I was on a Jury yesterday

I was put on a six person jury yesterday for a lawsuit involving a car accident.   It wasn't fault of the accident, that we were deciding, that had already been decided.  It was about whether or not the accident caused the plaintiff's injuries, and to what extent was he injured.   I am not too proud of the job I did.   I had a bad night's sleep the night before and had difficulty paying attention.   I'm thinking I should have told the judge that I was tired and wasn't 100%, but I didn't want to make it look like I just trying to get out of jury duty.    I am sure I missed some small details.   But I did try my best to pay attention.   I am not sure I came to the right verdict.   When we went in the jury room to deliberate, I was kind of siding with the plaintiff, but others showed me doubts in the plaintiff's case that I hadn't considered.   Had I originally bought into the plaintiff's story too much?    I don't know.  Were these doubts that I had and the doubts that others showed me(and I agreed with when they did show them to me), enough to decide for the defendant?  I don't know.   If it had been a criminal case and the measuring stick, reasonable doubt, the doubts I had would clearly be enough.  But the measuring stick in a lawsuit is preponderance of the evidence.   I think it is still possible that the plaintiff had the preponderance of the evidence, if only by a small amount.  I am thinking I let my vote be swayed too easily.  Of course one thing to consider is that only 5 out of the six jurors needed to agree to reach a verdict.   The 5 five jurors clearly sided with the defendant and thought plaintiff was just out to get whatever money the plaintiff could get.  In just about ever one of the questions, they all raised their hands and voted to side with the defendant before I did, so whether or not I sided with them would not have changed the verdict.    But I still feel bad.   I should have done a better job.  I should have stuck to my guns more.   I also feel the whole jury rushed to decision to avoid having to come back the next day.   I do think not wanting to return the next day may have affected me as well.    Henry Fonda I was not.   

If even I, who care about justice and our system of justice so much can mess up,  how badly do other jurors mess up that don't give a shit?  What if this had been a criminal trial or worse a murder trial?  What if I had let a guilty person go free because I was tired and wanted to go home and take a nap?  Fortunately, the worst that happened here was that I screw the plaintiff out of money the plaintiff was owed. I wasn't the only on who was tired, the judge had to sort of wake up two jurors(not me) and tell them to pay attention. 

I saw a different side of the justice system yesterday.   I saw it from the side of the jurors.    People get selected for jury duty.   They think "eh, what are my chances of having to sit on a jury out the 100s that are going to be there that day?"   You hope to hell that you don't have to serve on a jury.   You just want to get the hell out of the court house.  Then, you get selected for jury and you look for way to get yourself excused,  you hope to hell one of the lawyers dismisses you.   When that doesn't happen you think "shit, I am stuck on a jury I hope this trial doesn't go on for long I got things I want to do."   You don't give a damn about the case, you just want it to be over.    Maybe our system is f___ed up.  

I feel bad about my service on the jury.

What do you think?  anyone else here ever serve on a jury? what if anything can you say about your jury service?    

Troyig88 said:

I just did two weeks of Grand Jury and let me tell you.  I learned a lot.

please tell us about it and what you've learned?

An imperfect system to be sure, regardless of its merits.  People remain flawed and will let minutia affect their judgment.  Overall, it's always good to stick to your guns, but at the same time, jury deliberation is the time for debate.  I think you did all right, even if imperfectly.  I've never served, but I sympathize, as I've been grateful to dodge that bullet twice in the last four years.

The problem with a full-time jury is that the dynamics are not random.  Statistically speaking, you should get approximately the same sort of judgment from an unbiased fresh set of jurors each time.  But when you get a bunch of folks who get to know each other, shape each others' opinions, and become overly familiar with the system, they produce a stagnant jury that loses the objective nature that juries are supposed to have.

As for Henry Fonda and A Dozen Grumpy Dudes, I like the film but find the ultimate conclusion faulty.  In spite of several little reasons to doubt, the sum total of so much evidence still weighs too heavily in my mind to believe the kid didn't do it.  It would be an amazing string of coincidences that would allow all those factors to be in place while the kid remains innocent.  Too much speculation.  But nevertheless, Fonda's character stuck to his guns, which if you have honest doubts, that's the thing to do.

*Sigh*

CP3S said:

*Sigh*

?

darth_ender said:

As for Henry Fonda and A Dozen Grumpy Dudes, I like the film but find the ultimate conclusion faulty.  In spite of several little reasons to doubt, the sum total of so much evidence still weighs too heavily in my mind to believe the kid didn't do it.  It would be an amazing string of coincidences that would allow all those factors to be in place while the kid remains innocent.  Too much speculation.  But nevertheless, Fonda's character stuck to his guns, which if you have honest doubts, that's the thing to do.

I couldn't disagree with you more.   Yeah, sure the kid probably did it.  But that is not the point.   The question is, was there or was there not reasonable doubt.   There are other knives like the one the kid had.   It is doubtful an old man with a limp could have made it to the door to see the kid running down the stairs.   It is doubtful the old man could have heard the body hit the floor or the woman scream with the loud train roaring by.   The woman who witnessed the crime wore glasses(and no one wears glasses to bed) so her eyesight is in question.     With all of that, how could you convict? How could you send the kid off to die?  Do you seriously think there isn't reasonable doubt there?

So Warb wasn't ready for the trials?

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

As for Henry Fonda and A Dozen Grumpy Dudes, I like the film but find the ultimate conclusion faulty.  In spite of several little reasons to doubt, the sum total of so much evidence still weighs too heavily in my mind to believe the kid didn't do it.  It would be an amazing string of coincidences that would allow all those factors to be in place while the kid remains innocent.  Too much speculation.  But nevertheless, Fonda's character stuck to his guns, which if you have honest doubts, that's the thing to do.

I couldn't disagree with you more.   Yeah, sure the kid probably did it.  But that is not the point.   The question is, was there or was there not reasonable doubt.   There are other knives like the one the kid had.   It is doubtful an old man with a limp could have made it to the door to see the kid running down the stairs.   It is doubtful the old man could have heard the body hit the floor or the woman scream with the loud train roaring by.   The woman who witnessed the crime wore glasses(and no one wears glasses to bed) so her eyesight is in question.     With all of that, how could you convict? How could you send the kid off to die?  Do you seriously think there isn't reasonable doubt there?

To me there was a little doubt, but to me, reasonable doubt is not the same as beyond any doubt.  I mean, you could find a few things that did not seem to add up, but if 96.5% of it does, that is enough for me.  The biggest thing in question was the limping old man, but there can even be reasonable explanations for the time lapse.  In any case, you are right about the point.  I guess it's just if I wrote the script I would have left slightly more convincing counter evidence...nothing too strong obviously, else the point be lost, but slightly stronger.  Still, it's all personal preference.  I don't mean to detract from the point of your thread.

Congratulations on your first foray into the legal system Warb!

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

As for Henry Fonda and A Dozen Grumpy Dudes, I like the film but find the ultimate conclusion faulty.  In spite of several little reasons to doubt, the sum total of so much evidence still weighs too heavily in my mind to believe the kid didn't do it.  It would be an amazing string of coincidences that would allow all those factors to be in place while the kid remains innocent.  Too much speculation.  But nevertheless, Fonda's character stuck to his guns, which if you have honest doubts, that's the thing to do.

I couldn't disagree with you more.   Yeah, sure the kid probably did it.  But that is not the point.   The question is, was there or was there not reasonable doubt.   There are other knives like the one the kid had.   It is doubtful an old man with a limp could have made it to the door to see the kid running down the stairs.   It is doubtful the old man could have heard the body hit the floor or the woman scream with the loud train roaring by.   The woman who witnessed the crime wore glasses(and no one wears glasses to bed) so her eyesight is in question.     With all of that, how could you convict? How could you send the kid off to die?  Do you seriously think there isn't reasonable doubt there?

To me there was a little doubt, but to me, reasonable doubt is not the same as beyond any doubt.  

it seemed like reasonable doubt to me.   With the doubts given, could you really send the kid off to die?  

darth_ender said:

I mean, you could find a few things that did not seem to add up, but if 96.5% of it does, that is enough for me.  The biggest thing in question was the limping old man, but there can even be reasonable explanations for the time lapse.  In any case, you are right about the point.  I guess it's just if I wrote the script I would have left slightly more convincing counter evidence...nothing too strong obviously, else the point be lost, but slightly stronger.

I am not sure I understand.  Do you mean you wish there was more evidence that the kid didn't do it? 

ferris209 said:

Congratulations on your first foray into the legal system Warb!

I don't feel I should be congratulated at all.   

I know there is a difference between reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt.   I just believe that all the doubts about the case in 12 Angry Men add up to reasonable doubt.  I could not send someone off to be executed with that kind of doubt still remaining.   If you ask me, when we are talking about a death penalty case,  guilt needs to be proven beyond any and all doubt. 

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I mean, you could find a few things that did not seem to add up, but if 96.5% of it does, that is enough for me.  The biggest thing in question was the limping old man, but there can even be reasonable explanations for the time lapse.  In any case, you are right about the point.  I guess it's just if I wrote the script I would have left slightly more convincing counter evidence...nothing too strong obviously, else the point be lost, but slightly stronger.

I am not sure I understand.  Do you mean you wish there was more evidence that the kid didn't do it? 

 Yes.  A bunch of independent coincidences did not add up to me.  Were they related to each other better, I might have considered it more strongly.  It all seems to be completely unrelated minor coincidences.  A guy in my home town shot two people one night.  The first was intentional and the guy died, the second was not and the guy lived.  He was acquitted of the second because "it's possible," as Henry Fonda would say, that the bullet came from outside.  No one else is known to have discharged a weapon.  No other gun was tied to the bullet.  No other shots were heard.  But the jurty determined that because it was "possible," he need not face punishment for that injury.  Now that infuriates me, because as Puggo pointed out, nothing is known with absolute certainty, but it is still quite likley that he shot that other guy.  I'm guessing that some minor something inconsistency changed their thinking (nothing specific that I read in the paper), and that was enough to change their minds, but come on.  We'll never know all the facts, but we can know enough to connect the dots and tell what the picture is.

And the Jury's ability to connect the dots is reliant on the collectors and presenters of the dots.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

I mean, you could find a few things that did not seem to add up, but if 96.5% of it does, that is enough for me.  The biggest thing in question was the limping old man, but there can even be reasonable explanations for the time lapse.  In any case, you are right about the point.  I guess it's just if I wrote the script I would have left slightly more convincing counter evidence...nothing too strong obviously, else the point be lost, but slightly stronger.

I am not sure I understand.  Do you mean you wish there was more evidence that the kid didn't do it? 

 Yes.  A bunch of independent coincidences did not add up to me.  Were they related to each other better, I might have considered it more strongly.  It all seems to be completely unrelated minor coincidences.  A guy in my home town shot two people one night.  The first was intentional and the guy died, the second was not and the guy lived.  He was acquitted of the second because "it's possible," as Henry Fonda would say, that the bullet came from outside.  No one else is known to have discharged a weapon.  No other gun was tied to the bullet.  No other shots were heard.  But the jurty determined that because it was "possible," he need not face punishment for that injury.  Now that infuriates me, because as Puggo pointed out, nothing is known with absolute certainty, but it is still quite likley that he shot that other guy.  I'm guessing that some minor something inconsistency changed their thinking (nothing specific that I read in the paper), and that was enough to change their minds, but come on.  We'll never know all the facts, but we can know enough to connect the dots and tell what the picture is.

not knowing all the evidence the jury had to look at, I can't say whether it came to the right conclusion.   Did they at least convict the guy of the first murder?   Also why couldn't they match the bullet(s) that killed the second person to the gun that killed the first person?

btw, I still would like you to answer my question.   Based on the evidence and doubt in the case in 12 Angry Men,  could you send the boy off to be executed?

Looks like I'm getting some details wrong, but the online paper won't let me read the full articles, so I have to use this guy's relation of the story.  Not quite how I remember it, but I'll let you read it.  The second guy shot was Campas, the friend, if I remember correctly.  He did not die.  I don't think this was included in this link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189441

As for your question, I guess I'd really have to sit on the jury and hear all the evidence, but even from what we glean in the deliberation, it seems pretty convincing to me.  I won't say yes absolutely simply because of my lack of information, but I believe if I'd been present I would have done so.

darth_ender said:

Looks like I'm getting some details wrong, but the online paper won't let me read the full articles, so I have to use this guy's relation of the story.  Not quite how I remember it, but I'll let you read it.  The second guy shot was Campas, the friend, if I remember correctly.  He did not die.  I don't think this was included in this link:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189441

the link tells a different story than what I originally thought.   There is an argument the first killing was self defense.   As for the 2nd, it is still unclear to me why the bullet in the 2nd victim wasn't  matched to the gun or the bullets in found in the first victim.