Jury duty! Again!

[billt]

I'm not trying to "justify" anything. I'm simply not going to do it. End of story.  Bill T.

[Timothy]

We cannot pick and chose what parts of our Constitution we want to believe in, we must accept them all or go through the process for change.

In MA, state law requires employers to pay up to three days of salary and CT is five days.  Most trial last less than a day on average, I don't know about federal courts.  I've been called, had to delay and was called and dismissed last year on a tort case.  I would never try and get out of it or just trash the summons.  It is my duty to the community in which I live.  Sure, some folks may be put in a financial hardship but most folks can do three days or a week with out too much trouble.

Frankly Bill, I'm a little disappointed you'd use monetary reasons for shirking your responsibilities.  I would guess you spent nearly what I earned last year on guns and ammunition alone.  You can certainly afford more than most.

You can't complain about a system you chose to ignore.

[billt]

You can't complain about a system you chose to ignore.

It has ignored me far longer than I have it.  Bill T.

[droggsey]

How many people on this forum would turn in their guns if the 2nd amendment became as perverted as the current jury process? I would bet not many.

Does anyone think that people in the late 1700's would have served on a jury if it meant they could possibly lose a few weeks of time uncompensated?

The court says "Hey farmer John we need you to serve on a jury, the trial could last a month." Farmer John replies "Screw you its harvest season and I will lose my crops." Court replies" Too bad its your duty, we don't care if you and your family starve this winter." Hmmmm..... I don't think that would have gone over very well back then and it shouldn't go over well now.

[tombogan03884]

How many people on this forum would turn in their guns if the 2nd amendment became as perverted as the current jury process? I would bet not many.

Does anyone think that people in the late 1700's would have served on a jury if it meant they could possibly lose a few weeks of time uncompensated?

The court says "Hey farmer John we need you to serve on a jury, the trial could last a month." Farmer John replies "Screw you its harvest season and I will lose my crops." Court replies" Too bad its your duty, we don't care if you and your family starve this winter." Hmmmm..... I don't think that would have gone over very well back then and it shouldn't go over well now.

It's part of why Thoreau went to jail, for refusing Jury duty and poll tax, He was protesting the Mexican war.
Also, trials were scheduled to not interfere with planting or harvesting, the Judges had their own places to tend after all.   

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Another "reason" I told them was if the defendant was black or hispanic I would vote GUILTY! I said this was not because of racism, but rather mathematics. By chucking any and all testimony and going on a strictly numbers basis, I would have at least 80% odds of a truthful, proper, and above all correct conviction. He didn't want to hear it anymore than the fact I was working nights. I now believe him. I offer up O.J.'s jury as living proof. To quote Brenda Moran, the Simpson jury foreman when asked why they didn't convict, her reply was, "There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco!" Why should there have been ANY blood in the Bronco?   Bill T.

[Solus]

Another "reason" I told them was if the defendant was black or hispanic I would vote GUILTY! I said this was not because of racism, but rather mathematics. By chucking any and all testimony and going on a strictly numbers basis, I would have at least 80% odds of a truthful, proper, and above all correct conviction. He didn't want to hear it anymore than the fact I was working nights. I now believe him. I offer up O.J.'s jury as living proof. To quote Brenda Moran, the Simpson jury foreman when asked why they didn't convict, her reply was, "There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco!" Why should there have been ANY blood in the Bronco?   Bill T.

On the topic of OJ. 

While I think there is a close to 100% chance he did it, some of the evidence and the way it was handled would give me reasonable doubt.  I am not an expert on this case and only know what was presented by the news  media, so I am sure I don't have the full story, but my observations are based upon what I do know from these sources.

As to the blood in the Bronco.  The police claimed that they entered OJ's house after discovering the bodies because they went to his house to check on him and found a trail of blood on the driveway leading into the house and they were concerned for his safety.

Well, if there was enough blood to leave a trail on the drive way after he drove  home in the bronco, there would be a good amount of blood in the bronco.

Next and related to the blood trail.  They found the other glove between near the guest house and Kato (or was it Toto?) claimed to have heard a thump in the night suggesting OJ came over the wall and dropped the glove.

Now, did he first dribble blood up the drive way to the house and then go back out and vault the wall and drop the glove or did he vault the wall and then go back out and dribble blood?   Cops want it both ways to cover different parts of their case.

Next, the blood sample taken from OJ.  It took several hours for it to be delivered to the lab and when it finally was delivered, there was a small amount missing.  Maybe the cop with the sample stopped for doughnuts and some of the sample evaporated on the trip?

They say the amount missing from the sample was not enough to be used to plant where OJ's blood was found.  But it was enough to get a reading and have that type of blood reported as being found on the other pieces of evidence.  That would mean other cops would  have to be in on the frame up.  I've see incidents where cops have worked together in cover ups and frame ups before so it is not an impossibility.

What I think happened is that the cops were so sure OJ did it (and I believe they were correct) that they decided to stack the deck and make for an open and shut case.   But in doing so, they introduced "reasonable doubt" that any and all evidence might be falsified.  At least in my mind.

[billt]

All of that may in fact be true, but as to "reasonable doubt", I'm not sure either way. I do know that if I climbed into a friend or co-workers car to get a ride and noticed blood, I would wonder how it got there, not make a comment to the effect of, "Hey Joe, you sure don't have very much blood in your car today, what's wrong?"....................    Bill T.

[Solus]

All of that may in fact be true, but as to "reasonable doubt", I'm not sure either way. I do know that if I climbed into a friend or co-workers car to get a ride and noticed blood, I would wonder how it got there, not make a comment to the effect of, "Hey Joe, you sure don't have very much blood in your car today, what's wrong?"....................    Bill T.

Exactly.  In the OJ case there would need to be enough blood to be noticed at least.  If there was not enough to notice, then something does not add up.

[tombogan03884]

Whether he did it or not is irrelevant.
The only part that counts is that the Jury ruled he was NOT GUILTY.
Government didn't like that verdict so they got him in civil court where the rules a less strict.