I thought I was gonna have to dust off my MAGA hat.

I decided that I wasn't going to engage in jury nullification, especially since I said during voir dire that I would follow the law. I'm not sure if I would have been comfortable serving if it had just been a marijuana possession case.

There were some interesting and funny things. I know the Judge and not only did I catch him dozing off at times, but there were instances when we looked at each other expecting an objection that wasn't asserted. The defense actually put their client on the stand, and he might have been the worst liar of all time. The other jurors were immediately ready to convict on all counts as soon as we got back to the jury room. I was prepared to identify a lesser included charge, if applicable, and suggested that we go step by step through the jury instructions and each Count before voting. We convicted after about 45 minutes of deliberation a couple day trial.

 

I think it’s fair game if you get on your soap box and talk about how anti-crime you are. You are willing to look the other way when the criminals fit your ideology and demographic. That is what makes you unfit to be a juror, moreso than any exaggerated claims of aversion to crime. You’d probably throw the book at one type of criminal and let the other one get off scot-free.

 

Well, the kicker was when we got to the jury room, the bailiff put the kilo of weed on the table and said it was up to us to decide if it was MJ or not yet denied us the materials that would have helped us decide.

 

I got called twice, once my number was too high so I didn't have to show up at all. The second time I sat around all day, got called into the courtroom with 50 others, sat there while the prosecutor asked a hundred questions and then proceeded to just pick the first 12 people in row one. I was in the fifth row. If they were just going to do that all along just do it without making me listen to your meaningless questions.

 

Of course it's fair game. He starts a thread about his intent to avoid jury duty by wearing one of those stupid hats until he comes up with Plan B to avoid jury duty, his age. Then he blames it on his strong anti-crime stance...he wouldn't have been selected anyway. Every lawyer he would have interacted with that day would have been brighter and better educated than he. They would have seen through the red truck stop hat thing immediately. He likely would have sat there until the very first opportunity to cut him, without the first word about his "tough anti-crime" position. The hat would have told the lawyers everything they needed to know...a guy willing to pull a stunt like this to avoid sitting on a jury would likely be caustic to have in the jury room...and that could cut both ways, from the prosecutor's and defense attorney's perspectives. That hat isn't associated with law and order, but rather a whole other list of character issues.

 

I say I went to law school. True. Six strikeouts.

FTR, I want to do it. Never been selected once. I’ve been called about 15 times. I always answer one-hundie neutral.

I would strike me too. Too thirsty.

 

I would love to serve on one, but my background makes it an impossibility

 

I disagree, but even if you are right that doesn’t mean participants did not break many laws aside from attempting to overthrow the government.

You are tough on crime but would allow Trump supporters to walk free on crimes like disorderly conduct, unlawful entry, trespassing, disrupting Congress, theft, weapons offenses, making threats. How is that being tough on crime?

You are selectively tough on crime, which is worse than being soft on crime.

Not a fan of your earlier “hanging offense” reference, either, to be honest.

 

You probably shouldn't vote anymore either.

 

Hot tip - there are some smart people that post on thfsg. some expound on various topics and I’ll recheck the poster’s name and think ‘wow, I didn’t know he/she had that wattage’. It’s a good reminder on humility. But outside of making an occasional reference on background for expertise (e.g. “I served in marines for 20 years”) they almost never brag or try to convince the board they’re well above avg intelligence.

 

You're a bit confused. The number was actually slightly over 74 million and a majority of those voters are still under the delusion that their candidate (the one who lost the election) actually won because that's what he told them and being easily manipulated sheep they essentially consider everything that he says to be the infallible word of God.

 

Difference is your intelligence isn’t being questioned like 15151

I find it strange that people here feel the need to do that to people they don’t politically align with. Does it make them feel better about themselves? Don’t know but wonder.

I’m probably the least educated person who posts here. I have an AA in fire science. That’s a 2 year degree that assisted me as a fire investigator/inspector. I’m very proud of my education and work history and not in the least intimidated or envious of those that chose different degrees. I found out during my career that degrees didn’t always make a better more competent employee. Some people I encountered were very educated and book smart but lacked common sense.

Go ahead and call someone uneducated, ignorant, dumb, stupid, etc. if that makes you feel better about yourself.

SMDH

 

I'd love to sit on a jury, but no sane lawyer would allow that lol.

I think we can all venture a guess as to why.