Would a judge release a potential Juror who&#39;s only complaint was that he didn&#39;t want to be a juror? From what I have heard of the selection process for jury duty it seems as if anyone who makes an argument for why they can't or shouldn't be a juror is excused by the judge, no matter how flimsy the argument. I assume the reason judges are so lenient with exceptions is because they don't want to risk a juror being resentful of their position, as it could bias them against one side or keep them from putting in a proper good faith effort to fulfill their responsibility as a juror. I'm wondering how far a judge would take that mindset. Are they willing to let a juror go just to avoid resentment if the juror otherwise has no excuse to not be a juror? So hypothetically Lets say that I am called for Jury duty tomorrow and I don't want to be a juror. There are plenty of ways I'm sure I could get myself dismissed; From the obviously like constantly shouting "hang them all" to the more 'subtle' like giving a dissertation on why I think jury nullification is such a swell idea. However, lets say I am unwilling to do anything remotely unethical and admit I don't have any valid reason I should be dismissed as a juror. However, I tell the judge despite this fact I really don't want to be a juror because I think it would be boring and I prefer to sleep in on the mornings. What are the odds the judge would let me go anyways, just to avoid having an unwilling juror?
Nobody wants to be a juror. Well ... almost nobody. The pay is awful, the responsibilities are huge, the work is boring, and everybody else is telling where to go, when to go there and how long to stay. Plus you get the bonus of being in close quarters with 11 strangers with whom you (probably) have nothing in common. Judges know this. They don't let you off just because you don't want to be there. There are actually criteria that they apply (assuming it gets to the judge, most jurors who will be are excused before they get to the courthouse by administrative staff). For example, in NSW: In terms of the Jury Amendment Act 2010, you may have 'good cause' to be excused if: jury service would cause undue hardship or serious inconvenience to you or your family you have a disability that makes you unsuitable or incapable of effectively serving as a juror, without reasonable accommodation there is a conflict of interest or some other knowledge, acquaintance, or friendship that you have, which may result in your being perceived as lacking impartiality as a juror you have a permanent mental or physical impairment that makes you incapable of doing jury service, or that would injure your health if you were to do jury service. The sheriff may also consider excusing you in other circumstances, including if you: are a sole trader or contractor have care of school aged children and are unable to make other care arrangements are in an advanced stage of pregnancy and/or are having medical difficulties during your pregnancy have a medical condition which would make Jury service onerous are an emergency service operational employee are enrolled in education and need to attend lectures or exams, or you're living outside your jury district to undertake your studies have a mental or physical impairment are absent from New South Wales have transport difficulties, such as unsuitable or unavailable public transport are unable to read and understand English. If you don't meet the criteria, you won't be excused. Getting yourself "dismissed" There are plenty of ways I'm sure I could get myself dismissed; From the obviously like constantly shouting "hang them all" to the more 'subtle' like giving a dissertation on why I think jury nullification is such a swell idea. No. Those things will get you jailed for contempt of court until you agree to do your jury duty and not act like a dick. I tell the judge despite this fact I really don't want to be a juror because I think it would be boring and I prefer to sleep in on the mornings. So does the judge - if she has to be there, she's going to make damn sure you are too.
No. The government may not establish laws to keep members of a particular race out of the jury pool. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, (1879) (“The statute of West Virginia, which, in effect, singles out and denies to colored citizens the right and privilege of participating in the administration of the law, as jurors, because of their color, though qualified in all other respects, is, practically, a brand upon them, and a discrimination against them which is forbidden by the amendment.”). And once they are part of the pool, jurors may not be eliminated simply because of their race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 80 (1986) (“The Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race”). But there is no requirement that the jury have any particular racial composition when it is finally seated. Akins v. Texas, 325 U.S. 398, 403 (1945) (“Purposeful discrimination is not sustained by a showing that on a single grand jury the number of members of one race is less than that race's proportion of the eligible individuals.”)
There are a variety of reasons a judge might be disqualified. It could be that the judge was previous an attorney who represented someone (defendant, victim, key witness) involved in the case, it could be that the judge was a family member or former employer of the defense attorney, it could be that someone close to the judge or the judge personally was a victim of another crime committed by the person, it could be that the defendant or the defendant's family was a personal or family friend. The prior involvement in the protective order case could be a factor as well. The record isn't detailed enough to know. "Held" in this context means that the hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on that date noted was actually conducted, rather than being continued or vacated for some reason. Your guess is as good as mine regarding "CFW" and "DB" in this context. My best guess for DB is "daily booking" and CFW might be either the removed or replacement judge's initials (e.g. Carol Francis Wilson) but those are just wild guesses. Neither appears on a list of Oregon Department of Corrections acryomns or this criminal background check abbreviation list, or this list of Oregon law enforcement abbreviations. The only matches on this list of law enforcement abbreviations and none of the matches to DB (dog bite, dead body, detective bureau) make a lot of sense in this context.
I feel that a person, not the subject of arrest, should be protected by the 4th amendment if they choose to remain in their vehicle, even if “ordered” to exit the vehicle by an officer. The intuition is fine, but is basically incorrect. I’m most interested to know: How would a driver (1) Politely (2) determine if a given instruction to exit the vehicle must be complied with, and (3) decline the instruction without giving the officer “cause” or otherwise damaging a potential case? From a practical perspective the only workable response is to comply. There are times when this is done without a reasonable suspicion (or in some cases probable cause) or other legal basis, but it is pretty much impossible for you to dispute this one the spot. Most of the time, the officer will have the legal authority to order you to leave the vehicle. If they order you to exit the vehicle despite not having the legal authority to do so, the right course of action is to comply and then to file a complaint with the agency employing the officer or to bring a civil lawsuit against the officer. There are good answers to a basically duplicate question at How can you tell if you have to follow a police officer&#39;s instructions?
The phrase "reasonable doubt" was formed hundreds of years ago, and does not hold any mathematical or probabilistic meaning. It is for each individual juror to decide for themselves what constitutes "reasonable doubt", and whether the evidence presented to them has crossed that threshold. EDIT for extra clarity: As stated above, the definition of "reasonable doubt" is intentionally vague*, and left to be decided by each juror for themselves on a case by case basis; as such there is no single rule that can be applied to jurors (also note barring accepting a bribe, a juror cannot be legally sanctioned for their conduct as a juror, nor their vote, regardless of the evidence before them). So one juror might judge by P(A|B), another might judge by the defendant's appearance, another might judge by the majority of their peers (so that they can go to a ball game that evening, such as in the film 12 Angry Men), another might disagree with the law (see: jury nullification) and so vote not guilty on that basis, and another might bow to social pressure and convict despite overwhelming evidence that the defendant is not guilty (for example, at the end of To Kill A Mockingbird). A prosecutor cares about convincing the entire jury that the defendant is guilty(outside of Oregon and Louisiana, where only 10/12 vote is needed to convict, so the prosecutor only cares convincing 10 jurors). The defense only cares about convincing a single juror (or three in LA or OR), although more can be useful to prevent a mistrial. The defense (in theory) should not care whether or not the defendant is guilty. *The origin of reasonable doubt was in Britain, where certain jurors would refuse to convict, despite any evidence, due to religious prohibitions of "Judge not, less ye be judged".
In a trial by judge (bench trial) that could certainly happen. Most substantial parts of the judicial process can be sealed, under numerous laws and theories. The U.S. FISA "Court" is notorious for operating virtually entirely in secret. Various laws allow for secret subpoenas or warrants, with the subjects on which they are served held criminally liable for violating the court's order for secrecy. In a trial by jury it would probably be impossible for an exonerating fact to be presented to the judge only, since the proper role of the jury is to decide all questions of fact in a case. Furthermore, a court can compel a witness to testify, with no requirement to mitigate the damages of such testimony. However, if the accused knew that an exculpatory fact could be provided by a witness, and that the witness might decline to give (honest) testimony to a jury, he would presumably waive his right to a jury trial, at which point the testimony could (in theory) be given only to the judge.
The notion of a peer for purposes of the jury is someone who "walks in the same shoes" as the defendant or litigants. A freeman was to be juried by other freemen, a Peer of the Realm by other (capital P) Peers, a landsman by other landholders, and a marine by other sailors. The ancient origins of a judgment by jury were rooted in removing allegations by the defendant, alleging unfairness of the process, since the defendant himself was a party to the selection of those who would weigh his actions before the law and mete out punishments, the defendant could have confidence that he wasn't being railroaded. In the USA, we've done away with the codified, defined social definitions such as peerage and royalty and owned/indentured vs. free...so we are all, as far as the law defines, equal peers.
If 'literally 300' attorneys declined your case on the basis of a phone call, without looking into the details, I can see three options: You are unable to communicate the nature of your case clearly. In this posting, you mentioned complaints against a company, a municipality, and a landlord, plus being evicted. Focus on explaining one case. If you think you 'know for a fact' that you have several big payouts coming, there is the first problem. Nobody knows what a jury will decide. An attorney might hesitate to work for a client who does not understand this. Litigation is always a risk. All your cases actually lack merit, a lawyer sees this and you do not. Not knowing the cases, I cannot tell. (And no, you should not explain them in detail on the web. If they do have merit, posting your strategy hurts the cases.) Your state has a vexatious litigant list and you are on it. That would not prevent an attorney from taking your case, but it might make them hesitate.