Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:49:55 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> Although if I had to live in Alabama, I'd choose Huntsville.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> For the space camp?
>>
>> I've only been through Huntsville on my way to Birmingham.
>
> I believe I saw something about Huntsville, as the center of the death
> penalty, in a documentary. But maybe that was another Huntsville.
>

Fruce, yoose talkin bout huntsville, TEXAS.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 1:56:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >I've only been through Huntsville on my way to Birmingham.
>
> I believe I saw something about Huntsville, as the center of the death
> penalty, in a documentary. But maybe that was another Huntsville.
>
That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
kill you back." Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 2:01:20 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 1:42:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:49:55 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > >
> > > Although if I had to live in Alabama, I'd choose Huntsville.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> > >
> > For the space camp?
>
> For the jobs. I'm also reliably informed that it has
> restaurants that cater to the engineers that work there.
> Meat-and-three isn't what I'm looking for.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
Oh ok. I don't know much about Huntsville as you gathered from my reply.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 12:20:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 1:56:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >I've only been through Huntsville on my way to Birmingham.
>>
>> I believe I saw something about Huntsville, as the center of the death
>> penalty, in a documentary. But maybe that was another Huntsville.
>>
>That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
>kill you back." Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.

Yes, it was Texas.

On 2020-06-24 1:20 p.m., wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 1:56:34 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:42:41 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I've only been through Huntsville on my way to Birmingham.
>>
>> I believe I saw something about Huntsville, as the center of the death
>> penalty, in a documentary. But maybe that was another Huntsville.
>>
> That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
> kill you back." Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.
>
whether guilty or not!

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-24 1:20 p.m., wrote:
> >
> > That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
> > kill you back." Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.
> >
> whether guilty or not!
>
Show me one that Texas has executed that was 'innocent.'

On 2020-06-24 5:16 p.m., wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>
>> On 2020-06-24 1:20 p.m., wrote:
>>>
>>> That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
>>> kill you back." Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.
>>>
>> whether guilty or not!
>>
> Show me one that Texas has executed that was 'innocent.'
>

Sometimes people get off on technicalities, or after appeals years after
the fact. I can think of a few cases where the guys appealed several
times and were eventually acquitted, but they were probably still guilty
of the crime.

We had a situation here where a pathologist was the expert witness in a
number of infanticide cases. His evidence was questioned in appeals and
other expert witnesses disputed his claims. He ended up losing his
credibility and his standing as an expert witness. In the wake of that,
just about everyone who was convicted in cases where he gave evidence
appealed their convictions. Since he had been the main witness and
since he had lost his expert witness qualifications the crown ended up
dropping the charges. That does not automatically mean that they were
guilty. It just means that the prosecution no longer had a case.

On 6/24/2020 6:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 5:16 p.m., wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2020-06-24 1:20 p.m., wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
>>>> kill you back."Â* Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.
>>>>
>>> whether guilty or not!
>>>
>> Show me one that Texas has executed that was 'innocent.'
>>
>
> Sometimes people get off on technicalities, or after appeals years after
> the fact. I can think of a few cases where the guys appealed several
> times and were eventually acquitted, but they were probably still guilty
> of the crime.
>

We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
innocent people get nailed too.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 20:25:08 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/24/2020 6:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2020-06-24 5:16 p.m., wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2020-06-24 1:20 p.m., wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be Huntsville, Texas where their motto is "You kill us, we
>>>>> kill you back."Â* Texas is not afraid to use the death penalty.
>>>>>
>>>> whether guilty or not!
>>>>
>>> Show me one that Texas has executed that was 'innocent.'
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes people get off on technicalities, or after appeals years after
>> the fact. I can think of a few cases where the guys appealed several
>> times and were eventually acquitted, but they were probably still guilty
>> of the crime.
>>
>
>We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
>innocent people get nailed too.
>
>https://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
>https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
>Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
>to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
>with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
>an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.

lol The victim didn't exist. That's very convincing proof of
innocence.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
> innocent people get nailed too.
>
> https://www.innocenceproject.org/
>
> https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
> Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
> to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
> with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
> an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.

I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
released many years later after found innocent. That's
so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
a trial.

This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.

I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
part of convicting one innocent person.

And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
the lowest paid schmucks.

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
> > innocent people get nailed too.
> >
> > https://www.innocenceproject.org/
> >
> > https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
> > Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
> > to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
> > with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
> > an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.
>
> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
> released many years later after found innocent. That's
> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
> a trial.
>
> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>
> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> part of convicting one innocent person.
>
> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> the lowest paid schmucks.

Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
a low-paid schmuck.

I would never try to get out of jury duty. Because "duty".

Cindy Hamilton

On 6/25/2020 7:41 AM, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
>> innocent people get nailed too.
>>
>> https://www.innocenceproject.org/
>>
>> https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
>> Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
>> to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
>> with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
>> an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.
>
> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
> released many years later after found innocent. That's
> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
> a trial.
>
> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>
> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> part of convicting one innocent person.
>
> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> the lowest paid schmucks.
>

Depends on the evidence. Real evidence, not something possibly pulled
out of the DA's ass to get a conviction. Juror is a serious
responsibility and I would do my best to be fair and only convict on
hard evidence.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:41:08 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
>released many years later after found innocent. That's
>so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
>a trial.
>
>This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>
>I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
>case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
>part of convicting one innocent person.

The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 06:33:33 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>
>> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
>> released many years later after found innocent. That's
>> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
>> a trial.
>>
>> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>>
>> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
>> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
>> part of convicting one innocent person.
>>
>> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
>> the lowest paid schmucks.
>
>Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
>based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
>a low-paid schmuck.
>
>I would never try to get out of jury duty. Because "duty".

I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
I can to get out of it.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....
> Depends on the evidence. Real evidence, not something possibly pulled
> out of the DA's ass to get a conviction. Juror is a serious
> responsibility and I would do my best to be fair and only convict on
> hard evidence.

i am in the mood to write this down so skip if you don't
want a wind-bag of story...

my experience so far with jury duty was that i was glad to
not be chosen for a "he-said"/"she-said" domestic violence
case, but since i wasn't chosen i didn't stay to hear the
finer details. i was next in line though if someone else
had gotten out of it i'd have been possibly chosen - but i
think i would have had to admit i had a negative opinion
of the guy from the start...

from the beginning the guy was going to defend himself
(and was doing a real poor job of it in the jury selection
part) and i doubt he won just based upon how bad that went.

most of the other jurors in the groups that day were
called for a murder trial. i was very glad to not be
in that. i just don't like to see that sort of stuff at
all.

it was a very stress-filled day for me because while i
was a bit early in setting out to get to the court-house i
was half-way there and realized i didn't have my wallet
and figured they would check id's so i had to scramble to
get back here and then back to the court-house on time.
the roads weren't great, it was the middle of winter and
there had been a storm. i was glad nobody else was on
the road. i'm a very good driver and have a lot of
experience driving in poor conditions, but i was pressing
the edge more than i liked that morning.

i did get back only a few minutes late and nobody was
checking the time at the door so i signed in and all was
ok.

in the court-room for the trial i would have been
selected for the judge was not happy at all when he called
off the names of people who should have been there who were
not there. i'm not sure if he did any follow-up fines or
warrants for those who didn't show up. some people showed
up, signed their names and then left. i had a book to read.
i try to always travel with a book to read for any appt or
gathering or just because i like to read and hate waiting
for anything with nothing to read.

the other part of the stress filled day was that the
automatic phone system was not working properly and the
on-line system did not always match what the phone system
said so i wasn't sure which one mattered more. in filling
out the on-line stuff that i did i made a mistake and
didn't notice it and there was no way to correct that
without calling the court-house. i talked to a clerk who
said they changed what they needed to change, but then a
few days later i get a note in the mail saying i was denied
my request for an absense but that wasn't what i intended
at all and the phone call was to correct that error on my
part. so i really had little faith in the system by the
time i got to the court-house and then went through the
rest of it.

i was paid $12.45 or so for the duty. i'd have done it
for free as a citizen, but really i thought it was rather
messy and they needed to fix their system - they had a lot
of phone recordings that they had to update each day and
by certain times. being some distance away from the
court-house here out in the sticks and during the winter
there was some moments where i doubted i would have been
on-time if they had called my group in since they didn't
update the phone messages very promptly.

having been through the whole process once now it won't
be so odd if i get called again - i sure hope they fixed
the issues...


songbird

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 9:50:50 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Juror is a serious
> responsibility and I would do my best to be fair and only convict on
> hard evidence.
>
That's the truth. I've been a juror on a murder trial and it does cause
a person to stop and think how serious it is to have someone's future in
your hands. It wasn't hard to find the creep guilty, just deciding if it
was murder in the second degree, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>
In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty. The criminal statute
under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate sentence
for the particular crime.

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
> I can to get out of it.
>
Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
behind the ears to look presentable to the court.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
>> I can to get out of it.
>>
>Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
>You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
>cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
>behind the ears to look presentable to the court.

I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
just another lowlife meth addict...

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
>> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>>
>In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty. The criminal statute
>under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate sentence
>for the particular crime.

Yes, and that technical part isn't left to the jury.

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
> >Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
> >You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
> >attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
> >cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
> >behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>
> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
> just another lowlife meth addict...
>
I've only served on criminal court cases. I have no idea how interesting
the civil cases would be. I was in the pool of jurors to be selected for
the Vanderbilt rape case but they seated a jury before I was questioned.

On 6/25/2020 7:41 AM, Gary wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> We have a flawed system. Nice when the bad guys get put away but some
>> innocent people get nailed too.
>>
>> https://www.innocenceproject.org/
>>
>> https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/
>> Children and people with mental disabilities are especially vulnerable
>> to being wrongly convicted. EJI won the release of Diane Tucker, a woman
>> with intellectual disability who was wrongfully convicted of murdering
>> an infant, by obtaining medical evidence that proved the baby never existed.
>
> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
> released many years later after found innocent. That's
> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
> a trial.
>
> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>
> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> part of convicting one innocent person.
>
> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> the lowest paid schmucks.
>
Not to worry, Gary, I doubt you'd make it through voir dire.

Jill

Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 2:19:35 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
>>> I can to get out of it.
>>>
>> Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
>> You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>> attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
>> cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
>> behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>
> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
> just another lowlife meth addict...
>

You'd preconvict. Good that you'd never be on a jury there. Having
an asshat like you would be the crime.

On 6/25/2020 7:45 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
>>> You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>>> attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
>>> cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
>>> behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>>
>> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
>> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
>> just another lowlife meth addict...
>>
Just another lowlife meth addict who did what? Killed another person?

> I've only served on criminal court cases. I have no idea how interesting
> the civil cases would be. I was in the pool of jurors to be selected for
> the Vanderbilt rape case but they seated a jury before I was questioned.
>
I wouldn't have any problem serving on a jury. When I first moved here
I was served with notice I'd been called to jury duty. There were about
30 other potential jurors waiting. We filled out some forms, were given
numbers and taken into a courtroom. We had to go through voir dire.
Most of us were immediately dismissed. The attorneys for both sides
were there, asking questions, looking for specific types of people to
fill the jury box in their favour. (It did seem to me the Judge was half
asleep or didn't really care about what was going on.)

Another dismissed potential juror did recommend a seafood restaurant as
I was walking towards my car in the parking lot.

Jill

On 6/25/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
>> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>>
> In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty. The criminal statute
> under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate sentence
> for the particular crime.
>
Not every state has the death penalty. And it typically takes years
before a person is executed. Usually has to be a particularly heinous
crime and all legal appeals over the course of many years exhausted.

Miss Manners doesn't approve of this thread drift.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 7:45 PM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT),
>>> "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why???* Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is
>>>> here.
>>>> You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>>>> attorney and the district attorney present their cases.* And in
>>>> some
>>>> cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and
>>>> washed
>>>> behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>>>
>>> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and
>>> listening to
>>> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but
>>> if it's
>>> just another lowlife meth addict...
>>>
> Just another lowlife meth addict who did what?* Killed another person?
>
>> I've only served on criminal court cases.* I have no idea how
>> interesting
>> the civil cases would be.* I was in the pool of jurors to be
>> selected for
>> the Vanderbilt rape case but they seated a jury before I was
>> questioned.
>>
> I wouldn't have any problem serving on a jury.* When I first moved
> here I was served with notice I'd been called to jury duty.* There
> were about 30 other potential jurors waiting.* We filled out some
> forms, were given numbers and taken into a courtroom.* We had to go
> through voir dire. Most of us were immediately dismissed.* The
> attorneys for both sides were there, asking questions, looking for
> specific types of people to fill the jury box in their favour. (It
> did seem to me the Judge was half asleep or didn't really care
> about what was going on.)
>
> Another dismissed potential juror did recommend a seafood
> restaurant as I was walking towards my car in the parking lot.
>
> Jill

Interesting. In Tennessee, they don't allow jurors to smoke a
number. They'll shit if you just light up a cigarette.

And they don't even give you cream cheese, let alone fancy voir
dire they have in S. Carolina.

I guess jury duty here is more like alabama or texas. Nuthin fancy.

jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on
>>> the
>>> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>>>
>> In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty.* The criminal
>> statute
>> under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate
>> sentence
>> for the particular crime.
>>
> Not every state has the death penalty.* And it typically takes
> years before a person is executed.* Usually has to be a
> particularly heinous crime and all legal appeals over the course of
> many years exhausted.
>
> Miss Manners doesn't approve of this thread drift.
>
> Jill

Thank you Karen.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 20:59:40 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 6/25/2020 7:45 PM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
>>>> You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>>>> attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
>>>> cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
>>>> behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>>>
>>> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
>>> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
>>> just another lowlife meth addict...
>>>
>Just another lowlife meth addict who did what? Killed another person?

Yes, for instance.

>> I've only served on criminal court cases. I have no idea how interesting
>> the civil cases would be. I was in the pool of jurors to be selected for
>> the Vanderbilt rape case but they seated a jury before I was questioned.
>>
>I wouldn't have any problem serving on a jury. When I first moved here
>I was served with notice I'd been called to jury duty. There were about
>30 other potential jurors waiting. We filled out some forms, were given
>numbers and taken into a courtroom. We had to go through voir dire.
>Most of us were immediately dismissed. The attorneys for both sides
>were there, asking questions, looking for specific types of people to
>fill the jury box in their favour. (It did seem to me the Judge was half
>asleep or didn't really care about what was going on.)
>
>Another dismissed potential juror did recommend a seafood restaurant as
>I was walking towards my car in the parking lot.

Ok, maybe I'll go after all

On 6/25/2020 6:22 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT), "
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
>>> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>>>
>> In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty. The criminal statute
>> under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate sentence
>> for the particular crime.
>
> Yes, and that technical part isn't left to the jury.
>

Mostly yes. Depending on the charges, the jury may find him guilty of
3rd degree instead of 1st degree making for a lesser sentence. Final
sentence is still on the judge but he is limited to that degree.

On 2020-06-25 7:06 p.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 5:37 PM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 1:53:41 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
>>> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?
>>>
>> In Tennessee, the judge decides on the penalty.Â* The criminal statute
>> under which the person was convicted provides the appropriate sentence
>> for the particular crime.
>>
> Not every state has the death penalty.Â* And it typically takes years
> before a person is executed.Â* Usually has to be a particularly heinous
> crime and all legal appeals over the course of many years exhausted.
>
> Miss Manners doesn't approve of this thread drift.
>
> Jill
When the UK had the death penalty, three Sundays passed between the
sentence and the execution. Shudder!!!!

On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 9:52:31 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>
> When the UK had the death penalty, three Sundays passed between the
> sentence and the execution. Shudder!!!!
>
Many times here it is 30 or more years before the accused receives his
just reward. We can thank lawyers for filing appeal after appeal.

Just last month one was granted another stay of execution because of the
Covid19 virus here in Tennessee.

> On 6/25/2020 7:45 PM, wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why??? Jury duty is really, really interesting, at least it is here.
>>>> You get an idea of how a trial really works, how well the defense
>>>> attorney and the district attorney present their cases. And in some
>>>> cases, you get to see a cancer on society all spiffed up and washed
>>>> behind the ears to look presentable to the court.
>>>
>>> I think it would involve a lot of waiting, red tape and listening to
>>> waffling. Maybe it's worth it if the crime is interesting, but if it's
>>> just another lowlife meth addict...
>>>
> Just another lowlife meth addict who did what? Killed another person?
>
>> I've only served on criminal court cases. I have no idea how
>> interesting the civil cases would be. I was in the pool of jurors to
>> be selected for the Vanderbilt rape case but they seated a jury before
>> I was questioned.
>>
> I wouldn't have any problem serving on a jury. When I first moved here
> I was served with notice I'd been called to jury duty. There were about
> 30 other potential jurors waiting. We filled out some forms, were given
> numbers and taken into a courtroom. We had to go through voir dire.
> Most of us were immediately dismissed. The attorneys for both sides
> were there, asking questions, looking for specific types of people to
> fill the jury box in their favour. (It did seem to me the Judge was half
> asleep or didn't really care about what was going on.)
>
> Another dismissed potential juror did recommend a seafood restaurant as
> I was walking towards my car in the parking lot.
>
> Jill

I showed up for jury duty one time at a large municipal courthouse in
Phoenix. It was on fire! I went home and called them up to tell them
I'd showed up. They said I'd been dismissed. I was glad as the pay was
only about $4.50 a day.

"songbird" wrote in message ...

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....
> Depends on the evidence. Real evidence, not something possibly pulled
> out of the DA's ass to get a conviction. Juror is a serious
> responsibility and I would do my best to be fair and only convict on
> hard evidence.

i am in the mood to write this down so skip if you don't
want a wind-bag of story...

my experience so far with jury duty was that i was glad to
not be chosen for a "he-said"/"she-said" domestic violence
case, but since i wasn't chosen i didn't stay to hear the
finer details. i was next in line though if someone else
had gotten out of it i'd have been possibly chosen - but i
think i would have had to admit i had a negative opinion
of the guy from the start...

from the beginning the guy was going to defend himself
(and was doing a real poor job of it in the jury selection
part) and i doubt he won just based upon how bad that went.

most of the other jurors in the groups that day were
called for a murder trial. i was very glad to not be
in that. i just don't like to see that sort of stuff at
all.

it was a very stress-filled day for me because while i
was a bit early in setting out to get to the court-house i
was half-way there and realized i didn't have my wallet
and figured they would check id's so i had to scramble to
get back here and then back to the court-house on time.
the roads weren't great, it was the middle of winter and
there had been a storm. i was glad nobody else was on
the road. i'm a very good driver and have a lot of
experience driving in poor conditions, but i was pressing
the edge more than i liked that morning.

i did get back only a few minutes late and nobody was
checking the time at the door so i signed in and all was
ok.

in the court-room for the trial i would have been
selected for the judge was not happy at all when he called
off the names of people who should have been there who were
not there. i'm not sure if he did any follow-up fines or
warrants for those who didn't show up. some people showed
up, signed their names and then left. i had a book to read.
i try to always travel with a book to read for any appt or
gathering or just because i like to read and hate waiting
for anything with nothing to read.

the other part of the stress filled day was that the
automatic phone system was not working properly and the
on-line system did not always match what the phone system
said so i wasn't sure which one mattered more. in filling
out the on-line stuff that i did i made a mistake and
didn't notice it and there was no way to correct that
without calling the court-house. i talked to a clerk who
said they changed what they needed to change, but then a
few days later i get a note in the mail saying i was denied
my request for an absense but that wasn't what i intended
at all and the phone call was to correct that error on my
part. so i really had little faith in the system by the
time i got to the court-house and then went through the
rest of it.

i was paid $12.45 or so for the duty. i'd have done it
for free as a citizen, but really i thought it was rather
messy and they needed to fix their system - they had a lot
of phone recordings that they had to update each day and
by certain times. being some distance away from the
court-house here out in the sticks and during the winter
there was some moments where i doubted i would have been
on-time if they had called my group in since they didn't
update the phone messages very promptly.

having been through the whole process once now it won't
be so odd if i get called again - i sure hope they fixed
the issues...


songbird

====

Good luck and thanks for sharing

"Bruce" wrote in message ...

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 06:33:33 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>>
>> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
>> released many years later after found innocent. That's
>> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
>> a trial.
>>
>> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
>>
>> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
>> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
>> part of convicting one innocent person.
>>
>> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
>> the lowest paid schmucks.
>
>Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
>based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
>a low-paid schmuck.
>
>I would never try to get out of jury duty. Because "duty".

I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
I can to get out of it.

=====

Many years ago I was called for jury service here. I can't remember what
the case was. When we were in and lad in the dock was really arrogant. Not
sure why but the case was stopped and we were all able to leave. Apparently
there has to be a certain amount of time before a person can be called
again. But I've never heard anything since!!

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 12:32:05 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "Bruce" wrote in message ... .
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 06:33:33 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 7:43:17 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> >>
> >> I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
> >> released many years later after found innocent. That's
> >> so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
> >> a trial.
> >>
> >> This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
> >>
> >> I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> >> case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> >> part of convicting one innocent person.
> >>
> >> And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> >> the lowest paid schmucks.
> >
> >Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
> >based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
> >a low-paid schmuck.
> >
> >I would never try to get out of jury duty. Because "duty".
>
> I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
> I can to get out of it.
>
> =====
>
> Many years ago I was called for jury service here. I can't remember what
> the case was. When we were in and lad in the dock was really arrogant. Not
> sure why but the case was stopped and we were all able to leave. Apparently
> there has to be a certain amount of time before a person can be called
> again. But I've never heard anything since!!

I went to the courthouse years ago for jury selection. We was waiting around and a guy came out and told us the defendant had made a plea deal and we could go. This is where a the defendant pleads guilty or no-contest and waives a trial. This saves the system and everybody involved time and money. The judge is so happy about it that he's willing to give a lighter sentence. American justice loves to save time and money! Who the heck doesn't?

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> > I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> > case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> > part of convicting one innocent person.
> >
> > And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> > the lowest paid schmucks.
>
> Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
> based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
> a low-paid schmuck.

You misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't talking about your
personal income, just your juror pay for the trial.

I was in the middle of a job when I got called for jury
duty. Rather than making $250 that day, I got paid $20
for my day in court.

The jurors are the lowest paid shanghaied schmucks.
The judge is paid well for his day.
The lawyers are paid well. Even the deputys and all
other court people get paid well for their time.
Us jurors got paid $20 for the day. Not even close
to minimum wage.

All this city money spent to try a fellow that
shoplifted "a $5 box of steak."

I was so damn mad at how frivolous this trial was.
I was *so* tempted to stand up and open my wallet
and give the grocery store the $5 stupid money, and
say "Here's your 5, let's all go home."
Naturally, judge wouldn't have liked that.

Even worse... this was the fellow's 3rd shoplifting
arrest. The judge informed us that if we find him
guilty, he faced 8 years in the state prison.
(3 misdeamors = a felony in Virginia)

But we shouldn't consider that. Our job was to only
determine if he was guilty or not. Well he shouldn't
have told us the penality then.

Imagine what 8 years in prison would cost the state too.
All for stealing a $5 box of steak. (I assumed Steakums).

I also was NOT going to vote to send him to prison for
8 years just for that. I would think some hours of
community service would have been a better sentence.

Anyway the trial went on all morning. I was convinced
that the defendant was guilty but I was NOT going to
vote that. Not with that harsh sentence. That was
just so wrong.

Luckily, the trial was dismissed before it ended. WHEW!

He had ditched that steak before they chased him down so
they really didn't have any real proof.

Two weeks later, I got called in for another trial.
Waited around for 2 hours then right before the trial,
a deal was made so we all got sent home.

Another worthless $20 a day in the court system.
At least that time, I got to work on my own that afternoon.

On 2020-06-25 11:28 p.m., wrote:
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 9:52:31 PM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>
>> When the UK had the death penalty, three Sundays passed between the
>> sentence and the execution. Shudder!!!!
>>
> Many times here it is 30 or more years before the accused receives his
> just reward. We can thank lawyers for filing appeal after appeal.


After that amount of time some of the witnesses will be gone and the
evidence perhaps mislaid. They end up getting acquitted for lack of
evidence, not necessarily because the were actually innocent.

>
> Just last month one was granted another stay of execution because of the
> Covid19 virus here in Tennessee.


That seems like an odd reason to stay an execution.

On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 8:22:32 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> > > I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> > > case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> > > part of convicting one innocent person.
> > >
> > > And in the entire court system, the "shanghaied" jurors are
> > > the lowest paid schmucks.
> >
> > Really? I sat on a jury and voted not guilty in a criminal trial
> > based on the evidence (which wasn't much, in this case). I'm not
> > a low-paid schmuck.
>
> You misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't talking about your
> personal income, just your juror pay for the trial.
>
> I was in the middle of a job when I got called for jury
> duty. Rather than making $250 that day, I got paid $20
> for my day in court.

When I was on jury duty, I was paid by my employer just as if I
had been at work.

Cindy Hamilton

Bruce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 07:41:08 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> >I see that on the news way too often. Someone convicted then
> >released many years later after found innocent. That's
> >so wrong. Many times, certain evidence is withheld in
> >a trial.
> >
> >This is why I would refuse to vote guilty when on a jury.
> >
> >I could be a juror on a civil case but never a criminal
> >case. I'd rather let 100 guilty people go than be a
> >part of convicting one innocent person.
>
> The jury decides on guilty or innocent, but the judge decides on the
> the death penalty or the length of the jail term, is that correct?

Correct. See my other post about my day in court on a jury.

Bruce wrote:
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >I would never try to get out of jury duty. Because "duty".
>
> I can probably be called for jury duty in Australia. I'd do everything
> I can to get out of it.

Definitely try to get out of it. Normally, a lack of reliable
transportation claim will do it.

Cindy can do her "civic duty" and mine too.