. If the witness had brought up a certain conversation with a police officer, there was a good chance of a mistrial due to fifth amendment concerns. After the judge and attorneys conferred about this, they continued the trial without that testimony. We, the jury would have had no idea how to handle a situation like that, so it was right for the judge to delay continuation of the trial to get it right.
@@paulcrumley9756 I disagree. If one side is trying to introduce tainted evidence, then the fact that they are doing so is VERY relevant to the jury's decision as it speaks to their credibility on other evidence they present. Present all the evidence AND the taint or doubt around it. But that will never happen in our legal system, so let's do away with juries.
If we're only going to show the jury a carefully selected (by the judge & attorneys) sub-set of the facts then the process of selecting those facts is what is actually determining the verdict. It also leads to attorneys preferring to seat jurors they believe they can manipulate with their selective presentation. At that point the jury system is not contributing to achieving a just verdict, but merely rubber stamping what the court already decided for them. So skip the theater and save the cost & hassle of a jury. Of course that would deny the courts the excuse of "its what the jury decided" and put accountability for a just outcome back on the judge and the attorneys.
Ever notice that a defense attorney who gets a heinous pedophile & child murderer off on a technicality will defend his actions by saying his job is to provide his client the best defense, the prosecutor will blame someone else for the technicality, and the judge will say he just administered the law. The jury gives them cover for their failure to achieve justice. I say take it away and hold the judge & attorneys accountable for the results of court trials.
I had an idea that there should be some kind of training to be on juries. Jurors would be paid a decent wage for their time (not the insultingly low amount they're paid now) but in exchange all jurors would have education in burden of proof, the constitution, etc...Additionally, jurors would be allowed to submit questions directly to the defense and prosecution. Of course, there would need to be some kind of system in place to handle questions that deal with suppressed evidence or would require the defendant to take the fifth, but they would be able to ask something like "Hey, what's that patch the officer's wearing for?" or "I notice that the victim was wearing the same clothes in the photos they were when the defendant left, but he said that the victim was taking a shower. Could you explain this?"
When I served jury duty, we had several intelligent level-headed citizens who could follow directions, eight complete morons, and three alternate morons. I was drafted -- not elected -- foreman. (Foreperson, in today's society.) It was like teaching second grade.
I think you might have had a rather unusual experience (although I don't know where you served.) In the last 50+ years I have served on five juries (all criminal) and been the foreperson on three of those. I was quite impressed with how attentive and serious the jurors were and never had more than one or two "problematic" individuals to deal with. In Colorado the jurors are now allowed to ask questions through the judge, who decides if they are appropriate. One time we had the young son of a sitting judge on the jury -- so we elected him foreperson. I have generally been impressed with the fairness of the verdicts.
where the colors of the jurors indicative of their intelligence and behavior?
@@machintelligence Your operative phrase is "in the last 50+ years". The problem is that in the last 30+ years The mental gene pool in the shallow end of the pool has increased exponentially. The ability to access the internet guarantees the shallow end will continue to increase unabated.
@@johnsanabria3279 it was a retired pipefitter so he was old. is the median iq lower than the past?
I've often wondered how any jury panel could have enough competent, common sense people on it. I've never been selected personally, but I've sat in the pool room enough times to be utterly dumbfounded by the level of "duh" displayed by the majority of people sitting there. Most can't follow the simple instructions in THAT room. I can't imagine them having any concept of being able to take instructions from a judge.
11k would place myself and most other average people in such Financial disrepair they never would recover, and after not being able to pay I'm sure they put a warrant out suspended driver's license and thoroughly ruined your life. Police officer causes a mistrial and doesn't even lose his job and no fine and white-collar crime only results and probation. To tiered system
As a juror, if I was curious enough to want to do experiments to recreate some aspect of a claimed event, I would simply acquit due to my reasonable doubt.
Exactly...thats how it works if the plaintiff or the people (prosecutor) cannot make a good case.
Typically, the attorneys would have any relevant experiments done if they thought it would further their case. The two main reasons for the prohibition are that they need to know what information the jurors have and that experimenting at home can lead to unpredictable results.
The court wants you to make an informed decision, but only with the information that they give you.
sure, because "some post I saw on the internet" is not something the court can deal with. How does the opposing attorney rebut such a statement when the jury is in deliberations??
$100 the judge withheld the evidence showing how close the patches looked.
Juror has mostly memorized the list of logos on the ADL web page list of hate symbols. He's pretty sure this is one of them. He goes into the jury room and says "that's a white supremacist patch". That's fine. He used his life experience.
Now another juror is pretty sure that's such a patch, but before he spills it to the rest of the jurors he wants to double check. He looks it up (again) and sees it. Goes and tells the others. BZZZZT.
Law should not be this illogical.
I find it really difficult to believe that an ICE officer would be allowed to have a patch glorifying white supremacy emblazoned on his uniform. I kind of suspect that white supremacists have co-opted the logo because immigration enforcement uses it officially.
Yep. This is an odd thing; the juror could ALWAYS be wrong - whether he googled it two years earlier or the night before. The juror who complained even acknowledged that the jurors were aware of this. All of the jurors are using knowledge outside of what is presented - it would be impossible to function otherwise as the trial would need to establish and explain literally everything that has any bearing - what food is, how water is wet, etc. We have to expect that a foundation of knowledge exists and does not need presenting in court yet is functionally necessary. In this particular case, that the knowledge in question is less common is not understood to be problematic - yet a quick google search for it is?
Surely the instruction should be to disregard speculative knowledge not presented to the court and to only using knowledge not presented in the court to fill in gaps when absolutely necessary. In this case, the potential fact that the badge represents a certain thing DOES have potential bearing on the case, but is speculation and not necessary for the case presented to be understood and thus should be disregarded in deliberation.
The searching of such knowledge while in the middle of a court case should be discouraged, but realistically there is always going to be such knowledge that the jurors are aware of unless they have been grown in a vat or some such - so trying to gatekeep this is pointless. Instead, gatekeep the use of it.
ALT Title, How to get out of Jury service Forever (Warning: costs involved)
😄
Or just say that you don't agree with ANY of the rules for sequestration when they interview you for jury duty. You won't get picked every time, guaranteed.
I have never been selected, but from what I heard, if you really wanted to get out of it and didn't care what people thought of you, you used to be able to just go into some kind of racist or sexist diatribe and get immediately dismissed, but nowadays, I bet even doing that could come with repercussions.
Easier to just go find an active judge and slap them in public.
Mention jury nullification
🤦🏼♀️ He should've used the first two rules of fight club
@Samuel Lim The second one leaves also, in a bag.
Maybe you should use your own advice
Great . . . We can now expect prosecutors and defense attorneys to keep track of the Internet history of jury members during trial. Add in the $50 bucks per day and being on a jury is a dream come true.
Washington they pay $10 per day for jury duty and get no pay from job while away on jury duty, I can also say clerk at Stevens county courthouse is a bunch of words that shouldn't be typed here most polite would be bully, you have a total of 5 days of receipt of jury summons to have reply at the court... not business days and not postmarked, medical exemption must be original written and signed letter from physician, fax/printed/emailed copy not accepted.
@@ghostshadow9046 :
😯
@@ghostshadow9046 Depends on what company you work for. Some companies pay you your full wages and hours wheel on jury duty. The problem is you work piles up and you are behind a day, 2, 3, a week or however long you need to be on jury duty.
I remember wanting to research sooo much the last time I was in jury duty. I resisted tho. I want to be informed. And on a jury, you only get part of the story. You only get some it the law. And the undefined areas are anxiety inducing. I thought the da and the defense did a bad job. We asked questions and NONE were answered. It was super frustrating.
They dont want you informed and there's the problem...
@@chrisjohnson4666 Nullify!!! Perfect example...your vote should have been not guilty if it wasn't...and do it quietly...know what nullification is before belonging to any jury please...
If prosecutor/ judge won't inform the jury the only finding can be innocent. U need the info to be able to find guilty. Lol
@@rodkewer3389 - When I did a search on 'nullification', all I found was that it has never been upheld in court. So, what is the point you're trying to make?
@@flick22601 what do you mean never upheld? You can nullify if you want to, it’s your right as a juror.
The person who ratted him out was celebrating. A way out.
That may be, but he or she did exactly the right thing.
It's already nearly over at that point, I can't imagine that was even the slightest thought.
@@Grandleon you never know how many days it will take them to come to a decision.
Officer, how did you hurt your hand? The suspect hit my hand with his face.
Believe it or not, I remember reading about a case where a man was charged with Battery on a LEO after the officer broke his hand punching the guy.
I was called for jury duty (candidate), and my question from one of the lawyers was "can you follow the judge's orders", or something like that. I said no, and they asked why. I said because I'll decide what I do. They said bye, have a good day. Gave me a tiny check and never called me again.
Since it was criminal contempt, was he represented by an attorney during the “show cause” hearing?
Yes.
@@stevelehto And he still got such a large fine? Wow. Thanks Steve for answering so quickly!
@@stevelehto He should have asked for his own jury trial. What's the probability a random juror thinks this is streigh up nuts? 1 in 6 makes for good odds of acquittal.
@@bluchu22 the fine was the actual cost of the trial up to that point. It also said in the video the juror used a lawyer for the contempt hearing.
@@joshuahudson2170 not if (as steve has specified) the jurors had been told not to access the internet.
When asked if there is anything that could effect my judgment i just say "I am aware of jury nullification" they practically throw me out
Now I just want to know what the patch was. 😩
Same
You can do a Google search!
😆
@@briangarrow448 lmao
😁😁😁😁
@B B Or it could have been a 88 or crossed grenades or a life rune - all of which have been used by police officers who are in hate groups.
Being a juror is a civil honor and good way to stick it to the man #nullification
Now I want to know what was on the patch.
It's worth noting that while the defendant was a legal resident, he'd had convictions that made him eligible for deportation.
How did this all start, how did the interaction between two overworked blue collar gentleman start.
Karen?
Imagine doing your own research and finding out the truth and being punished for it
Imagine thinking that "I read something on the internet" makes it the truth.
What if he didn't have to Google the patch and instead recognized it 🤔.
Very good point. I'm curious the answer as well
Theoretically, knowledge of that sort can be filtered out during jury selection, but in circumstances like this I find it difficult to believe any attorney would be able to even anticipate it. Still, if something you know isn't relevant to the facts in evidence, you shouldn't bring it up even if you know it. People are going to, and do, and I 100% have let a person onto a jury knowing and expecting that they'd use their external knowledge and experience to skew deliberations, so as always the law and rules are more suggestions and this guy's problem was admitting he Googled it instead of just saying he knew it.
dun Dun DUUUNNN
So being informed is a crime. F the judges. Defund the judges.
You want out of jury duty? Just say two magic words "jury nullification".. they wont pick you.
we used to be able to claim to be racist to get out of it. But now, that would probably help us get chosen...
I guess you could say the person is guilty as he/she is on trial. I know a lot of police!!!
@@jbdragon3295 See, I know a lot of police too and that would bring me to the complete opposite answer, ie NOT guilty.
"Oh, you can just TELL that they are guilty by the look in their eyes!"
I fear these tactics may correctly draw a contempt charge. Don't try to outsmart a judge - they don't like it and they can do something about it!
I've been on two juries and it has become clear to me that you can get pretty easily out of jury duty - if you have no integrity. Again, I do not recommend that, eitiher.
He also discussed the case with the Jurors outside deliberations.
I got to be a juror on 5 cases and found them very interesting to experience.
Stuff like this is why I've never been on a jury and refuse to do jury duty. There is no real justice in the legal system, it's all just a game for lawyers to play, who can manipulate the evidence in their favor the best.
Our justice system isn't perfect, but I'd prefer it over China or Russia's "legal system". Allowing jurors to hop online and read articles that could also be biased in nature isn't exactly a good solution. Regarding calling our legal system a game, I guess it is. If we define a game as where you attempt to achieve an outcome and have to adhere to set of rules, then isn't everything in life a game?
And that is why you should serve, to make sure the lawyer game is nullified by jurors that cut through the crap. Do your duty.
@@Dbell12221 its hard to serve as a juror like that because no prosecutor will let you be chosen, and they ask questions to that effect. Lying about it gets you in trouble and a mistrial anyway. Part of the problem with the legal system is that easily swayed morons are the prime candidates for Jurors, and those who stand to benefit from the process are the ones who get to pick the jurors.
@@Dbell12221 you only can do that if you lie under oath except under very specific circumstancesthat. I am not willing to invoke God as a witness to the truth of my lie
This is why you should always do your best to convince either the D.A. or the defense attorney that you are too biased one way or another for them to want you on the jury.
I wonder if this system could be made just a little bit fairer to the jurors;
They're made to tear a hole in their lives for minimal compensation. For this, they are told to deliberate in a very particular way, not just with incomplete information but with purposefully incomplete information, and an attempt to put in a genuine effort into finding out the facts of the case is punished with contempt of court. This sounds to me like one of the worst kinds of mental torture, especially for someone that cares, and perhaps that's not how people should be treated for doing their civic duty.
The one time I was actually on a jury, it was on an eminent domain trial. Basically, the state had taken a piece of land from a company which was not happy with the compensation they received for the land. The company sued for $400,000 for just under 2 acres taken for the right of way on a highway expansion. During deliberation, I argued that the amount was way over the value of the land, and although we should find for the complainant (the company), the amount awarded-- which was being paid by taxpayers-- was too high. I refused to go along with the other jurors until we reduced the amount of the settlement (by $100,000). Afterward, all of the other jury members basically shunned me after being very friendly for the whole week of the trial, even though I saved the taxpayers of the state $100,000.
"Narc'ed " him out!?😁 haven't heard that expression since Cheech and Chong.
$11.000 fine seems a bit steep.
Considering the cost of a trial, it seems fair, if not cheap.
@@jbdragon3295 I have the feeling the judge went easy on him there.
@@jameskaraganis2569
That is my guess. The lawyers alone who have to start all over for a new trial could eat up most of that for both sides. If not more, let alone all the court costs.
If you can’t follow orders, that’s on you. N my any people these days are just entitled and so can’t help themselves.
This all isn’t a game, it’s real life.
So they dont want people trying to think for themselves about cases? XD
That is exactly opposite why the instructions and the fine were issued. The guilt/innocence is to be judged on the evidence ... not what is suggested by google or others.
@@kurtwetzel154 The fuck you "what if ing" about ?
@@deconteesawyer5758 Specifically the evidence that was presented; not what you’ve seen on TV about it or what you may know on your own.
Right there, I know you didn't get this at all.
@@kudukilla then at no point should there be any claim to "truth"
The fact he opened his mouth is justification alone for the fine 🙄
I know there are good reasons for it, but I've long thought it's fascinating how much the jury system has changed since it originated. Way back when courts wanted jurors who knew the parties to the case, had expert knowledge of the issues involved, and may even have witnessed the incident. I don't want to get involved in a debate, but I think you could make a strong case for either system.
"Way back when courts wanted jurors who knew the parties to the case, had expert knowledge of the issues involved, and may even have witnessed the incident"
Those weren't jurors. Those would be witnesses. An "impartial jury" has been codified in America for centuries.
@@wisenber America has only existed for a little over 2 centuries. Your comment suggests several.
@@brianhelm2328 America had courts for hundreds of years prior to the founding of the US.
@@brianhelm2328 said: "America has only existed for a little over 2 centuries. Your comment suggests several."
In response to wisenber's comment: "An "impartial jury" has been codified in America for centuries."
Helm, the plural of a word "suggests" more than one, not more than two. Full stop.
There is no reason to expect the word, "centuries" to mean more than 2. You actually used the word to indicate two centuries. The fact of your qualifier is irrelevant since any qualifier is equally as valid to narrow down the time frame and no qualifier stills indicates more than one but does NOT indicate more than two.
That you "feel" wisenber's comment "suggests" more than what the words actually represent is irrelevant.
@@brianhelm2328 We're almost at 2.5 centuries. I know that for those of us that remember the bicentennial celebration it seems like we are just a bit over 2 centuries but that was 45 years ago.
And the legal system wonders why people avoid jury duty like the plague.
No the judge was right. Not only is the $11,000 appropriate, the juror should have been sentenced to at least a year in jail. This is flat out juror misconduct. It's not even a close call. If you're on a jury, it's real simple, all you have to do is follow the judge's instructions. That's it. It's simple.
@jay klein yes and no. The rules governing your conduct as a juror are explained and are actually very clear. Remember, he was told on by the other jury members. However, I feel u because I hate jury duty...
@@viking956 I didn't say the judge was right or wrong or that the fine is too high. All I'm saying is that some people might find the judges instructions put too many restrictions on their day-to-day life.
@@AeroGuy07 But restrictions are the whole point. Every single time I've been called for jury duty, the first thing that happens after being sworn in, the judge asks if anyone has any hardships which would prevent them from serving. Then the judge calls up one at a time each person who raises their hand. THAT IS THE POINT where a juror needs to convince the judge that they can't live with the restrictions of being a juror. After that? You sit down, you shut up, you listen to the testimony and review the evidence and then render your decision along with the rest of the jury. It's really not that complicated. Of course there is that old maxim which dictates the only people picked for a jury are the ones too stupid to come up with a reason to be excused. I don't believe that's true......but it might be for some. Because the juror who got $11,000 in fines was a complete moron.
Since the photo was in evidence, why couldn't the jury simply ask for a clarification of the patch. If the judge grants it they learn (reliably) what the patch means. (If the judge didn't grant it I would immediately change sympathies to the defendant since the State is keeping secrets)
Best evidence would be the actual trade union logo (which the juror evidently looked up for himself). Why did the court allow the proposition that the logos were mistaken without both being presented for comparison? How else can a jury determine whether such a mistake is reasonable? I think it is quite reasonable, at this point, that the court is scapegoating the juror for pointing out his own procedural mistake.
If you're going to take this point of view, the court would have to address every single thing in the world- no matter how irrelevant- because otherwise it would have to fear that a juror would suddenly think it's important and go do "research" about it. "Hey, that cop was wearing yellow socks. I'm googled that on and found a post on REDDIT that says it means he's part of the KKK!"
@@claudiuspulcher2440 Recognizing facts and acknowledging possibilities is not opinion -- it is insight. The fact is that the logo he believed it to be and the actual logo are best evidence. How can the jury reasonably decide whether his claim that he mistook the logo to be X is reasonable if they cannot see both? As the trier of fact, it is indeed the jury's duty to decide whether this claim is reasonable. Had the jury been provided these, it is possible that his curiosity would not have been piqued. Either way, demanding that they do decide this without allowing them to see the similarities and differences for themselves is unreasonable -- and, I think, an error in judgement.
Even if the KKK do wear yellow socks, other people wear yellow socks as well making this implication insubstantial. Wearing pointed white hoods and burning crosses is a bit more convincing. A white supremacist logo is rather exclusive to white supremacists. I suspect that the judge considers the logo more prejudicial than probative. Even so, it is possible to obscure (or even to change) the name of the 'club' and to present the logo's graphic for the jury to consider.
This sounds like a really good reason to avoid jury duty. I don't think I'd want to be on a jury in a jurisdiction were a previous juror was fined $11k.
Ha! You said "Narked Him Out!" You and I are both old farts.
It's actually "narced". That came from providing information to narcotics officers.
It would be nearly impossible to drop a dime on him now a days
Hey, I resemble that
Jurors should follow instructions......as long as......they are Constitutional instructions.
NJ engineers I knew will use this as another reason to duck jury: "If I do anything wrong, now they fine me? Fuhgettabout it."
Prosecutors withhold evidence routinely and it costs the state millions in jail costs, retrials and settlements: $0.
Jury tries to find more evidence: $11000 fine.
What's the deal with keeping jurors ignorant? Why aren't they allowed to look up precedent cases?
This is why you should always have a reason to avoid jury duty. The legal system is a joke.
A joke is 11 people agreeing with you. Jury duty is serious business, and needs to be treated that way. Moron.
Juror should not have ran his mouth about his research. Now he's been made an example.
People following simple instructions?.... Haha, that'll be the day. I was on a jury once. I discovered that most people have their mind made up on a verdict once they hear the charges....
Why would ICE allow such a patch on one of their officers? Disgusting!
If the ICE officer testified they should have looked at the patch in court.
Why is nobody concerned that ICE agents are wearing neo-Nazi patches on their work uniforms? That's what puzzles me...
@@MrJonsonville5 .Probably because it is not a white supremacist symbol
@@johnmcmickle5685 except that it is. I looked it up. have you? no. because you'd rather my kind was exterminated 75 yrs ago.
@@MrJonsonville5 Anyone can all anything a symbol of white supremacy. Next how do you know you are even looking at the correct patch. Lastly you approached me so shove your statement about me wanting people like you eliminated 75 years ago where the sun does not
shine, unless you are admitting you are a useless troll.
.
. .
@@johnmcmickle5685 F off man, seriously. your family were immigrants, mine were immigrants, so unless McMickle is a Native American name just leave it the f alone. You never had family killed in camps because of their heritage. My Grandparents fought the fascists in Europe and my uncle was a POW at Bataaan. So my family has blood, sweat and tears poured into this country. if it's a troll you're looking for, better find a mirror mate.
He was Fined $11,000 not for Googling it but for telling people about it.
When I was selected for Grand Jury and Jury Trial, we were not even allowed to have a cell phone in the jury holding room, let alone in the court room. I do believe judges allow jury members to ask the judge for clarification on laws or other appropriate things, when done thru proper channels
I couldn’t live without my phone for 3 hours let alone a day. 10/10 couldn’t be on a grand jury.
@@Timothy-NH yeah, but I DONT go that period of time without my phone anymore. I can’t. My phone does usually work wherever I am. I usually stop every 2-3 hours for about 15 minutes to screw off on it. I couldn’t cold turkey that
I was on jury selection...once. It was a trial about assault on a woman by her ex boyfriend/work associate. When the jury was asked if any of us may not be able to fairly judge this case, I raised my hand. When asked why, I asked to be brought up to the judges bench to explain. The judge initially refused. I told him what I say might taint the whole jury, so they took me to the judges chambers with the two attorneys. I told them I knew of both the defendant and victim as fellow employees in another part of the facility I worked at, and as far as I was concerned, the victim was a bitch who deserved to be run over. I was excused, not only from the jury selection, but was released from any juries for the duration of that quarter.
How can they bring something into evidence but not give any information on it but then expect the jury to base their judgment with that evidence?
So when is the juror on derek chauvins trial going to get fined for lying on his jury form?
@@veramae4098 one of the questions on the jury form was about whether they went to a blm protest, one of the jurors did but said he did not. This was exposed before sentancing but the judge ignored it.
@@calebfielding6352 I watched the jury selection. The black guy you are talking about, he did tell them that he went to the protest over the summer. They didn't ask him details about the protest but they did ask him about his views and opinions on things. He seemed very honest. He damn sure did not confess a deep love for cops. The defense didn't want him and the judge didn't strike him so he was up for the prosecution to take him onto the jury. You people have read bits and pieces of this stuff and it's apparent you don't have facts nor have you bothered looking for the facts. If it doesn't serve your narrative that you want to basically lie to people with, then you don't want all the facts. Facts are what matter in court, not your feelings and especially not your hurt feelings
Neve, he has black immunity.
@@rockchildofthe60s69 Still doesn't change to Undue influence on the Jury by threat of Riots for a Not Guilty verdict.
@@whirledpeaz5758 who threatened all of that? Or you just making up more nonsense? Dude you got busted not knowing either by ignorance or just outright denying facts. But you got called out. Don't try and make things about something else. But go ahead and say something like black people went on a white person killing spree and they killed thousands of white people. I mean while you're making up dumb chit, go for the gusto
It's already hard enough to get jurors to show up, in many of these areas less than a quarter will show up when summoned. And the courts are powerless to do much about people who don't show up for a number of reasons. So you have to be real careful when you start to impose penalties like this, create any kind of perceived risk and even fewer people will show up as a result. So while the judge and everyone else in the case may be upset at the juror who caused a mistrial from his actions, they also have to consider the big picture and the effect it may have on the court and jury pools in the future.
On the internet we have "Wut doing?" In courts we have "Show cause?"
I read some articles on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he had first asked what the patch was and the court provided an inaccurate answer which the man deemed suspicious- they said it was a trade union patch for a something he had previously done and was familiar with- and he realised that the patch wasn't the same. Yes he should not be disobeying instructions, but the court likewise has no business lying to jurors.
How hard can it be to follow instructions? Apparently, for some people, it is not an option.
Or they took their role as a juror seriously enough to not blindly follow a judge's orders. A juror following a judge's instructions is hardly an unbiased juror.
So who the hell is he to give me any instructions, I'm here to determine whether he's guilty or innocent not you. You're just hindering me with the instructions to come to a conclusion. So the court limits you on the facts of the case, how is that even legal. There is Jury nullification.
Then there is what and why was I.C.E. even there to investigate or arrest an individual? The time of visit, what was the agents agenda or mindset? In these days we see govt. agents always want to esculate anything for fear of their safety. They tell the man you need to come down to their office , so he's going to grab his coat.( Fact was he in his PJs, what was the temp that morning?) He reaches for something and your first thought he's reaching for a weapon, WHY? if your next to him how hard is it to wait see what's he is grabbing then make the decision, NOT ASSUME he's going for a weapon? Therefore it's the agents that caused the situation. The disorderly conduct and contact. The suspect is NOT GUILTY.
Where do most REASONABLE people keep their wallet n keys? Not in their PJ's it's either in pants or coat pocket, DUHHH. Cops are such stupid or suspicious individuals of your intent.
Just another example of "dangerous information"! God forbid we have well educated jurists.
Thanks, Steve... A few weeks ago I got a jury questionnaire in the mail. I'm expecting a jury summons any day now. Thanks for the heads-up. Now, tell me, again, about _jury nullification_ ?
(edited for grammar/punctuation/formatting)
I can't do jury duty I have nothing but contempt for the courts no victim no crime
This is why the system is so broken.
So let me get this straight based on your last few sentences. I'm allowed to decide the fate of the case, possibly with life altering or ending ramifications based on what I think I know, but to verify it is wrong?
so a court can hold you responsible for the cost of a trial, but you can not refuse to be on a jury so you do not have that possible liability
I can appreciate the problem of how to handle jurors, but I say there is absolutely no scientific evidence to demonstrate that jurors do their best job by totally obeying the instructions of a judge. These rules were worked out by lawyers and judges dealing with what they personally argue as fair based on their own perspectives and traditions, but they do so as arguments from scientific ignorance. I say it is impossible to be a juror who cannot interact with others for weeks to then be expected to arrive at a proper verdict. This is an unnatural process for how human beings think and process new information.
As a college professor, I cannot imagine requiring students to never discuss the course with anyone until all students do a joint final. What could they possibly learn or clearly understand? Jurors should be able to ask their own questions of witnesses, of the judge and of the opposing attorneys. The court traditions for jurors are not based on an actual understanding of human nature. Instead jurors are treated as if they are totally inept to the process, and the result is too often for longer trials a very inept verdict. And then this inept verdict is defended with the unscientific argument that you were not on the jury.
I’ll agree with the point on jurors being able to ask questions, for clarity etc, but such questions should be asked through the judge, not directly, as they may involve prejudicial responses. Eg, a former felon’s criminal history when in actual fact they Are innocent of this particular crime.
@@paulcollyer801 I observed a trial almost 30 years ago where the person charged with a murder, killed a woman I know with a claw hammer. The defendant had a history of attacking people with various tools including an attempted attack on a prison guard with a hammer he had managed to get a hold of while awaiting trial. The judge ruled that none of this prior information was admissible because it could prejudice the jury. The jury, however, felt that the defendant was not guilty because they saw nothing during the trial to indicate the defendant had any such propensity for such violent behavior, and he was presented as an easy going person. When the jurors discovered the information later, they felt they had made the wrong decision because the truth was kept from them. Can jurors be prejudiced? Certainly, but the solution is not to leave them in the dark, but to help them avoid such prejudices. Even in the deliberation room, it would be helpful for a judge not involved in the trial proper to guide the jurors deliberation and steer them away from faulty assumptions.
Later the acquitted defendant was found guilty of an attempted assault on the prison guard, but the consequences were nothing close to being found guilty of murder. Again, I am more interested in actual scientific evidence about how jurors can process information than the arguments based on mere legal rationalizations.
Too many legal traditions have no scientific basis for believing them to be realistic.
@@RobertWGreaves, and therein lies my point, just because someone has done something similar or identical in the past, does not mean they have this time. Some people reform, others don’t. The case is the one at hand, not the previous ones.
That Judge is insane. I would NEVER pay it.
Sounds like the "officer" injuried their own hand.
Must be nice, being omniscient.
@@Vykk_Draygo Most Hand injuries for police occur from punching someone. This is a self injury.
@@Jamez84 That's what happens when you have a propensity for violence.
@@NM-qd3tm ya, the former school bullies got a future career out of it...
Do whatever you can to get out of jury duty, no matter what. You get treated like shit the entire time.
I haven't sat on a jury in awhile, but I have been to court, and they never allowed me to bring my phone
Question how does this square with the first amendment? I was always taught that part of the freedom of the press clause was freedom to access published works and freedom from censorship including which works you could access. So wouldn't this jury rule be in violation of that or am I miss understanding/have been miss taught about our constitutional right to information?
The jury isn't allowed access to certain outside information because it violates the defendant's right to a fair trial. Restrictions on what jury members are allowed to do mostly just last until the trial is over. A juror is free to look up things after the trial, when it won't unfairly influence the verdict.
You are free to look it up after the case, however, the only evidence you can use in a trial is the knowledge you have before the case begins and what is presented in the case. That is, if he knew that didn't look like a union patch, he could bring that up. If he didn't know what the patch was, he can't say what it is, but his knowledge as a union man shows that probably not a union patch.
The juror actually looked up the goddamn wrong thing!
if he'd kept his research to himself, who knows... but by telling the rest of the jury, he affected the defendant's 5th amendment right to due process. hence why it's a mistrial and a dumb idea.
"Question how does this square with the first amendment?"
It squares with amendments 4-8.
So, was the judge available for cross examination by the accused? If not, isn’t the contempt conviction a violation of due process?
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789. "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941. "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..." U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972).
That makes no sense. Jurors should absolutely be able to look up possible facts for themselves to determine if they believe someone's testimony or not. What if someone testifies as an "expert witness" regarding a topic. If the witness testifies falsely, shouldn't jurors be able to check the veracity of their claims?
Normally that should be the defense lawyers and prosecutors job. Part of the problem is ofcourse that one or both might not be trustworthy.
Im actually kind of early for once. This is interesting. If Im on trial for something serious I we'd would want a jurer that actually cares enough to think about everything. Understand rules made for a reason but they sometimes hurt
OK, so this juror looked up what he 'thought' was the logo.
Did he get it right?? Obviously not.
The logo was clear in a photo and the defense would have studied it carefully because the defendant was asserting he didn't know who the guy was.
Jurors are only supposed to consider what is presented in court, even if other information is available outside. The rule is there for a reason.
Internet research could easily be wrong.
@@grahvis And in this case, was..
This is why I could never sit on a Jury, if I have to make a call on something I need all the facts pertinent to the question. let alone being told something then being told to "forget it".
As a juror, you may WANT all pertinent facts to make a decision, but you only NEED to make a decision based on the information you have when you first walk onto court and what is presented in court.
@@williama.millerii8972 I could not, on good conscience, make a decision that could impact someones else's life without all information relating to and encompassing the question/situation.
@@StormClaw2 If the prosecutor leaves out data or a judge refuses to answer your questions, there is always a two word answer for that..."Not Guilty!". I'll go for jury nullification in a heartbeat! We have WAY too many BS laws in the first place!
@@MrSirwolf2001 I agree sir, I refuse to be involved in a railroaded conviction.
I was on a jury many years ago about a seat belt injury case. The defense argued that the owner's manual for the vehicle described how you should safely use the belt, and the injured party testified that they never read the manual. I actually owned the same vehicle and had the owner's manual [I don't know why I was not excluded from the jury]. I was sore tempted to read the manual but the judge's written instructions to the jury forbade something like that. So I did NO read the manual until AFTER the trial was completely over. I do agree with the judge's contempt ruling in this particular case, but I also understand how that juror felt wanting to get to the bottom of something that bothered him.
It's disgusting that a juror trying to get more information to properly decide the case gets fined. Guess they want everyone dumb, ignorant and completelt dependent on those dishonest fast talking lawyers.
you are on a jury, you are told NOT TO DO INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, why would you go ahead and ignore that and not expect consequences.
Is a jury required to obey a judges instructions a legitimate jury? How can a coerced jury be legitimate, regardless of the reason for the coercion?
I could see people looking up something that they saw that they didn't feel was directly tied to the case (curiosity) but... In this case, if he didn't look it up and had just said.....I think the boarder patrol agent had a white supremacy patch on.... that would have been okay.
The entire point of having a jury, is to NOT listen to anything a judge has to say. All instructions from a judge to a jury member is unconstitutional
Got to be a well-informed juror and they penalize you for it. Always skip out on jury duty it's never worth it.
I recently, last week, was called and empaneled on a jury. We reached a verdict on friday for 2/3 and couldn't agree on the 3rd. Our instructions were indeed to use common sense, our experience, to not perform independent research, visit, and so on. If we had we would have cast much more doubt on the victim as they have had some arrests since then that included charges for tampering with evidence, but we could only go off what was presented as evidence during the trial. It is what it is.
To Steve.would it be legal to ask the judge or wright a note to the judge to explain the patch ?
You could ask, but the judge would just say to only look at the facts and arguments presented in the trial. Jurors are limited to asking certain questions about the law in most jurisdictions, and in places where they are allowed to ask questions about evidence and witnesses, those would be brought up during the trial where the defense and prosecution can respond to them.
I was dismissed from a case after being selected because I read about the case (a year prior of my jury duty). The judge was asking each selected juror (and alternate) if they had prior knowledge of the case, and because it was already couple days into my jury service, judge just told me I can go home instead of going back into the jury pool for the next case.
I think that the penalty should be means tested but that penalty might be appropriate.
retired union pipefitters. he can afford that.
@@frankyflowers that’s an inaccurate conclusion. My dad was a union pipefitter and never made even 20k a year. A lot of pipefitters work construction. Let’s not confuse pipefitters and plumbers.
@@RichieRich20000 was that back when 20k was work 200k? they get paid now. im just a normal certified welder not even certified on pipe and i can afford to pay that.
@@RichieRich20000 maybe your dad had a side family.
@@frankyflowers okay bigshot, you can pay that fine. Probably dumb enough to incur the fine, too.
Hollywood has encouraged juror research and experimentation. Thinking of "Twelve Angry Men" with Henry Fonda
It seems odd that the worst thing justice fears is that the jury will get facts to make decisions with, even something as simple as photos of the patches being discussed.
They've been trying various means to turn the Jury into a rubber stamp for decades now.
Serve Law, not Justice. Popcorn?
.
When a jury member looks up stuff by themselves, there is no chance to defend against it or question the accuracy. There are rules for evidence. Both sides need the opportunity to look at the evidence to make sure there are no problems with it, and to argue about what it implies. There are also laws about what things are allowed to be considered. The news may mention things about a defendant that are not relevant to the case, but make them look bad. Then news might report on witnesses that the prosecution didn't/couldn't use because they weren't trustworthy.