Pip wrote on August 21, 2007 11:07 PM: Yes, I agree Jon Hamel. Thank you for exchanging posts with me.

Jon Hamel wrote on August 21, 2007 12:22 PM: Pip wrote: "Jon Hamel, I agree with you up to a point, because you have noted a distinction without much of a difference. Simply noting that attorneys are "officers of the court" is meaningless when the discussion is about jury duty."

Pip, I think you have deliberately offered me a straw man to respond to! The Officer of the Court was not on a Jury, but was in fact an Attorney, acting in that capacity before the Court. Please refer to your earlier post:

Pip wrote: "Also, Jon Hamel, you make an excellent point. However, the Nevada Supreme Court just publicly sanctioned an attorney, ordering him to pay the attorneys fees of the ambulance chaser attorneys opposing him, when this lawyer told the jury, or at least insinuated, that it had the power via jury nullification to act in accordance with their conscience."

Good posts . . . it has been a pleasure to exchange my views with yours.

Jon Hamel wrote on August 21, 2007 06:49 AM: One last observation with regards to Jury Service. The courts have made great efforts to control the outcome of cases such that consistency occurs, with regards to verdicts handed down. The problem is that those actions by the court, have perverted proper workings of the Jury and in doing so destroy its purpose. I suspect that the goal is to make the Jury system unworkable, and to destroy it. I can see a time when our Government, will work to eliminate the concept of a jury from the court. The first step on the Governments part is simply to make the process so oppressive, that the people will be happy to see it go away. I hope that day never comes.

Pip wrote on August 20, 2007 10:16 PM: Jon Hamel, I agree with you up to a point, because you have noted a distinction without much of a difference. Simply noting that attorneys are "officers of the court" is meaningless when the discussion is about jury duty. Potential jurors are sworn in, and swear to tell the truth. So, I admire your truthfullness in stating that your conscience will not permit you to follow the law as instructed by the judge in the jury instructions. Attorneys appreciate honesty during voir dire. An attorney who is a potential juror may feel as you do, but his or her status as "an officer of the court" is irrelevant to disclosing to the court a belief mirroring your own.

You also say the court has no recourse for someone like you, who affirms that he will not follow an unjust law, but that is not entirely true. I have seen judges compel potential jurors to wait all day, until every courtroom has all the jurors it needs, and then let those who say things that will get them off jury go back to the jury room, and be forced to come back for the next jury pool. I do not agree with it, but a judge has enormous latitude, as witnessed by Judge Hunt's handling of the situation.

In closing, Jon Hamel, your use of the Fugitive Slave Act as an example is marvelously logical. Juries have actually fashioned verdicts that appear to be inconsistent with the law, but, arrived at verdicts that reeked of justice nonetheless. In discussion with them afterwards, one learns that they reached their verdicts despite the law, because sometimes the law is, as has been proverbially noted, "an ass."

Aaron wrote on August 20, 2007 08:06 PM: I've got Hunt's "fulfilling civic duties" bullcrap hanging. I've been on 2 different juries and both times, the entire experience sucked.

Jon Hamel wrote on August 20, 2007 07:17 PM: Pip wrote: “Also, Jon Hamel, you make an excellent point. However, the Nevada Supreme Court just publicly sanctioned an attorney, ordering him to pay the attorneys fees of the ambulance chaser attorneys opposing him, when this lawyer told the jury, or at least insinuated, that it had the power via jury nullification to act in accordance with their conscience.”

Excellent observation, but remember an attorney is an officer of the court, and subject to it. A private citizen however is treated differently. As long, as the citizen does not misrepresent its position anytime during the trial, the court would not be able to do much. In a recent case that I was on, during jury selection, I said that I would not find anyone guilty of a victimless crime. As the defendant was up for drug charges, I was dismissed from the case.

Pip wrote on August 20, 2007 04:25 PM: Faith is right, if you know a judicial executive assistant in State court, poof, you are off jury duty.

Also, Jon Hamel, you make an excellent point. However, the Nevada Supreme Court just publicly sanctioned an attorney, ordering him to pay the attorneys fees of the ambulance chaser attorneys opposing him, when this lawyer told the jury, or at least insinuated, that it had the power via jury nullification to act in accordance with their conscience.

Mary Kravetz wrote on August 20, 2007 04:23 PM: Now I realize, late in life, that some people are morons for thinking they need to be grabbing every dollar they can instead contributing to the community they reside in, and that doing one's civic duty is not a privilege but a burden that keeps them from grabbing another dollar so they can live the life they think was built on bucks instead of duty to humanity.This is a sad commentary on the changing attitudes of our society.

Jen wrote on August 20, 2007 03:33 PM: Loss of income is not an excuse to get out of jury duty. It is a real concern. $40 a day just doesn't cut it for most people. They shouldn't be punished for worrying about how they will pay bills to serve on a jury.

Jon Hamel wrote on August 20, 2007 01:06 PM: COMMUNITY SERVICE: Taking jury duty seriously, Judge can find other ways for those excused to serve.

You can be certain that I do want to serve on a jury, and to do my Constitutional duty as a Citizen. And when the Judge asks whether I will follow his/her instructions, I will answer, it depends. And when the Judge asks “depends on what”, I will reply, it depends on what you instruct. And when pressed to explain, I will answer, that as example, if I was on a Jury in 1850, and the defendant was charged under the Fugitive Slave Act, I would, regardless of jury instruction by the judge, find the person not guilty. And today, if I was instructed to find a person guilty of a law I find unconstitutional, or a law that offends my personal sense of what is right and wrong, I would find the defendant not guilty. Then, I will comment, that if I am excused from serving, that the court would be in my judgment guilty of jury stacking, for every person has the right to a randomly selected jury of his/her peers. That, is what I would say.

Read All Comments