Aaron Hernandez: eating bugs not steaks

[axx]

 
People have been watching too many courtroom drama on television and so there's a tendency to assume that every pre-trial ruling is a "devastating blow" to one side or the other.
 
Based on what we know (which most certainly is not the entirety of the case) Hernandez is still almost certain to be convicted.

 
I don't know what the defense is going to be, but anything other than "AH wasn't there" will likely lead to him getting a long time in the pokey even if they don't convict him of Murder 1. The texts had they been admissible would have made it virtually impossible. That's why the texts is so huge, it gives them an opening.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Hearsay evidence is always less than ideal because of the lack of the ability for the defendant to confront the speaker; 

 
Well, usually the speaker isn't dead...

 

[OCST]

 
I don't know what the defense is going to be, but anything other than "AH wasn't there" will likely lead to him getting a long time in the pokey even if they don't convict him of Murder 1. The texts had they been admissible would have made it virtually impossible. That's why the texts is so huge, it gives them an opening.

 
No, they "is" not so huge.

 

[BroodsSexton]

There's also the possibility that the judge sees the evidence is so overwhelming that he would rather err on the side of the defendant rather than give him grounds for an appeal.

 

[Average Reds]

 
I don't know what the defense is going to be, but anything other than "AH wasn't there" will likely lead to him getting a long time in the pokey even if they don't convict him of Murder 1. The texts had they been admissible would have made it virtually impossible. That's why the texts is so huge, it gives them an opening.

 
Considering the fact that the prosecution has him on video driving into the murder site minutes before Lloyd was murdered and leaving minutes after, It will be virtually impossible to argue that AH wasn't there.

 

[OCST]

 
Well, usually the speaker isn't dead...

 
You'd be surprised.  Hearsay rule applies in civil trials, too, and some of those go on for many years (I am working on a case that started in '06).  Not at all rare for a witness to die in the interim.
 
Plus, many civil trials are about dead people to begin with -will challenges, auto accidents, etc.
 
New York has a statute about it for civil actions:
 

 
N.Y. C.P.L.R.  § 4519: Personal transaction or communication between witness and decedent or mentally ill person
 
Upon the trial of an action or the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding, a party or a person interested in the event, or a person from, through or under whom such a party or interested person derives his interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall not be examined as a witness in his own behalf or interest, or in behalf of the party succeeding to his title or interest against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person or the committee of a mentally ill person, or a person deriving his title or interest from, through or under a deceased person or mentally ill person, by assignment or otherwise, concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or mentally ill person, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his own behalf, or the testimony of the mentally ill person or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication. A person shall not be deemed interested for the purposes of this section by reason of being a stockholder or officer of any banking corporation which is a party to the action or proceeding, or interested in the event thereof. No party or person interested in the event, who is otherwise competent to testify, shall be disqualified from testifying by the possible imposition of costs against him or the award of costs to him. A party or person interested in the event or a person from, through or under whom such a party or interested person derives his interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall not be qualified for the purposes of this section, to testify in his own behalf or interest, or in behalf of the party succeeding to his title or interest, to personal transactions or communications with the donee of a power of appointment in an action or proceeding for the probate of a will, which exercises or attempts to exercise a power of appointment granted by the will of a donor of such power, or in an action or proceeding involving the construction of the will of the donee after its admission to probate. Nothing contained in this section, however, shall render a person incompetent to testify as to the facts of an accident or the results therefrom where the proceeding, hearing, defense or cause of action involves a claim of negligence or contributory negligence in an action wherein one or more parties is the representative of a deceased or incompetent person based upon, or by reason of, the operation or ownership of a motor vehicle being operated upon the highways of the state, or the operation or ownership of aircraft being operated in the air space over the state, or the operation or ownership of a vessel on any of the lakes, rivers, streams, canals or other waters of this state, but this provision shall not be construed as permitting testimony as to conversations with the deceased.

 
Plain English: if "Bob" said something to you, and then "Bob" died, and there is a trial about something in which you have a stake, you can't testify about what "Bob" told you, if it affects your stake.
 
Most common application: Lear dies, without a will, leaves behind a vast estate worth billions.  He was a widower.  Since he had no will, and was a widower, his estate by law would be divided equally among his three daughters, Regan, Goneril, and Cordelia.  You, Fool, say that Lear told you: "My daughters are all miserable trolls.  Fuck them.  [SIZE=13.63636302948px]You are my only friend, you tell it like it is.  [/SIZE]I want you to have all my money."  You, Fool, bring a lawsuit to claim Lear's estate for yourself.  Your only proof is what Lear allegedly said to you.  There is no evidence to corroborate your story.  But you try to tell the story in court, on the stand, to prove that Lear wanted you to have the cash.  
 

But you can testify against Lear's estate if you saw Lear crash his seaplane in Schenectady.

 

[ivanvamp]

If it is conceded that Lloyd and Hernandez were together at the time of the text messages, the prosecution would not need to use these to prove it.  More than that, if the prosecution proposes to use the texts to prove Lloyd's state of mind, I think that Hernandez would be deprived of his sixth amendment right to confront Lloyd as a witness on that question.

 
So if you are held hostage and sent out a flurry of texts to people, and then your hostages killed you, your texts could be thrown out because (1) it couldn't be proven that you were actually fearful (hey, maybe you were trying to play a prank on someone!) and (2) since, you know, you're DEAD, they can't confront you on this?
 
That makes NO sense to me.  I would think the last words of the guy who got murdered would be exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be admissible in court.  Let the jury decide.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
I don't know what the defense is going to be, but anything other than "AH wasn't there" will likely lead to him getting a long time in the pokey even if they don't convict him of Murder 1. The texts had they been admissible would have made it virtually impossible. That's why the texts is so huge, it gives them an opening.

 
Don't they have video of Hernandez going to and from the crime scene within minutes of the shooting?

 

[OCST]

 
Don't they have video of Hernandez going to and from the crime scene within minutes of the shooting?

 
Yes. and a shit ton of other evidence.  
 
But these texts were thrown out, so HES GONNA WALK!!1!!11!  
 
Because Jack McCoy.
 
Or something.

 

[SumnerH]

So if you are held hostage and sent out a flurry of texts to people, and then your hostages killed you, your texts could be thrown out because (1) it couldn't be proven that you were actually fearful (hey, maybe you were trying to play a prank on someone!) and (2) since, you know, you're DEAD, they can't confront you on this?
 
That makes NO sense to me.  I would think the last words of the guy who got murdered would be exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be admissible in court.  Let the jury decide.

There's usually a hearsay exemption for dying declarations.
 

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a dying declaration is admissible if the proponent of the statement can establish:
Unavailability of the declarant -- this can be established using FRE 804(a)(1)-(5);
The declarant’s statement is being offered in a criminal prosecution for homicide, or in a civil action;
The declarant’s statement was made while under the belief that his death was imminent; and
The declarant’s statement must relate to the cause or circumstances of what he believed to be his impending death.

State laws will vary, but these tweeets don't qualify.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
Yes. and a shit ton of other evidence.  
 
But these texts were thrown out, so HES GONNA WALK!!1!!11!  
 
Because Jack McCoy.
 
Or something.

 
 
Dude, Ben Volin told me that the case is weak and he's a 32 year old sportswriter so gotta listen to that.  

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

It's not that difficult, but Hearsay is extremely hard to grasp, even for lawyers and law students (proof of that outlined above). 
 
People look at hearsay backwards and that is the problem. Understand this first. Nothing someone says is admissible at trial unless you get to confront them during your trial. So every Odin Lloyd text, is first inadmissible unless they can fit it in an exception. Every statement from anyone is inadmissible unless they are planning on testifying.
 
There are some exceptions to this, one of which is a "dying declaration". Classic example, gun shot victim gasping for air, police officer rushes to the rescue, the victim says "Smitty did it" then rolls over and passes away. That statement is admissible at trial and you can cross examine the cop all you want about whether he heard that, but the statement is coming in.
 
The prosecution offered this statement as a "dying declaration", which means Lloyd said this because he knew he was about to die and wanted to tell his sister that Hernandez did it. Here is the exchange.
 
“U saw who I was with ... NFL ... Just so U know.”
Her response was "Lol"
 
The judge is basically saying that text from Lloyd does not communicate that he was dying or in imminent fear that he was dying, so it doesn't fit the exception. Imagine if he had texted, "I don't like jalapenos on Nachos, but Aaron does". That would also be inadmissible as a "dying declaration". Just because he died minutes later doesn't make everything he said a dying declaration. The text has to be relevant to proving that AH killed him or was about to. This statement doesn't go that far.
 
Also: While this is a miniwin for the defense, it doesn't effect the trial much. 

 

[Jnai]

Is hearsay the same if it's this kind of written communication?
 
[This is a dumb scenario, just roll with it for a second:] Suppose Lloyd had written a letter to his parents describing how he thought Hernandez was up to no good and had sent it three days before the murder and he ends up dying with Hernandez as the prime suspect, is the letter to his parents admissible when it arrives in two days?
 
Suppose he had written an email three hours before the murder describing...
 
Is a text message more like a letter or an email than it is "a last gasp for breath"? Does it even matter in any case?

 

[BroodsSexton]

Is hearsay the same if it's this kind of written communication?
 
[This is a dumb scenario, just roll with it for a second:] Suppose Lloyd had written a letter to his parents describing how he thought Hernandez was up to no good and had sent it three days before the murder and he ends up dying with Hernandez as the prime suspect, is the letter to his parents admissible when it arrives in two days?
 
Suppose he had written an email three hours before the murder describing...
 
Is a text message more like a letter or an email than it is "a last gasp for breath"? Does it even matter in any case?

Yes--it's any out of court statement.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Neither is admissible unless you can fit them into an exception. I've looked and the closest would be "Present Sense Impression", but honestly just because you feel someone might kill you doesn't prove that he did. You could just be paranoid, etc. But here are two scenarios. 
 
If you sent an email or letter, and said "I think AH is nuts and one day he might just be crazy enough to kill me, I can't put a finger on it, but every now and then he gives me a weird look and I wonder if he's thinking about trying to kill me"
 
OR  "I told AH that I knew he was the killer on that double murder 6 months ago and that his secret was safe with me. He gave me a wierd look and told me he didn't trust me and said he'd kill me if I ever told anyone. At that point he saw me talking to a buddy he didn't like and he thinks I've snitched. So I'm really worried"
 
The second statement gets close to being admitted because its so on point to the facts of the case, the first one, no way.

 

[Montana Fan]

Watching the Pats last weekend I was wishing Hernandez was out there with what I now believe is the greatest TE of all time. I hate to what if but crap, it really sucks that Hernandez was so fucking stupid.

 

[Myt1]

So if you are held hostage and sent out a flurry of texts to people, and then your hostages killed you, your texts could be thrown out because (1) it couldn't be proven that you were actually fearful (hey, maybe you were trying to play a prank on someone!) and (2) since, you know, you're DEAD, they can't confront you on this?
 
That makes NO sense to me.  I would think the last words of the guy who got murdered would be exactly the kind of thing that SHOULD be admissible in court.  Let the jury decide.

Some texts could come in under the present state of mind or dying declaration exceptions. The ones that are being held out don't seem o meet those criteria, while the ones you seem to be contemplating probably would.

The reason a simple, "I'm with NFL," might not come in is because people lie about who they're with and where they are with some frequency.

 

[SumnerH]

Watching the Pats last weekend I was wishing Hernandez was out there with what I now believe is the greatest TE of all time. I hate to what if but crap, it really sucks that Hernandez was so fucking stupid.

 
And evil.

 

[soxfan121]

 
And evil.

 
Allegedly.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Some texts could come in under the present state of mind or dying declaration exceptions. The ones that are being held out don't seem o meet those criteria, while the ones you seem to be contemplating probably would.

The reason a simple, "I'm with NFL," might not come in is because people lie about who they're with and where they are with some frequency.

 
Who knows?  The text itself seemed to indicate that Lloyd's sister actually saw who he left with anyway, so the text may just be redundant if she can testify to that.
 
There are two main issues here as well:
 
1) why is the prosecution seeking to introduce the texts? (i.e., what do they purport to actually prove?)
2) is this a "final" ruling due to 403 factors? Or will opening the door/impeachment/proof issues possibly come into play?
 
To sort of work backwards, the threshold for all this stuff is whether the proposed piece of evidence is relevant to the facts and issues of the case.  If any given proposed piece of evidence or testimony moves the ball up or down the field, even a fraction of an inch, then it's relevant.  It does not have to get a first down all on its own.  That said, some pieces of evidence are pretty much worthless, or redundant, or confusing, or will inflame the passions of the jury without offering anything meaningful (say the prosecution wanting to introduce a picture of AH burning a flag to show AH knew how to operate a lighter, or introduce all 900 bullets individually into evidence.)
 
If some proposed piece of evidence has that kind of baggage and is minimally probative it'll be excluded under 403.  Maybe the picture of AH holding a gun falls in this category?  Sometimes the court will initially exclude a piece of evidence under what I think of as a "soft" 403 ruling; it's just not worth going there in light of the other evidence or possible confusion.  (As opposed to what I think of as a "hard" 403 ruling that would basically result in a mistrial due to the egregiousness of the evidence.)  However, if the trial develops in such a way that the excluded stuff becomes more important, the judge can revisit the ruling.   Same thing if the defense opens the door on an issue or makes an improper argument.  Also, you can possibly use the excluded evidence to impeach.  
 
For the non attorneys, that means you essentially can't play "gotcha" games with excluded evidence, where you turn around and parade the absence of that excluded evidence in front of a jury.   (If it's constitutionally excluded, it's another matter, but usually those cases don't get tried for just that reason.)  Here, if a defense witness says something like, "Well, if Lloyd was so worried, why didn't he text someone?  He'd text his sister if he got a hangnail," then yeah, those texts are coming in. 
 
The last issue (#1 above) is that maybe in the course of the trial the texts will become relevant to prove something else.  Say, for example, if the defense argues that Lloyd didn't have a phone on him that evening, or at least not early in the evening when he was picked up.  Then the text might come in to show Lloyd had his phone instead of for the purpose of showing who Lloyd was with (NFL) that evening.  
 
As stated, these seem minimally important pieces of evidence.  Just thought I'd kick this around some.  There are still authentication and hearsay hurdles that apply in these kinds of situations, but nothing is ever really "out" until the jury has a verdict.
 
(Interestingly enough, if Lloyd had taken a picture of AH that evening, the picture would probably come in.)

 

[soxhop411]

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/12/30/cnn-special-report-promo-aaron-hernandez-01-06-15.cnn.html
 
CNN is going to have an hour long (or longer?) special on Aaron Hernandez on the 6th
 
Edit: it seems like this aired in September?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

If Belichick actually testifies, it might break the internet. 

"Next question."
"You'll have to ask Aaron."
"We're on to Tsarnaev."

 

[Rovin Romine]

It looks like the trial is still set for Jan. 5th.  Anyone who wants a good preview of the prosecution's case should read the last motion available through this link:  http://www.necn.com/news/new-england/Prosecutors-Seek-to-Keep-Drug-Expert-from-Testifying-in-Aaron-Hernandez-Case-287212101.html
 
Based on the prosecution's motion to exclude a defense witness, it appears the defense is going to try to pin the murder on the two co-defendants, arguing that their use of PCP somehow made them unhinged enough to spontaneously commit murder, and or testify untruthfully.   (Hard to say though, since the defense does not have to reveal their tactics/theories until trial.)  
 
We'll have to see what happens, but I literally can't see a good path for the defense.  Their basic problem is if they place AH at the murder scene, it's hard to argue he didn't know what was going to happen (or didn't intend to at least threaten Lloyd, which would sustain felony murder.  On the other hand, if they argue AH wasn't there, it's quite a ways to swim upstream - if the jury thinks AH lied about being there, they're that much more likely to think AH lies about everything.  

 

[dcmissle]

Any estimates on trial length?

This figures to provide a backdrop to SB run, attracting all of the attention garnered by Whitey Bulger's trial -- and them some.

Awesome.

Edit -- Should have read the piece first. The answer -- 6 to 10 weeks.

 

[Rovin Romine]

http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/12-22-14-+CW+v.+Hernandez-Bristol+Superior+Court-+195+CW+intended+list+of+exhibits.pdf

Link to the exhibit list. Another preview of the prosecution. Looks like they have everything but the gun. Of particular interest were the GSR test and the DNA swabs. No info on who or what those apply to. They can be due diligence dead ends or key pieces of evidence. Same thing for the recorded jail communications.

Looks like there will be a lot of cell tower triangulation - that can be very effective if done well, not only for the data, but for the prosecution establishing trust with the jury.

Right now it looks like the biggest danger for the prosecution is boring the jury with an unwieldy case. (Don't laugh - it can and does happen.)

 

[Rovin Romine]

OK - looks like we're off to the races.  
 
Does anyone have any good links to local on-line coverage of the trial?  
 
The jury hasn't been picked yet and we're getting the final rulings of the judge on what's coming in and what's being excluded.  
 
Interestingly, AH's finance is going to be allowed to be in the courtroom for the trial.  She's deeply implicated in the case - she allegedly disposed of something like a gunbox from the home while AH was incarcerated.  She was separately charged with obstruction.  So I don't know if she'll be called to testify by either side, or invoke the 5th if she does, or if she's been granted immunity, or if spousal privilege arguably applies in MA, or if she's waived her 5th amendment rights via her grand jury testimony.  
 
Ideally, the prosecution would want to call her and confront her with very specific questions about the gun disposal - alternating with very specific questions about how she's watched the trial up until this point and knows what's at stake.   That usually only ends well for the prosecution.   Especially if she has to invoke the 5th at some point.  No matter how they're instructed, juries read that as "guilty."
 
Also, I'm not sure who is representing her, but it seems a situation that's fraught with potential for conflicts of interest.  

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Things have been quiet, was coming in to check the start date. I'd like to see some coverage or at least the daily reporting on what has happened.

 

[Rook05]

I'll be interested to see if the judge lets Jay testify. No way the cell phone records match up with his story.

 

[soxfan121]

Scheduling is pretty advantageous for the football team, despite it being playoff time, because this is the 2nd-most interesting trial in the state. 

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

OK - looks like we're off to the races.  
 
Does anyone have any good links to local on-line coverage of the trial?  
 

 
I haven't been able to find a good live-blog for courtroom proceedings, but this is a good person to follow on Twitter:
 
[twitter]BfragaHN[/twitter]
 
He's the local crime beat writer for the Herald News out of Fall River.  Kind of live tweeted part of proceedings today, and has some pretty close connections in the Bristol DA's office, or at least used to.

 

[Titoschew]

My wife has jury duty at Superior Court in Fall River Monday.  I'd guess there is next to no chance they'll seat a full one Friday, so she'll be in the pool.

 

[Rovin Romine]

My wife has jury duty at Superior Court in Fall River Monday.  I'd guess there is next to no chance they'll seat a full one Friday, so she'll be in the pool.

 
Depends. A lot will come down to how the judge controls voir dire.  Ultimately it's just a murder trial.  Apart from the media coverage and AH's celebrity, there's nothing particularly special about it.  
 
The standard to exclude a potential juror is whether or not there's a reasonable doubt that the juror can be fair.  The standard is not whether they're completely ignorant of who AH is; there are plenty of people who can give a celebrity a fair trial.  Even a potential juror who has some knowledge of the facts of the case can be seated if they're not going to let that information bias them. 
 
That said, errors in voir dire are a good basis for appeal.  So the Court's likely to "err" on the side of the defense. 

 

[soxfan121]

Hey Rovin - clean out your PM box or send me one. Thanks.

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

Today is the first day of jury selection.  Fall River is already covering itself in glory as I've seen quite a few people walking around the Justice Center in Hernandez jerseys.  Someone in the jury pool also apparently wore a Bruins jersey and yelled out "Go Pats!"  
 
What a place.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Today is the first day of jury selection.  Fall River is already covering itself in glory as I've seen quite a few people walking around the Justice Center in Hernandez jerseys.  Someone in the jury pool also apparently wore a Bruins jersey and yelled out "Go Pats!"  
 
What a place.

 
 
People always ask me how they can get out of jury "duty;" it sounds like a lot of these jersey wearing people may want out.  
 
In reality, it's not that complicated to be excluded from a jury, and does it require clownishness.  If you honestly can't be fair and impartial, just say so and you're out.  There are tons of opportunities for this in the context of a criminal trial, provided you're honest with yourself about your potential biases on the issues.  Guns.  Child abuse.  Being a prior victim yourself. 
 
If you think you can be fair and impartial (after listening to all the voir dire questions), then just say so and you're potentially in.   However, even if you think you can be fair and impartial, there's still a strong chance you won't be on the jury, usually because something you said gives the prosecution, defense, or judge a concern that you really can't be fair and impartial.  You could also be excluded just "because" one side suspects you may favor the opposing side.  (There's a limited number of those types of exclusions, called "preemptory strikes.")
 
The thing that's really sad is that the people who shirk jury duty are really forfeiting something quite special.  We should really call it "the jury privilege."  The jury is the ultimate check on the unbridled power of the state.  It's the most powerful opportunity most people will ever have to administer "justness" and "fairness" and "wisdom."  At their best juries can make sure that the rules we're all governed by are fairly enforced. While I can't suggest juries should "go rouge" and arbitrarily make decisions based on something outside of the facts of the case or the law, juries can, though the power of nullification, just essentially pardon a criminal defendant by returning an unexplained verdict of "not guilty."  This ability to pardon is invaluable in a society where any given set of facts might "technically" be a crime, but where a conviction under those facts should provoke moral outrage.   The amazing thing, of course, is that this power is reserved for the people.  It's not held by a strongman or an elite.  Jury decisions (depending on the case) can cause sweeping changes in unexpected ways, since they're sometimes viewed as the voice of the people.  Most importantly though, the jury's decision speaks to a single person, contemplates a specific situation; it's a chance for us to be decent and fair to each other.     
 
I wish people were less fearful about serving on juries.  There are usually strong protections against employer retaliation, etc.  Sure, you may lose some time at work or some money if you're self employed.  However, if you've ever been to a political rally (of any sort, on any issue), or if you in some way respect the freedoms and traditions of the county, it's completely ass-backwards to try to duck serving in a jury.   Odd are, you won't make it in anyway.  

 

[PeaceSignMoose]

Rovin, I agree with everything you just said, but the terrifying thing was the march of the Hernandez jerseys came a while after jurors are supposed to report.  They were probably "showing support".

 

[Titoschew]

I have loved serving on juries (one criminal, one civil) - I was kind of bummed last year when I got bounced as a preemptory challenge.

 

[Reverend]

 
 
People always ask me how they can get out of jury "duty;" it sounds like a lot of these jersey wearing people may want out.  
 
In reality, it's not that complicated to be excluded from a jury, and does it require clownishness.  If you honestly can't be fair and impartial, just say so and you're out.  There are tons of opportunities for this in the context of a criminal trial, provided you're honest with yourself about your potential biases on the issues.  Guns.  Child abuse.  Being a prior victim yourself. 
 
If you think you can be fair and impartial (after listening to all the voir dire questions), then just say so and you're potentially in.   However, even if you think you can be fair and impartial, there's still a strong chance you won't be on the jury, usually because something you said gives the prosecution, defense, or judge a concern that you really can't be fair and impartial.  You could also be excluded just "because" one side suspects you may favor the opposing side.  (There's a limited number of those types of exclusions, called "preemptory strikes.")
 
The thing that's really sad is that the people who shirk jury duty are really forfeiting something quite special.  We should really call it "the jury privilege."  The jury is the ultimate check on the unbridled power of the state.  It's the most powerful opportunity most people will ever have to administer "justness" and "fairness" and "wisdom."  At their best juries can make sure that the rules we're all governed by are fairly enforced. While I can't suggest juries should "go rouge" and arbitrarily make decisions based on something outside of the facts of the case or the law, juries can, though the power of nullification, just essentially pardon a criminal defendant by returning an unexplained verdict of "not guilty."  This ability to pardon is invaluable in a society where any given set of facts might "technically" be a crime, but where a conviction under those facts should provoke moral outrage.   The amazing thing, of course, is that this power is reserved for the people.  It's not held by a strongman or an elite.  Jury decisions (depending on the case) can cause sweeping changes in unexpected ways, since they're sometimes viewed as the voice of the people.  Most importantly though, the jury's decision speaks to a single person, contemplates a specific situation; it's a chance for us to be decent and fair to each other.     
 
I wish people were less fearful about serving on juries.  There are usually strong protections against employer retaliation, etc.  Sure, you may lose some time at work or some money if you're self employed.  However, if you've ever been to a political rally (of any sort, on any issue), or if you in some way respect the freedoms and traditions of the county, it's completely ass-backwards to try to duck serving in a jury.   Odd are, you won't make it in anyway.  

 

 

[Spelunker]

I spent four months on a grand jury once, four days a week. It was incredibly interesting, and- as someone just out of school working a low level job that involved a long commute out of the city- was basically an incredible mini-vacation.

Jury duty is awesome.

 

[JMDurron]

I completely agree in principle with Rovin Romine, and it annoys me that I have never been summoned for jury duty. I think I would find it extremely interesting.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I spent four months on a grand jury once, four days a week. It was incredibly interesting, and- as someone just out of school working a low level job that involved a long commute out of the city- was basically an incredible mini-vacation.
Jury duty is awesome.

My best friend served on a multi month grand jury years ago. I found it fascinating discussing the various with her and she also seemed to enjoy the time but being at the very beginning of her professional work life, she was quite annoyed at drastic drop in her income during those months. I have only had 1 jury notice sent to me in my life and I didn't even get passed the "call this number to see if you need to show up" part.

 

[Rough Carrigan]

For a while, about 20 years ago I got a couple different notices of jury duty.  One time it was almost 5 o'clock and they needed just a couple more jurors and they brought our group of people up to the court room from the waiting room down below where we'd been all day.  I would have been the last juror needed to finish out a jury hearing the case of a man suing Iandoli supermarkets because he said he was injured by their door.  The plaintiff apparently used his last peremptory challenge to throw me out and get the pregnant woman in line after me instead.
 
The next time I got a notice of jury duty I filled out the space on the back of it asking that they please explain jury nullification to me.  I got a note back that they didn't need me.  And I haven't gotten a notice of jury duty in the roughly 15 years since.

 

[bob burda]

For a while, about 20 years ago I got a couple different notices of jury duty.  One time it was almost 5 o'clock and they needed just a couple more jurors and they brought our group of people up to the court room from the waiting room down below where we'd been all day.  I would have been the last juror needed to finish out a jury hearing the case of a man suing Iandoli supermarkets because he said he was injured by their door.  The plaintiff apparently used his last peremptory challenge to throw me out and get the pregnant woman in line after me instead.
 
The next time I got a notice of jury duty I filled out the space on the back of it asking that they please explain jury nullification to me.  I got a note back that they didn't need me.  And I haven't gotten a notice of jury duty in the roughly 15 years since.

 
Your 2nd paragraph is amusing. I have never been called and probably would be immediately dismissed - as a lawyer working in Gov'mint - though I'd wonder if the dismissal was because of assumed bias/conflict or because I would obviously know about jury nullification...
 
I agree that jury nullification is the essence of the jury system, exactly the way Romine said. As he suggests, nullification is the jury's power to say "to hell with the evidence and the law - we're letting the defendant go because of facts that suggest he should be allowed to go."  The great irony is that while this power might be a jury's essence, if you let anybody know beforehand that you're aware you have this power and are prepared to wield it if you need to, I don't think anyone will let you sit on a jury.   

 

[Marceline]

I would love to serve on a jury but I don't think I could afford it for any length of time. My work only provides 3 paid days off for jury duty. I would imagine a lot of people are in the same boat.

I'm scheduled to appear for jury duty at Fall River District Court next week.

 

[soxfan121]

RR has started a new thread on the trial.