• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Spent Two Weeks on Jury Duty - Murder Trial

iamwiz82

iamwiz82

Lifer
Quite the experience I have to say. It was really interesting and I found the entire process to be fascinating. It is a lot different judging someone when you know you have to determine whether or not he will spend a large portion of his life in prison potentially. The moral implications were quite a bit heavier than I would have ever expected of myself.

We ended up finding him guilty of second degree murder after almost a week of deliberation.
 
I've got to jury duty a few times but my name has never been even called to be a potential juror. The thing is that I sort of wanted to be called just to see what the process was like and at the time, it wasn't an issue to be on a jury for a few days. Oh well.
 
iamwiz82 said:
We ended up finding him guilty of second degree murder after almost a week of deliberation.
Click to expand...

Did it take so long due to the volume of evidence, and wanting to do a through job, or were there people on the jury who weren't convinced the defendant was guilty or who felt the evidence presented wasn't strong enough?
 
Lifted said:
Did it take so long due to the volume of evidence, and wanting to do a through job, or were there people on the jury who weren't convinced the defendant was guilty or who felt the evidence presented wasn't strong enough?
Click to expand...

It was a wild case. No guns were found, they were all ditched. The bullets which killed the victim weren't found, but the shell casings in the yard were the same type as the gun the defendant owned (CCW). That being said, at least two other guns were involved so we couldn't be sure the victim was killed by the defendant, but he was found guilt via Aiding and Abetting. I would not have found him guilty but during his interrogation he admitted to actually shooting the gun. Others felt it was first degree, some thought it was manslaughter.

DaTT said:
how was the pay?
Click to expand...

$25 the first day and $40 each additional day. Or... less than minimum wage..
 
iamwiz82 said:
It was a wild case. No guns were found, they were all ditched. The bullets which killed the victim weren't found, but the shell casings in the yard were the same type as the gun the defendant owned (CCW). That being said, at least two other guns were involved so we couldn't be sure the victim was killed by the defendant, but he was found guilt via Aiding and Abetting. I would not have found him guilty but during his interrogation he admitted to actually shooting the gun. Others felt it was first degree, some thought it was manslaughter.



$25 the first day and $40 each additional day. Or... less than minimum wage..
Click to expand...


You seriously sent someone to prison on this lack of evidence?
 
alent1234 said:
You seriously sent someone to prison on this lack of evidence?
Click to expand...


That isn't what he said. The defendant and others were commiting a crime. In the process of that crime guns were fired and someone was killed. The defendant admitted shooting a gun. He is guilty. All of them are guilty.

" but he was found guilt via Aiding and Abetting. I would not have found him guilty but during his interrogation he admitted to actually shooting the gun."
Click to expand...

Lots of states have that law. It applies even if one of his buddies in crime was killed.
 
pcgeek11 said:
That isn't what he said. The defendant and others were commiting a crime. In the process of that crime guns were fired and someone was killed. The defendant admitted shooting a gun. He is guilty. All of them are guilty.



Lots of states have that law. It applies even if one of his buddies in crime was killed.
Click to expand...

Yep. He and others came out with guns drawn at a group of people outside of a vehicle and then opened fire. It was a case of mistaken identity, very sad indeed.

We found out after the verdict was read that the other person in the case was also found guilty by a separate jury. Both men were on trial with the prosecutor asking for 1st degree murder and both juries came back with 2nd.
 
iamwiz82 said:
I would not have found him guilty but during his interrogation he admitted to actually shooting the gun.
Click to expand...

You'd think with L&O being on as long as it has, people would at least have the basics down... keep your fucking mouth shut and get a lawyer. I had 3 different history teachers drill this into our heads in high school, then again by multiple different profs in college. I guess if you drop out of school in 7th grade you might be at a bit of a disadvantage, but if anyone should know the absolute basics, you'd think it would be criminals.
 
Lifted said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because most juries are gutless and won't come back with first degree murder unless there's clear video of a terrorist taking a chainsaw to a busload of orphans and then bragging about it afterward. Even in cases that are clearly first degree the juries will try to convict of some lesser offense instead so they can feel better about themselves.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
Because most juries are gutless and won't come back with first degree murder unless there's clear video of a terrorist taking a chainsaw to a busload of orphans and then bragging about it afterward. Even in cases that are clearly first degree the juries will try to convict of some lesser offense instead so they can feel better about themselves.
Click to expand...

I thought the law states such n such is first degree, and such n such is second degree. Just wondering what about the law and the case made them conclude it was second degree, though I do think a lot of jurors, if given the choice, will choose a lesser crime if they aren't 100% convinced somebody has done what they were charged with, and that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
 
I got called earlier this year but didn't get picked. Spent half a day sitting around reading a good book. They had 1 two week trial they needed a jury for but they picked enough primary and alternates by 12:30 that they let the rest of us go.
 
Lifted said:
I thought the law states such n such is first degree, and such n such is second degree. Just wondering what about the law and the case made them conclude it was second degree, though I do think a lot of jurors, if given the choice, will choose a lesser crime if they aren't 100% convinced somebody has done what they were charged with, and that whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
Click to expand...

Beyond a reasonable doubt applies to all. Since there wasn't premeditation it's hard to justify 1st. There was no planning involved.
 
I would never want to be at the mercy of a jury, with how stupid and easily manipulated the average person is. Guilt or innocence may have very little to do with the verdict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top