Dang! Missed out on jury selection!

[OldVet]

I was called up for jury duty yesterday--again. While I don't object to doing my civic duty, it's the endless waiting and the boring, repeditive lawyer questioning that's makes the event so miserable. Any lawyers who think the selectees are amused by their vain attempts at court-room humor are sadly mistaken!

For the first time though, I wanted to sit on a jury. The case involved an individual charged with . . . wait for it . . . illegal concealed weapons carry! Now that would have been a case that interested me, as a lawful, licensed holder of a CWFL here in Florida.

I saw this a both a chance to either support a person who was lawfully trying to protect himself and ran afoul of a LEO trying to make a point, or as an opportunity to punish someone who was violating the law and making those who lawfully carry look bad, depending on the evidence presented. Both lawyers stated that the trial would be short, indicating to me they both agreed on the expected outcome. Something told me I didn't want that defence lawyer on my side.

Alas, I wasn't selected.

I did not reveal that I posses a CWFL (It wasn't asked; I didn't tell), nor did I mention I own firearms and shoot regularly. I think it may have been that I was a stated member of an organization called the NRA that swayed the either of the lawyers away from me. I can see where either side could see that as a plus or minus.

I was really hoping to serve so that I could report back to this forum on what really happens in a criminal trial involving concealed firearm possesion. An excellent opportunity missed!

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Backroad]

Defense lawyers usually don't "select" gun owners and motorcyclists because they tend to be people who take responsibility for their actions. They also don't like engineers because they tend to be too analytical.

al

[lordhamster]

I'm a firm believer in Jury Nullification. If the individual was simply in possession of a firearm for his protection and was not using it to victimize anyone, I'd vote not guilty.

I don't think we should have to beg permission from the state to exercise our rights, and thus I won't convict anyone for the simple lack of a permit/permission-slip. No Victim = No Crime.

[OldVet]

Yeah, I think next time I'll omit the NRA. I only belong for the magazine pictures after all! ;-)

I suspect the prosecutor thought, law-abiding citizen; the defence lawyer, uh,oh--good guy wanting to take bad guy off the streets!

I'm hoping to find the case decision in the paper and report on it. I suspect the guy is looking at 3 hots and a cot for a while!

[MattInFla]

I got rejected from a DUI / Drug possession / unlawful firearm possession case.

I suspect it was because:

1. I am an engineer
2. I am a former Paramedic
3. My wife sits on the Sheriff's Civilian Review Board

Can't imagine why the defense attorney didn't want me on the panel.....

[hdawson]

lordhampster. It sounds like you have no respect for LAW. If you don't have respect for the law, be active to change the law, not circumvent the law.

[OldVet]

lordhampster. It sounds like you have no respect for LAW. If you don't have respect for the law, be active to change the law, not circumvent the law.

Agreed! Those who violate the laws only make it harder on those of us who obey the law. Don't give ammunition to the anti-gun parties. Don't give them reason to leave us defenseless!

[hogdaddy]

First of #1- Brother Inlaw got selected for demestic violence, After getting out
of JAIL for DV He was'nt convicted but stayed 30+ days &
#2-The people on the jury was saying LET'S JUST VOTE JUILTY Good thing they cut a deal OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM AT WORK

[OldVet]

I'm a firm believer in Jury Nullification. If the individual was simply in possession of a firearm for his protection and was not using it to victimize anyone, I'd vote not guilty.

I don't think we should have to beg permission from the state to exercise our rights, and thus I won't convict anyone for the simple lack of a permit/permission-slip. No Victim = No Crime.

"If the individual was simply in possession of a firearm for his protection and was not using it to victimize anyone, I'd vote not guilty."

Perhaps this individual was nabbed before he could find his "victim."

I would not want you on a jury deciding my fate. I want the decision based on evidence presented, not your "opinion." Do the words "fair and inpartial" mean anything to you?

In FL we don't "beg" permission to carry. It's our right--unless we have proven ourselves otherwise unworthy.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to hear the evidence for or against conviction. I do know the defendant was not going to testify, a fact the defense lawyer made clear.

[JohnKelly]

Jury Nullification has a valid place in certain criminal proceedings:

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Blue Jacket]

If the individual was simply in possession of a firearm for his protection and was not using it to victimize anyone, I'd vote not guilty.

No Victim = No Crime.

A criminal defense attorney's best friend. And you don't even know the facts of the case.

[Paco]

#2-The people on the jury was saying LET'S JUST VOTE JUILTY Good thing they cut a deal OUR JUSTICE
SYSTEM AT WORK

This aggravates me, along with the stigma that people on jury duty were too stupid to get off. I hold that as a responsibility, and I would hope that if I ever need a jury of my peers that they would all want to be there to do a job.

[sigmanluke]

This aggravates me, along with the stigma that people on jury duty were too stupid to get off. I hold that as a responsibility, and I would hope that if I ever need a jury of my peers that they would all want to be there to do a job.

I feel the same way. The thought to everyone that serving on a jury is such an awful thing is part of why our judicial system has become the way it is.

Think about the person who won millions from McDonalds for spilling HOT coffee.

[sniper58]

I pray I never need a jury to decide my fate. Most of my "peers" do whatever it takes to get out of jury duty. I've been called several times - never selected. The last time, I think I was DQ because of my response to the prosecutor's question. I was asked if I could render a guilty verdict based on circumstantial evidence. I replied, " it depends on how circumstantial the evidence is. Did the investigators really dig deep for evidence, or did they reach for low-hanging fruit?"

It's a civic duty to serve, but most people's lives are just too busy to be bothered. So what we're left with are people who want to serve rather than watch Oprah and are easily swayed by commercials and product endorsements. Those people, your "peers," may someday decide your fate. Sad, but largely true.

[Janq]

I pray I never need a jury to decide my fate...So what we're left with are people who want to serve rather than watch Oprah and are easily swayed by commercials and product endorsements [and the news media]. Those people, your "peers," may someday decide your fate. Sad, but largely true.

Bingo and ditto! ^^

If at all possible I would do my best to avoid a jury trial.
Also add in very real and established factors of jury decision sway as based on race, gender, physical appearance (are you to the jury attractive or unattractive), your own individual ability to emote your feelings physically as in a way that the jury deems 'natural' and 'normal' (I tend to be straight faced unless laughing) and are you at par in a socio-economic way as related to and/or by perception to that of the jury. There is more but I'll stop here.

Bottom line: Jury decided trials can very much be decided by the jury before word one is spoken by your own attorney (or that of the prosecution) as based singularly on who they see seated in the defendants chair.

A sad state of factual affairs.

- Janq