r/nottheonion • u/ArgentineBeauty • 19h ago

Reese Witherspoon Chosen as Jury Foreman After Jurors Thought She Went to Law School Because of Legally Blonde

https://www.fashiontimes.co.uk/reese-witherspoon-jury-duty-mix-1763528
25.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/DavyJonesCousinsDog 19h ago

Everyone should sit on a jury at some point. It really lowers your expectations about the level of information comprehension the average American is capable of.

Edit: Typo

1.2k

u/Mr_Baronheim 18h ago

My concern started when a coworker who was serving on a jury told me that in one case they couldn't decide on a verdict, but ultimately chose guilty because they found the defense attorney to be annoying.

576

u/Dr_Insano_MD 18h ago

This is why when I get jury duty summons, I do not try to get out of it like most people seem to. I've yet to actually need to show up (I'm just on-call), but man, juries have someone's future or even life in their hands. I know if I were sitting in that defendant seat, I'd want the jury to take the matter seriously. So I should do the same.

273

u/mavajo 15h ago edited 14h ago

I've been on two juries, and I'm grateful that I was on both. I was stunned both times during deliberations. Especially the second one. This was a man that sexually and physically assaulted his girlfriend, breaking her orbital bone, lacerating her spleen, strangling her until she passed out from oxygen deprivation - and then had sex with her again.

The jury was split 6/6 on our first vote. I couldn't believe it.

The wildest thing is that the jurors arguing the strongest for a Not Guilty verdict were women. They kept blaming her for it with the reasoning that if it was so bad then she should have left him. They basically accused her of just trying to get even with him and that they didn't want to "ruin his life" with a guilty verdict. Thankfully a woman in her 20s and a dad girl dad were sitting on either side of me, and the three of us agreed we were absolutely not changing our votes and would stay as long as it took. It bled into the next day, but eventually we got to consensus and found him guilty.

Turned out he had multiple prior convictions and had another unrelated case going on involving assault. Guy was a piece of shit.

But that experience reinforced for me the importance of having good people on the jury. Please folks, I know it's a burden and pain in the ass, but if you have a job or circumstances that allows you to do it - please do it. We gave that woman justice that day. But it very easily could have gone another direction.

The three of us stayed to hear the verdict and sentencing. He got 25 years. The prosecutor came up to us afterwards and thanked us, because way too many guys like him get off.

59

u/thetiredtypist 15h ago

The three of us stayed to hear the verdict

The other jurors could leave before the verdict was read?

67

u/mavajo 14h ago

Sorry, I meant sentencing. Brain fart.

2

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Sentencing often isn't even the same day.

2

u/DenverTechGuru 3h ago

I wish I could. I never make it past voir dire. Something about college educated that acknowledges the justice system is flawed under oath doesn't appeal to the attorneys.

2

u/Yakubs_2nd_Brain 2h ago

You just made me reconsider just based on the fact that I hate my job. Maybe I won't immediately throw the unopened letter in the trash next time.

2

u/Askol 9h ago

Isn't every job required to keep paying you during jury duty?

6

u/mavajo 9h ago

Nope. Land of the free baby!

1

u/highheelcyanide 1h ago

My adopted sister was tortured as a baby by being dipped into boiling water. It was very clear it was deliberate. When it went to trial the first time, there was one juror that wouldn’t give in to the not guilty verdict. They saved my sister’s life.

It went back to trial and he was found guilty. I think about that one person a lot.

107

u/GoldenPigeonParty 17h ago

The more serious and logical you are, the less likely you are to be selected.

71

u/Thechasepack 16h ago

I've found the opposite. Both sides typically think their argument is the correct legal argument so they want people to think logically and apply the law correctly.

I was in a jury pool for a women who killed her kid earlier this year (not in Massachusetts). Jury Selection questions from both sides were mostly about finding people who could evaluate the case based on the law rather than emotions (with added questions from the defense on how we feel about punishment for young kids).

77

u/_thenational 14h ago

the only jury I've ever been on was a guy suing his car insurance company for whatever. a lot of the questions they asked us centered around whether we could be fair based on our past experiences with insurance companies. lots of people were like, no, obviously not, insurance companies have fucked me six ways from sunday. those of us who were a little less hostile got selected.

joke's on them though because the deliberations basically boiled down to "whether or not this guy is legally right is irrelevant, obviously the slimy insurance company is fucking him and he seems nice enough, let's give it to him"

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Civil juries are a completely different animal from criminal. Civil juries are basically random.

3

u/No-Advice-6040 15h ago

Turned up to my first looking like a student, wearing a big heavy Tommy Hilfiger jacket. Selected for a week long trial. Turned up to my second looking decent, had to check in every damn morning to not be selected for anything and wasted my week.

3

u/Fuzzy-Jaguar-1828 14h ago

No, during voir dire each side’s counsel will run out of no’s eventually. Once they are down to the last few possible jurors called they pretty much have to say yes. So if you are one of the last people they interview you have to be a juror basically.

4

u/c-9 16h ago

you will be if you keep your mouth shut.

6

u/oddministrator 16h ago

Well into middle aged and have never been summoned.

If there's anything people who know me would describe me as, it's "logical." Often to a fault, in many people's eyes.

Do they know?

5

u/AipomNormalMonkey 16h ago edited 16h ago

I know a couple, he's gotten 4 summons, she's never had one.

Eventually they figured out that in their area they only register you for jury duty if you have a vehicle registered in your name.

2

u/oddministrator 15h ago

My ex lived with me and got summoned multiple times, I never did. We both had vehicles in our names, the house was in mine.

Could be "luck," but it's really surprising. I love my job and have tons I need to do at it so any time away would be disruptive and generally unwelcome, but after 30 years I'm wondering if I have some sort of judicial cooties.

4

u/AipomNormalMonkey 15h ago

it's possible it was a single clerical oversight

the only reason that couple figured it out was because he tutored the daughter of the property manager at their apartment complex

after they moved out, the new tenants brought any mail they received to the property manager who delivered them when he was tutoring...a few weeks after he received it he realized he updated his address for almost all government purposes...he overlooked the vehicle

based on how many hours it would take to make it to their court house by public transit it made sense...anyone without a car could claim undue travel burden and be excused anyway

1

u/c-9 16h ago

I have been summoned maybe 7 times in the last 25 years? I've lost count honestly.

I live in St Louis. St Louis Metro area is about 2M people, but the city itself is about 300k. The big Eastern MO courts here only pull jury pools from St Louis city population. If I lived 3 miles away in St Louis County chances are I'd go a lifetime without being summoned.

1

u/oddministrator 15h ago

That's what's confusing for me. I've been registered to vote in and had a vehicle registered in my name within city limits (most often in a situation very similar to STL -- metro > 1M, but live in the city of ~1/3 that) for three decades.

1

u/DocileBanalBovlne 14h ago

I can't remember my dad ever being summoned, but my mom has a few times. Coincidentally, she was pregnant every time she got a summons so she never had to follow through.

3

u/oddministrator 14h ago

Abortion is illegal in my state because the government contends an embryo is a person.

Sounds like a pregnant juror should get two votes, to me.

4

u/GuanoLoopy 16h ago

I have yet to serve on one either, but I would happily do so. Only had it twice where I had to call the day before and I wasn't needed.

My SO was on a jury and said it was very likely the guy was guilty (robbery or something similar) but the prosecutors did such a bad job they found him not guilty.

5

u/ncnotebook 17h ago

I've gotten so many damn jury letters.

I fear that once I do get called, I'll be that guy where "he/she probably did it, but the evidence hasn't convinced me enough to be sure." Pretty sure many people won't care about that difference.

2

u/pookiemook 11h ago

I've never been summoned (but I'd like to be, and not for entertainment purposes), and I have the same fear. I could imagine myself being the one holdout on a hung jury if everyone else is going off of vibes and dismissing the legal prompts.

1

u/ncnotebook 5h ago

And when they get frustrated enough, you know many people will go for appeals to emotion or insult you or think you're stubborn.

What if the victim was your daughter/son? They were innocent, too!

And what if your daughter/son was the defendant, similarly innocent? Should 2 lives be unjustly ruined instead of 1?

1

u/RankWeis2 15h ago

In the movie “The Trial of the Chicago Seven” one of the Rasta’s says something like

“isn’t this supposed to be a jury of my peers? Where’s one person that looks like me sitting out there?”

“Have you ever responded to a jury summons?”

“….”

There’s great moments in that movie but even as someone who believes in going to my summons’, this line stuck with me

1

u/RedeRules770 8h ago

Seriously, it pisses me off so much when people try to get out of it. If it were you, you’d want someone on the jury that cared about doing a decent job!

1

u/-fry- 6h ago

Juries are made up of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

-Harvey Specter

345

u/Lord_Alonne 18h ago

Jesus fucking christ...

30

u/ChangeForAParadigm 18h ago

He’s a defense attorney now?!

18

u/Dub-MS 17h ago

Always has been

14

u/ChangeForAParadigm 17h ago

My God

1

u/sidepart 12h ago

Well...if you have him on retainer, I guess.

61

u/ecmcn 17h ago

I had the opposite experience. The cop in this drunk driving case would look at us in a certain way during his testimony and I couldn’t quite put my finger on what I didn’t like about him. Turned out everyone felt that way, and during deliberations one of the jurors said “he was… smarmy”, and everyone was like “yeah, that’s it!” But we all had to admit there wasn’t any reason to not believe him - the driver had clearly been drinking and there were weird things on the defense side, too. We voted guilty.

26

u/RegulatoryCapture 15h ago

IMHO that's fair. The cop is a witness and his testimony is supposed to be evaluated by the jury. "I don't know why, but I just don't trust him" is fair enough. Or you can still trust him if there's other evidence that supports it.

But it is a dick move to apply that to someone's lawyer. Lawyer charisma absolutely matters, but their words are not evidence and you shouldn't be deciding based on whether you trust the lawyer. Lawyers aren't under oath, you shouldn't trust what they say.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Literally what you're there for

61

u/matjoeman 18h ago

I've been on one jury and it radicalized me against juries.

2

u/pihkal 1h ago

The problem is, the no-jury alternative is worse.

-7

u/ncnotebook 17h ago

I've been in one democracy and it radicalized me against democracies.

9

u/Autumn1eaves 17h ago

I'd fully lose my mind if I went to jail, and they later told me this.

I'd go insane. I'd have to be committed.

6

u/bluart06 16h ago

My fellow jurors didn’t like the prosecuting attorney on the trial I served on because she used a fancy technical term for a stop light.

0

u/Effective-One6527 11h ago

If it was semaphore they are right not to like her. Attorneys should know better.

2

u/bluart06 10h ago

I think it was? I definitely left feedback on the comment cards we got at the very end 😆

-1

u/Quickjager 14h ago

Honestly just as much the defense attorney's fault. They get a say on who sit for the jury.

173

u/genericmediocrename 18h ago

I thought I would really like jury duty. Meet new people, get free lunches, sit in on juicy courtroom drama?

No, I wanted to hurl myself out of the window very shortly after starting. Like half of the other jurors were honest to God completely incapable of following directions and couldn't quite comprehend what their roles were as jurors, despite being told several times by the judge.

74

u/jrzalman 17h ago

The pro tip is to volunteer to be foreman and you can guide the conversation and wrap things up in a reasonable amount of time. If you are in charge you can focus the conversation on the actual issues at hand and cut down on the wasted time. If you are just going to let the room run itself, you kind of deserve what you get.

34

u/thrownjunk 17h ago

they simply won't seat me. I've showed up about 5 times. but voir dire usually has one side throwing me out.

13

u/RobutNotRobot 15h ago

I've never been called for jury duty, but I'm guessing I'll get tossed when I respond to one of the questions with 'all cops are liars'.

2

u/RegulatoryCapture 15h ago

Curious what your background and demographic profile is/what you are saying/what types of cases (criminal? civil?)

I always assumed I would never get seated before I ever got pulled into the room for an actual case, but I've found that to not be true.

9

u/thrownjunk 15h ago

upper middle class white collar professional. middle aged. both criminal and civil. it is only deep into the questioning I get pulled.

14

u/wait_________what 14h ago

"he's answering in complete sentences and not just giving us a blank stare, he can be excused"

10

u/Tsk201409 14h ago

Lawyers don’t want smart jurors

3

u/WeirdAFNewsPodcast 15h ago

You got free lunch? I didnt get that. lol

108

u/Yubat 18h ago

As a lawyer, I would love to be on one. Civil, criminal, whatever. It would be fun to really see it from the other side. Alas, any time I am up for a jury I’ve been screened out before the process finishes; once I made it to the final round of voir dire but got cut— I would have been juror #8 😔

27

u/musicman835 18h ago

I’ve had attorneys from my office get on civil juries. But they’re tossed faster than spoiled milk for criminal trials.

6

u/turquoiseblues 17h ago

Why don’t they want lawyers to serve on juries for criminal trials?

19

u/musicman835 16h ago

Lawyers may end up influencing a jury, because the other jurors (as in this case) believe they know better and will go along with their decision.

Lawyers know the law and would be better about questioning evidence or questioning reasonable doubt, and push back on something they find circumstantial in deliberation.

Attorneys don’t want other attorneys auditing (for lack of better word) their trial skills.

They often won’t take other highly educated folks either, as they are more likely to have (and I don’t mean this in a negative way) better critical thinking skills and don’t just take what their being told as fact.

An aquittal in a criminal trial is final. They cannot be tried again.

1

u/4rdpr3f3ct 7h ago

IAAL and am currently on a Grand Jury. Interestingly, our jurisdiction removed peremptory challenges, which may be why I was not removed. It is very interesting.

115

u/TBSchemer 18h ago

They always screen me out as soon as they hear I have a PhD.

You probably know this better than I do, but I believe lawyers deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes who are easily manipulated.

59

u/Yubat 18h ago

[u/SpockShotFirst](u/SpockShotFirst) explains it well, but I’ll add that attorneys generally want the case decided based on what they present and argue. They want narrative control. Those who bring relevant outside expertise add a new variable that the neither side can easily predict or control, so easier to dump that person than take on additional risk. Does that mean a higher level of rubes in the jury sometimes? It certainly can.

7

u/bullitt-rider 14h ago

Agree to a point but I've had cases where the jury dynamic isn't as described... God forbid there be any large sporting events or TV series ending...

When the judge has to give strict directions on things like 'wearing a thong does not equate to consent' you do have to question if that's predictable and controllable or unsuitable

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

the judge has to give strict directions on things like 'wearing a thong does not equate to consent'

because that's incredibly important.

2

u/bullitt-rider 1h ago

Yes clearly and it shouldn't have to be answered with note.

75

u/SpockShotFirst 18h ago

Both sides can cut jurors. If one side benefits from educated jurors, the other side will try to keep them out. So it isn't that lawyers, as a monolith, "deliberately try to craft a jury full of uneducated rubes." It's just that chances are high that at least one side is counting on that strategy.

25

u/ApprehensivePop9036 16h ago

"the problem with this case is you'd need to be a total idiot to accept these arguments from our side."

"We'll handle that in voir dire"

21

u/forrealthoughcomix_ 18h ago

Damn. And here I am wanting to sit on a jury as an educated rube who is easily manipulated :(

18

u/jrzalman 17h ago

I always hear this, usually like your story posted in a self-congratulatory way, but never really experienced it. I've been on like eight juries and get picked every time. I tell them I'm an aerospace engineer, answer all their questions well and always get picked.

Probably depends on the case but I think many lawyers are looking for jurors that can understand their arguments.

5

u/TBSchemer 17h ago

That's interesting. 3 times already, I was dismissed immediately after the question of "what's your highest level of education?"

8

u/jrzalman 17h ago

Might be demographics or age combined with education? Hard to say. I was on a murder trial last year and one of my fellow jurors was lawyer (non-criminal case work) and they let her through. The case itself was fairly involved and had lots of twists and turns.

Likely a lot of variation in what lawyers are looking for from case to case but what I have learned is they are looking for me. I have never been excused. I always volunteer to be foreman and get us out of there in a day or two.

2

u/TBSchemer 15h ago edited 14h ago

Yeah, being a white male probably gives me 2 strikes, and then add a PhD into the mix and I'm out.

Come to think of it, for one of my 3 dismissals, we didn't even get to the education question. I literally just sat down in the booth, no questions asked, and someone said, "jurors 3, 4, 8, and 11, you may leave." Checked my number, and I was 11.

I remember thinking, "maybe you could just let me send a photo in the mail, so I don't have to get up and drive here next time."

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Also location. If you're Berkley, everyone's gonna have a handful of degrees. If you're in Hahira, Georgia, and a PhD comes through the door, you ain't playin' that game.

8

u/newenglandpolarbear 18h ago

That's pretty much exactly it. Either that or they try to fill the jury with people they think will be sympathetic to their case. Both sides can do it.

4

u/CharlieKelly_Esq 15h ago

Many times attorneys want reasonable people or a person with an average/normal level of rational. When a person possesses a higher education degree, it can signal a person that is hyper rational. In some ways it could seem like this would be better for the jury, but without explicit jury instructions being given, a juror might not realize that what they require to be convinced is too much.

3

u/bicycle_mice 16h ago

I have a doctorate (NP) and have been selected for a jury.

2

u/Radiant_Jedi 16h ago

I have had similar experiences where I get cut once they find out that I'm a professor of rhetoric and composition. They don't seem to like that I fully understand about things like standards of evidence, pathos appeals, etc.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Nope. We don't want people who are going to mistakenly think expertise in some other field has a damn thing to do with being a juror. Basically, we think you'll be bad at it.

1

u/TBSchemer 3h ago

Really? Because I thought being a competent juror is about being willing to suspend assumptions and follow evidence and logic to their reasonable conclusions, which is the key skill PhDs are specifically trained in.

Except when law clearly tramples morality, in which case jury nullification becomes the mandate.

You might be thinking of Masters degrees, which are awarded merely for "expertise in some other field."

19

u/KellyCTargaryen 18h ago

Don’t give up hope! I worked for a trial lawyer professor, he confidently left for jury duty certain he would be immediately dismissed… one of the lawyers was his former student, so he was selected.

19

u/Yubat 18h ago edited 18h ago

Lol holy hell. I’m shocked the judge and opposing counsel let that through. I’m amazed his former student was cool with it; I’d be on eggshells the whole time if I had to present a real matter to one of my former professors. Must have been interesting for everyone!

6

u/Warning_Low_Battery 16h ago

It was probably a case where he could be guaranteed to be impartial and decide only on the facts, with no vibes involved.

3

u/lars5 16h ago

it may have just been a situation of bad jury pool and not enough challenges.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Totally depends on the prof. And yea, the judge should have absolutely not allowed that.

18

u/Qalyar 17h ago

I'm a data analyst. Never made it past voir dire either.

I'm pretty sure whichever side has the weaker case always is motivated to cut people whose profession involves a lot of critical thinking (or outright legal experience). Objectively, I understand why that's the case. But I worry that it doesn't really represent a healthy outcome for our jury system.

Not that I've got any great suggestions on how to fix it; I'm just an analyst, it's someone else's job to action the problems! ;)

4

u/Prometheus720 17h ago

Do you think there should be any sort of check on the ability of lawyers to just remove anyone who is some kind of professional?

It seems horrifically anti-democratic to me.

5

u/lostkavi 15h ago

There is.

A limited number of removals. You can't keep cycling juries until you get a pool of dullards.

1

u/Fuzzy-Jaguar-1828 13h ago

I know right….people have these grand theories that they’re too smart to ever get out on a jury.

1

u/Prometheus720 11h ago

That's not much of a check.

2

u/lostkavi 11h ago

Well you can't wholesale removals, they form a crucial role in jury selection, or we risk going back to the 19th century with the one black dude on trial before 12 white guys who think he should be hanged for the fun of it.

Do remember, lawyers select their jury pools based on who they can agree they both want. The lowest common denominator is not always the ideal Juror. Especially complex cases may have both sides wanting more professional and intelligent jurors so they can better understand the arguments put forth.

2

u/lars5 16h ago

same, but at the same time i've become very disillusioned with the whole process. i don't want to completely dismiss it as a dog and pony show, but you get judges presiding over cases where they're not familiar with the field of law, the jury is either comprised of the lowest common denominator or people hostile to your client, and the expert witnesses' charisma is more important than their actual expertise. there's no guarantee that any decision will be made on a thorough analysis of fact, law, and credibility. we as a society just agreed to abide by convoluted legal theater and call it justice because it's better than letting people kill each other in the streets.

2

u/Hairy_Mycologist_945 16h ago

Imagine suddenly being back in kindergarten, but with other adults who don't know how to do anything and no teacher, and you've got an approximate look at it.

2

u/Darmok47 15h ago

I had a law professor who was a Crim Law expert serve on a jury in a criminal case, so you may get your chance! I think the bigger problem is that the other jurors will defer to you, rather than use their own judgment though.

I had a classmate in law school who disappeared for two weeks and I thought he dropped the class. Turns out he got jury duty and the judge was really happy to have him there because he thought it would be a great educational experience for him lol.

1

u/gsfgf 4h ago

Are you a trial lawyer? I'm sure having a lawyer on a jury suuuucks. They're going to be critiquing every fucking thing you do. And you know it's an audience of one. Just like you, I'd love to be on a jury, and I'd do my best to be a good juror, but we both know that we'd basically be single-handedly determining what the jury returns.

1

u/lilmimzzz 1h ago

Me too — but lawyers in Ontario are one of the professions excluded from jury duty!

26

u/Illustrious-Peace989 18h ago edited 18h ago

I found jury duty fascinating. It really showed me firsthand that the best thing you can do if you’re arrested is stay silent. One trial I sat on the case would have been extremely weak if not for the fact that the guy had to shoot off his mouth during the police interrogation and basically gave them the evidence needed to prove that he participated in the crime. Had he just shut up, the prosecution would have had a very weak case.

The other case I was genuinely shocked made it to trial because literally the only evidence that the prosecution had of the defendant’s guilt was the word of his alleged co-conspirator, who had already been convicted and when asked by the defense lawyer why he was testifying he said that it was because he wanted a shorter sentence. This was made even funnier by the fact that during both cases I was a juror on, the judge specifically said that if we don’t find a witness to be credible, we should disregard their testimony. We deliberated for less than 15 minutes before returning with a verdict of not guilty.

2

u/kitsunewarlock 13h ago

Makes sense that the police aren't going to waste their time interrogating you if they have everything they need to lock you up.

25

u/cliff99 18h ago

The one time I sat on a jury my experience was the opposite of that. Pretty much as open a shut case as you can imagine (guy opened the door to some cops serving a warrant with a meth pipe sticking out of his shirt pocket) and we still spent a couple of hours discussing the case before we can to a verdict.

2

u/chilari 13h ago

That seems reasonable, though. Like, you don't want to jump to snap decisions, you want to interrogate what you've heard and consider whether the evidence is reliable, you want to make sure everyone understands what they've heard, you want to consider anything that seems out of place or doesn't mesh with other information, and you want to make sure you get the whole day's payment and don't have to sit around waiting in case you're wanted for a different trial in the afternoon by finishing too soon.

1

u/cliff99 13h ago

At least where I've been called in once you actually serve on a jury they cut you loose as soon as the trial's over.

2

u/chilari 12h ago

I've never served but my brother did when he was 19, he did three different trials over the course of the two weeks he served. None of them especially serious or harrowing, and all complete fairly quickly, but he wasn't a one-and-done thing.

1

u/ParticularFew4023 18h ago

You mean not guilty, right?

21

u/TakeThreeFourFive 18h ago

I must have been lucky. I found myself on a jury full of people that I liked, that were thoughtful, empathetic, and were generally amenable to instructions. That empathy caused a bit of trouble when it came to deliberations at the end when one woman's feelings were causing her to get stuck, but we managed to get it sorted out

16

u/UufTheTank 18h ago

Yeah, I wouldn’t say I was lucky (case was CSA), but the jurors were packed to the brim with engineers/doctors/accountants/professionals. People I’d trust to make the right decision. And we did (guilty). And I drank heavily afterwards.

3

u/HLOFRND 16h ago

I’m so sorry. I can’t really imagine.

Thank you for doing your part to ensure a victim got justice. As a survivor, I’m very thankful for people like you. ♥️

6

u/MaidoftheBrins 19h ago

This article was eye-opening, to say the least.

3

u/AdoringCHIN 18h ago

If there was a law stating that people serving on juries receive their normal pay then I'd do it. But getting only $15 a day is bullshit that weeds out a lot of competent people.

3

u/Extra_Intro_Version 17h ago

Not sure how true this is, but I’ve heard that certain occupations often don’t make it on to juries. One example: engineers; supposedly too analytical.

3

u/Fuzzy-Jaguar-1828 17h ago

When i sat on a jury the (barely english speaking) forewoman was randomly assigned by the judge and not selected by us. So i wonder how this story happened but yes I agree with you.

After the verdict, a courtroom employee said our full names in front of the defendant we had just convicted so that was fucking terrifying to me for a bit 😅

2

u/Mosselpot 17h ago

There's a reason why so many countries only use juries in the most severe cases. The US is really an outlier when it comes to jury use.

2

u/Serisrahla 17h ago

My expectations are already pretty damn low, given how many people make voting decisions in America these days.

2

u/imaginaryblues 17h ago

But my expectations are already so low…

2

u/LostinHyrule12 17h ago

I'm currently serving on a jury & just during jury selection I was blown away by the stupidity of MOST of the answers & just failure to answer SIMPLE questions.

2

u/Chole_Wunt 16h ago

I had epiphany when I went to caucus in the primary for Bernie Sanders in 2016.....

It was one of those old-school sessions where you go into a bunch of rooms with 30-40 people and discuss the candidates and then everyone votes.

It was an hour long cringe fest. From both sides. Totally thoughtless and a void of critical thinking. I was just shocked and the thoughtless, dumb, comments everyone was making. Literally everyone. I had to just keep quiet because I could not even contribute or participate in the stupidity. I still dont understand it.

The climax was towards the end when we were about to vote. Bernie was winning by about 75%. The dumb boomer woman running the room with her husband said "You are too young to vote right and need to just do what youre told" to the Bernie side. The average age of that side of the room was about 30 years old.....

2

u/DoctorSNAFU 16h ago

I've been on a jury. The lowered my expectations about the LAWYER'S comprehension.

2

u/anomanderrake1337 16h ago

Or just customer service. We might literally be the dumbest beings on the planet. Our smartest specimens don't really have anything to gloat about because the rest don't even know what being smart would entail.

2

u/ShedMontgomery 16h ago

As George Carlin said, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

2

u/coltbeatsall 16h ago

I'm not American, but the same is true of other countries for sure. I was the forewoman of a jury and the case was complex (is was a second trial to cover charges that the previous jury could not decide on). After the closing statements, other jurors wanted to take a vote based on vibes. But that would have actually meant people voting based only on closing statements (some of which just didn't hold water once you examined each point). It was also hard because it was clear that a couple members of the jury had clear biases. I encouraged the group to use the whiteboard and things we had available to make a decent assessment of the charges against the evidence. We did and I think we made good decisions in the end, based on the evidence provided. It took us about 1 day to deliberate.

2

u/Novel-Place 15h ago

Yep. I was honestly shaken up. I didn’t realize that “logic” and the ability to reason wasn’t something that was default for people. We were on a self defense murder trial, where there is a lot of conditionality. So like, “if this is true, this must also be true.” And everyone would all be in agreement that one thing would be true, and then we would try to move on to the next thing, and a few people, over and over again, would be like, well wait, I don’t I agree with that… and we’d be like, it’s not a matter of agreeing with it or not, it’s a logical conclusion because of the facts we established. On the third day of deliberation, someone was finally just out with it and said “well someone died, so someone needs to be held accountable…….”

2

u/irishchug 15h ago

I’ve never had a jury duty go past me checking whether my number needs to go in.

2

u/ineedthenitro 15h ago

I was chosen to be on a jury when I was 23. I think I was the 2nd youngest on the jury. It wasn’t a high profile case but it was an all day event in the courtroom. When we went in the back room to deliberate a lot of the jurors were just annoyed to be there, unsure on how to vote and tired. A lot of us were shy and don’t have an opinion lol….i was young and didn’t say much and just went a long with it.

I’m 31 now and feel bad about the outcome and I wish I spoke up more. It really opened my eyes to the fact that just because there are older adults in the room doesn’t mean they’re smarter than me.

2

u/Donna_Schrump 14h ago

Lawyer here, I would love to sit on a jury, criminal or civil, to see what the deliberations are like. I have zero idea what they do in those rooms, and we aren't allowed in there.

My wife has sat on Grand Jury, but I've presented there so I get what they talk about.

2

u/Jack-of-Hearts-7 14h ago

I'd rather not, thanks. I grew up in a red state, so my expectations are already in Hell and I don't need to be depressed anymore than I am.

2

u/Ghostilocks 11h ago

I was on the jury for a murder trial and it actually gave me so much faith. Everyone there (except one that the rest of us as a jury had the judge kick off) treated it super seriously and were trying our best to understand facts and be as fair as possible.

2

u/lefthandedchurro 10h ago

I was just on a week-long jury for a drunk driver that got pulled over and refused all the tests, hoping the delays would give him time for his blood alcohol level to go down. Didn’t work btw. But we all had notebooks and so to keep awake I took tons of notes. Diagramming the arrest intersection, drawing (poorly) the expert witnesses, what pattern was on their ties. When it came time to pick the foreman, all the other jurors picked me and the judge was like, I knew that would happen! I was confused so I asked afterwards, apparently I was the only person to write anything at all, out of 12 jurors and two alternates. I was shocked.

2

u/surfinwhileworkin 10h ago

I had the opposite outcome. I left feeling pretty good about the legal system, at least in a criminal case. Everyone really gave the dude a fair shake - he was very clearly guilty, but we played devils advocate to see if the state met its burden of proof.

2

u/505ithy 10h ago

I went to jury duty once and it was for murder. It was obvious the other guy was trying to kill him as he brought a machete, cleaved him with a hammer and threw a rock at him. The guy on trial won the fight but killed him in self defense. Because he was native they did all these mental gymnastics to say he should’ve just ‘walked away’ and that violent people like him shouldn’t be in the streets. Mind you he did try to leave and had a hole in his head from the other guy ACTIVELY TRYING TO KILL HIM.

The feds were also trying to make it seem like he was some hardened gang member even though the dude was a beloved part of his community and had meetings with people and children of different races every month to bring community. And to them that was ‘gang activity’.

1

u/Just-Syrup-8723 18h ago

I think most average or above intelligent people get out of jury duty

1

u/donny_pots 17h ago

I wanted to be on one, and then when I got called for jury duty for the first time it was for the trial of a guy who killed his 6 year old son. The whole situation was fucked & I’m glad I didn’t get picked.

1

u/BlackSwampMage 17h ago

Dog i can that by just going to my local news facebook posts and reading the comments.

1

u/ZeIronMullet 17h ago

I thought it would be like 12 Angry Men, it was more like 12 idiotic men (I too am an idiot.)

1

u/assignpseudonym 17h ago

Alternatively, just sign in to Reddit. Same outcome. 

1

u/ctrembs03 17h ago

I hope I get picked and I never have 

1

u/depressiown 17h ago

I sat on a jury as an alternate for a civil case (custody battle). Didn't get to be a part of deliberations though, so I never got to experience their comprehension, unfortunately... but sitting in a trial was interesting nonetheless. Looked up the case later though, and they made the right decision. The case was pretty one sided.

1

u/SilasX 16h ago

Right, and applying this principle broadly means celebrities like RW should be on juries too.

But I'm curious ... do they generally try to exclude them? Since it would introduce a major distraction during the trial?

1

u/steinbruchfluss 16h ago

The whole concept of having a jury feels so archaic for someone from a nation without juries.

1

u/Dramatic_Substance36 16h ago

Honestly it gives me intense anxiety. I’ve been asked twice and filled out the paperwork and never heard back thankfully.

1

u/Drak_is_Right 16h ago

Depends the zip codes. Zip codes with a higher number of professionals likely had a better chance.

I was impressed in a civil case how they managed to get 5 of the 6 of us to actually be fairly intelligent. 6th might have once been, but she was old and slow on the uptake.

1

u/Federal_Scarcity_84 16h ago

Reddit does that just fine

1

u/bullitt-rider 14h ago

I spend weeks, months and years forming complex cases. I'm fairly sure I've had more than a few cases thrown because there was a sports event on or a long weekend....

1

u/shinndigg 14h ago

Any job working with the public does this juuust fine.

1

u/vonbauernfeind 14h ago

I've never been selected, but if I made it to final round I would never try to weasel out..

I strongly believe in jury nullification, and to support rhst ideology, one has to sit a jury when it comes up, to be able to provide that potential, should it arise in a case.

1

u/Dear_Bumblebee_1986 10h ago

It terrified me that completely checked out people can be plucked with really shitty screening when I got selected. There should be a one on one interview with potential jurors.

I got through the first round and then the judge asked some questions to me directly which I just answered honestly. But there was never any kind of "Do you feel mentally up to this?"

1

u/alinroc 9h ago

I've only gotten one jury duty summons. When I called on Friday to find out when to show up on Monday (this was the procedure), I was told "no need for a jury, no cases in progress, so you're done for another 7 years."

The perils of living in a county where jury trials only come around once in a while.

1

u/Corsaer 9h ago

It really lowers your expectations about the level of information comprehension the average American is capable of.

MAGA has been around for a decade now, so it's not possible for that to go lower.

1

u/-patrizio- 8h ago

I had to do grand jury duty once (4 straight weeks of it), and I gotta say that actually wasn't my experience. I hated nearly every part of it, and there were a couple very dumb jurors, but by and large everyone took it pretty seriously, weighed the consequences on a person's life, shared what they thought in deliberations, and either knew or learned to see through when cops or attorneys were bullshitting us with flimsy evidence, or when they had someone clearly guilty of a crime but the specific charges brought against them had little to no evidence, etc. The DAs hated us because we asked so many follow up questions and had no problem dismissing charges if they were BS lol.

As brutal as that month was, it did really give me a little more faith in humanity and society in that sense at least lol. Though I don't know if it would've been the same vibe if it were trial jury, even with the same other jurors; we had a specific and pre-set amount of time we had to be there, so there was no "rush through without thinking to get out of here sooner" choice lol.

1

u/AttentionSpanZero 5h ago

I was selected for jury duty, but I was one of the prosecution's prerogative dismissals solely because I have a PhD. They don't want any independent critical thought on the jury.

1

u/Yakubs_2nd_Brain 2h ago

I still can't understand how anyone feels compelled to go based on a letter no one can prove you received.

1

u/Fwoggie2 2h ago

It's not just an American thing. I have jury service coming up in the new year here in the UK and a similar issue exists from what I've read and heard.

-1

u/Shot-Arugula8264 16h ago

*Average American not smart or busy enough to get out of jury duty

0

u/Budget_Persimmon_195 14h ago

i will never sit on a jury. ever.

0

u/Letsgomountaineers5 12h ago

And as a foreman and someone who has basic processing ability it can be really frustrating deliberating with 1 or 2 people (in my experience both late middle aged women) that clearly weren’t paying attention or were bringing preconceived ideas or notions to the table.