Posted on 02/06/2002 5:48:13 PM PST by Nachum
The county of Los Angeles refused to accept the excuses I put down. As in the days of the military draft, I have been called into service. Worse yet, the judge won't let me off after I explained my financial duress in a possible two week criminal trial. Now we come to JURY SELECTOION. I have to think of a good line to tell the prosecuting and defense attorney to convice them that I would be a poor choice to sit on their jury.
So- I am asking my fellow FReepers if they have had similar experience and can give guidance, a good retort, or tactic. I am counting on you!
If I don't want to be on the jury......during the interview process I ask a question of one of the attorneys which clearly implies that I am against his client.
Works every time.
If you're ever on trial, you deserve twelve of your own kind!
First, the defendant's attorney asked the jury pool, Who has bumper stickers on their car? All hands raised, were dismissed from duty.
Second, I have this innate dislike of police officers who lie; the slightest whiff of a lie, and / or sign of a police officer who does not respect the Constitution and the principle of limited government, which is to say, the limits of an officer's authority ... and I will consider such an officer as lower than all, because the abuse of police powers is tyranny.
Third, because of the deplorable presentation by the state's prosecutor, who was more sure of his theatrical abilities than the facts, on several of the criminal charges, we found the defendant Not Guilty --- much to the disgust of the judge (who, by the way, could have cared less that a police officer would lie).
Fourth, among the evidence supposedly against the defendant, were one item and one incident which proved that a particular detective / investigator on the police force had not only lied, but forged portions of a document introduced as evidence.
Fifth, a veteran police officer, with considerable wisdom (it really was smooth), neatly worked his way through the minefield of stating precisely what he knew, in very specific terms, without any editorializing ... and thereby avoided the attempts of the prosecutor to insinuate the officer's experience with the defendant, into the op-ed which was the so-called "evidence" produced by the aforementioned, obviously lying detective.
Well, the creep, ie. "the perp," we found Guilty on enough of the many charges, to put him away for 15 years without parole.
But the judge made a remark to the newspapers after the trial, to the effect of, he would not want the jury members back in his court again.
Thereby, did I manage to be permanently "disbarred" from practicing "jury nullification" before the courts around here.
:-)
---max
How nice. Your employee -- who almost certainly knew more about the case, the defendant and the victim, than you did -- exercised his conscience. And you punished him for it.
I'm glad you're not my boss -- and you should be glad your employee doesn't know that was your motivation. It could be construed as jury tampering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.