Jury Duty with a Liberal

Actually, clear evidence of speeding was in the OP:

If you are driving at or near the speed limit and someone comes up behind you, they have to be speeding. If they weren't speeding, they could never approach from behind. Basic physics makes it quite clear that this suspect was speeding.

 

I don't think he was charged with speeding.

I don't know what the speed limit is in that area.

I don't know if the speed the Police car was doing was recorded, or an estimated opinion.

I don't think the speed the defendant's car was doing is evidenced.

Etc etc etc.

The woman clearly didn't think it was evidenced. That is her opinion and she was there to look at the facts and give her opinion.

Neither you nor I are in possession of the facts as they were presented.

 

How is this "clear evidence of speeding"? The speed limit on interstates (the OP says this happened on a "major highway") is 75mph. That means the car could have been coming up 14mph faster than the cop.

If the two cars start 1/4 mile apart, front one going 60mph, rear one going 75mph, it will only take 60 seconds for the rear car to pass the first, and the rear car was not breaking the speed limit.

Now, this case took place in 2010, when the speed limits in Texas might have been different, but I'm just saying it's not as easy to guage speeds, especially of a car closing on you from behind, as the OP makes it out to be.

Why didn't the cop just turn on his radar if he thought the person was speeding? One radar shot showing the driver going faster than the speed limit and the cop would have all the reasonable suspicion he needed to pull him over, even if the speeding was just a pretext to check something else out.

 

We weren't charged with deciding if he was drunk or not... since he was obviously DRUNK. He was on video from the time of the stop until he arrived in jail. We saw him tell the cop he was too drunk to do the sobriety tests. Whether he was drunk or not wasn't the question.

We were charged with deciding whether the officer had REASONABLE SUSPICION to stop him. No place for 100% certainty in the term 'REASONABLE SUSPICION.'

Everyone in the jury pleaded with her to explain what she saw that we didn't... she wouldn't even try. Just crossed her arms over her chest and said, "I just don't think the cop should have stopped him."

But LOL that you're making the same (non) arguments she made. Liberalism is truly international.

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda... same as the idiot juror. It was what it was. The cop had his rear video camera going and the guy's speeding up behind him was caught on tape. Like hiimjered said... if he hadn't been speeding, he wouldn't have caught up with the cop (who was driving a steady 60 (the speed limit).

 

If you're so sure, why did you post the thread?

If the thread is just to comment on how supposedly "liberal" people are "idiots" based on this experience, it's flamebait and should be deleted.

Where was the speed limit 60? You said in the OP this was a "major highway".

 

I explained this in the beginning... but those posts didn't get moved over.

My experience is not up for debate. The jury was made up of 5 personal-responsibility conservatives and 1 cop-hating, criminal-loving liberal.

I found it disgusting that she based her 'opinion' solely on her own personal agenda and not the facts of the case. She wasted taxpayer money by refusing to do her civic duty (due diligence) and work toward a verdict. Instead she pouted like a child when questioned by fellow jurors and refused to budge... or even try to explain her position.

It's funny you're getting bogged down by details, too. You must be a liberal, huh?

ROFLMAO

 

Details are important in court.

Did the jurors indicate their political affiliations or is that a product of YOUR imagination?

 

Not everyone... just her.

But I could guess about the rest.

Ever served on a hung jury, Margot?

 

No.. I have served on many juries (and been jury foreman twice.) but we didn't bring our politics into it......

 

Senses become keener in a hung jury situation.

(reposted from backup forum)

This was my second DWI jury. The first was another case of the defendant being able to get off the charge on a technicality... although there was video of an obviously drunk driver. I had to be persuaded to admit there was really no PROOF he was drunk since he refused to take either a breath test or speak while there was a microphone recording his voice. (turned out he was an atty... lesson, keep your mouth shut if you're drunk and you might get off)

He approached me in the hall outside the court to thank me for finding him not guilty and I wanted to slap him.

My 2 experiences haven't been pleasant ones. The first one was non-partisan, but this last one had a definite right/left flavor to it. She became so outraged at one point, she tried to get up and storm outta the room... except we were locked in. She locked herself in the bathroom until she cooled off a little.

LOL, the lady across the table from me made this sign as soon as the bathroom door slammed:



Everyone nodded in agreement.

 

Then why did you post about it? If you post about your experience on a debate forum, it's up for debate.

Ok. So what? What are we supposed to discuss other than a flame war back and forth?

Did she ever say she was doing this, or are you just assuming, since you don't like her political affiliation?

Maybe she couldn't explain it. This is why we have a jury system. It's supposed to be made up of average people, not expert debaters.

Details are important in a criminal trial. If you don't know that, maybe you should consider the possibility that you were the one reaching the wrong verdict.

But, again, why did you post the thread if you don't want anyone to examine the details of what occurred? You just wanted everyone to read your post, nod their heads, and move on? So get a blog.

I find it interesting that you think anyone who examines the "details" in a criminal trial "must be a liberal," and that is somehow supposed to be an insult. At any rate, no; I'm a libertarian. Not that you'd be concerned enough with "details" to know the difference.

Um, the fact that there is no proof a person is guilty is not a "technicality." It's the only thing that matters. Your lack of knowledge of the basic premise of our justice system is shocking.

Why? He was being polite. He was thanking you for freeing someone who was not guilty. You did the right thing.

 

Smartie, so this woman actually told you and the other jury members that she was a liberal, or did you assume she was a liberal based on her opinion of the case?

 

Re the first jury I mentioned where the guy was drunk, but got off on a technicality. Only a liberal would congratulate him for beating the system... hopefully the next time he drives drunk and kills somebody, it won't be anybody you know.

 

Nobody admits to being a liberal, Mak. She didn't have to... when she chose to call the police officer a liar (even though he had a video tape that proved he was telling the truth)... we knew she was a criminal-loving liberal.

You ever served on a jury?

 

I was a police officer for thirty years and while I have a lot of problems with the system, and the abuse of the system, I have quite a bit of faith in the jury system. My first thought is that the prosecuting attorney slept through the empaneling of the jurors and didn't bother to question prospective jurors.

I would not want to see us lose the jury system. For me, it might be the only bright light in the sewer.

 

Not really that hard to 'fool' attorneys during voir dire. One of the questions we were asked.. on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being terrible), how would you rate your opinion of police. After we were hopelessly deadlocked, I asked one of the jurors if they remembered our holdout's response. She checked her notes and said "4" -- which is what all of us who were selected had responded. She said what she thought they wanted to hear. It wasn't until she was seated as a juror she decided to go on a power trip.

I agree... it's not a perfect system, but it's still the best in the world. Sure is disgusting to see someone abuse the privilege. Which is exactly what she did.

 

Yay for generalizations.

You'd probably call me a big criminal-hugging liberal also. And I do believe that the criminal system doesn't just exist to punish, but to reform (when possible) and that understanding WHY someone is a criminal is an important step in improving society. Some criminals are victims and I don't consider simplification of the matter into "good guys" and "bad guys" to be beneficial to society. That said, this doesn't mean that I would excuse the behavior... If someone did a crime, they should be convicted for it, and the question for how to punish/reform the criminal should be managed in the prison system... it's not a for the jury to simply forgive a criminal and let them off... if they are a danger to themselves and society, they need to be locked up. Simple as that.

Speaking from my own jury experience, I had the pleasure of being picked to serve on a murder trial, a hispanic man killing his wife. The question was not "is he innocent or guilty", but rather "first degree murder", "second degree murder" or "voluntary manslaughter". The scenario was basically summed up like this: The man and wife were arguing... for hours. The wife locked herself in the bedroom, calling her best friend (who was also a witness). From the witness testimony, we know that the two were arguing with the man having a knife in hand. For hours, he was waving it at her, threatening her behind the door. Some time after the phone battery died, the wife ended up dead from knife wounds.

First degree murder involves the planned, malicious intent to kill.

Second degree murder involves those who don't necessarily plan to kill, but behave in such a reckless way that killing is a foreseeable result. (i.e. playing a game of russian roulette).

And then there's manslaughter, which is an unintentional killing without malicious intent or recklessness. Voluntary manslaughter being a killing in the heat of passion (i.e. like finding your wife cheating on you, snapping, and killing them).

Of the jury, I was probably one of the harshest. IMO, if you're waving a knife at someone and threatening them, you don't have the benefit us thinking you're not acting with malicious intent and recklessness. Yet that's where some of the jury wanted to go. Most of the jury was leaning to second degree murder, suggesting that waiving a knife at someone and threatening them for several hours does not constitute a planned, malicious intent as opposed to just recklessness. I was prepared to go with first degree murder, but ultimately we settled on second degree murder.

Long story short, being "liberal minded" about the judicial system doesn't mean you just want to let the criminals go free because you feel bad for them. If someone is a danger, they must be convicted. My "liberal" attitude only begins when they are behind bars, and in the general study of criminals to understand why the dangerous behavior exits... and what can be done to prevent it and reform it.

 

That is true, if someone has a genuine reason (based on the evidence) for doing so, and it's not impossible that one person may be right where everyone else is wrong - that's what the jury system, and legal provisions for re-trials and the like, are for. However, refusing to explain or justify that decision, if that is what happened, does suggest that the person may have been wrong in this case, and possibly basing the decision on personal prejudices rather than the evidence, but such silliness isn't restricted to any particular political stance, obviously! It's fairly well known, I think, that while most jurours will take on board the instructions and advice given and listen to the evidence before making up their mind, but some will not. There will be those who simply sympathise with the accused for some reason, or hate the police and want to 'stick it to them', and on the other hand there will be some who will just want to convict anyone who has been accused on the grounds that they must be guilty just because the police have said so and brought them to court - both positions are equally wrong, equally idiotic, and equally possible in a jury-based legal system. It's a flaw with the system, but it's still generally a very good and effective system, and it's unlikely that there will be a whole jury made up of such idiots.

To dismiss 'liberals' on the basis of one person who may well have been an idiot is simply wrong, though. It would be just as wrong as dismissing 'conservatives' on the basis that one assumed conservative in a jury is steadfastly determined to ignore the evidence and try to convict a person without explaining why, even when the rest of the jury know full well that there simply isn't the evidence there to do it.

 

Agreed, Cenydd. And hopefully anyone who's served on a jury that was prevented from carrying out it's mission by a rogue conservative will speak up and tell us about their experience. I'd be very interesting in hearing about it.

 

Interesting stuff, Jeff... thx for sharing. I'm glad this jury's case wasn't anything so serious. Because this DWI was only a misdemeanor and had already been dragged out for more than 2 years, I figure the guy's fighting it to save having it appear on his record... since he's a bar manager. No doubt the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commision (who hands out liquor licenses) frown on bar managers with DWIs on their record.

It's not like he denied being drunk and driving. The only issue being questioned was whether the cop had a right to stop him or not.

 

My comments were based on the experience of jury service from someone I know who had exactly that happen when they were serving on a jury. One person on the jury just refused point blank to accept that the accused could possibly not be guilty, despite the evidence (or lack thereof!) heard in court, and the opinion of all of the other jurors. Their argument had nothing to do with the evidence from the trial at all, and was simply that the person absolutely must have committed the crime purely because the police had charged them and taken them to court for it, and that they just would never have done that if the person wasn't guilty, and so the accused should feel the full force of the law, hopefully with the maximum penalty possible, because that's what they obviously deserved.

Although it's possible that they were concealing the fact that they had genuinely seen something in the evidence in the trial that nobody else had, and they didn't want to explain that for some reason, the likelihood is, in my opinion, that that juror was simply an idiot! It's also entirely probable, in my opinion, that such a general opinion and attitude towards crime and punishment would be something far more likely to have come from someone with generally 'conservative' political views (although that is not certain, of course), so it's very likely that it was actually (relatively speaking, at least) a 'conservative idiot'. Just like 'liberal idiots', 'conservative idiots' do exist in the world - that doesn't make either group representative of those entire political groups.

 

The juror was definitely an idiot. Maybe if the other 5 members hadn't been such obvious conservatives, nobody would've noticed the idiot was a liberal.

 

I'm not sure how to describe this, but this sounds like what I might call a "Greater Good" case... where the man is obviously guilty, but the question is for the greater good of society, do we want to allow police to be able to arbitrarily invade our privacy. Unfortunately, in the process of deciding these cases for the "greater good", criminals do get let go... call it a necessary evil. Not that I support criminals getting let go, but I would call it a conservative principle in limiting the ability of the executive to invade our lives and privacy arbitrarily.

That said, given your particular scenario, this does seem a little ridiculous. If he was obviously speeding, then the cop can pull him over. Sounds like an attempt to game the system, which happens too. I can't judge it for myself without seeing the video, but if it convinced all but one jury member, then it was probably convincing enough...

 

As a liberal myself, I personally find little sympathy with someone who has been driving while drunk and is trying to get off on a technicality!

However, the law is the law, and its application has to be balanced, fair and proper, according to the rules, and on the basis of the evidence, so had there genuinely been shown by the evidence that there was no reason to stop him that would have to be taken into account (and if that meant no conviction, that's how it would have to be) - such 'technicalities' exist in law to prevent the police being from able to act in an arbitrary or 'police state' manner against the population, and to preserve the freedom of the population from being harassed by the authorities for no reason, so as much as they might occasionally allow a criminal to 'get away with it on a technicality', they are still important 'technicalities' for a society to have.

By the sound of it, though, there was plenty of evidence of a reason for him to be pulled over anyway, so it really shouldn't have been an issue!