Do you really think you could eliminate all emotion from jury duty?

It depends on the case I suppose. I was elected foreman of a jury in a civil case that involved only monetary award, not jail time and I felt no emotions for one side or the other. It involved a large commercial enterprise vs. a government regulatory agency. At the end it was obvious that the person bringing the lawsuit did not have grounds for the award they were asking for. But if the facts has proven otherwise, I don’t think I would have felt emotional about it one way or the other.
 

I've never in my life been called for jury duty as much as I've been called since we've lived in Dallas. I could not put emotions aside, and in fact each time I've been in a jury pool I've spoken out about some of my emotional biases so I've never been chosen.
 

Before being put into the jury pool, I was quite sure I could judge entirely on the evidence, kind of like Mr. Spock- Star Trek. I didn't have any idea that my emotions would color my objectivity. I KNEW that SOB did it. And it didn't matter that I didn't know anything about the case,
 
I served on jury duty many many years ago and would never want to serve again. I was 21 yrs old at the time and even after all these years I still remember the name of the defendant and his address. He was on trial for Rape, incest, and corrupting the morals of a miner. When the jury was debating the case I even had to explain to a male juror what the term incest meant and corrupting the morals of a miner meant. I would never want to serve again.
 
I believe I could as long as I kept reminding myself that the onus is on the prosecution to provide proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus is not on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.

My problem these days would be to maintain my concentration during lengthy arguments.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Do you really think you could eliminate all emotion from jury duty?
Click to expand...
Of course not, but I think I could set it aside and make a reasonable determination. I'd hope so anyway.
Warrigal said:
My problem these days would be to maintain my concentration during lengthy arguments.
Click to expand...
Yep, my attention span might not be what it should be. And I don't think jurors can ask a witness to repeat something...
 
Warrigal said:
I believe I could as long as I kept reminding myself that the onus is on the prosecution to provide proof that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The onus is not on the defendant to prove his/her innocence.
Click to expand...
The jury I was on was instructed by the prosecution that we were not required to follow the exact meaning of "beyond reasonable doubt." Since the judge or the defendant's attorney did not object, I suppose this allows for "guilty as determined by emotion" or some other gimmie. This set off a red flag for me. I don't know if it did for other jurors or not. As it turned out, most of the jury, while sickened by the accusations, didn't feel there was enough information to assume guilt. A few voted for guilty on the first couple trys, but we did convince them eventually, there was not enough proof to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Last edited:
I worked with a lawyer once who ended up on a jury. He was surprised, as lawyers are usually excluded, but the defense attorney wanted him and the prosecutor did not object.

Turns out the defendant was an awful person, a podophile and drug dealer and maybe worse. However my friend said he was not proven guilty of the charges brought. My friend said the jury did a quick vote before discussing the case and it was 11 to 1 to convict, only my friend voted no. Then he said he spent a lot of time explaining our legal process to the other jurors who eventually came around and acquitted. At that point he understood why the defense wanted a lawyer on the jury.

My friend felt and still feels awful about it, the defendant deserved nothing less than life imprisonment, and without my friend's intervention he would have gotten it. I am sure emotion had a lot to do with that first vote. Hell, I'd probably have voted guilty too...
 
I think I could as I very much believe the burden of proof lies with the accuser. But also, I believe in justice. I would not convict a man of murder because he cheated on his wife or did other bad things but the proof of murder was not there. Conversely, I could vote on a harsh sentence if there was evidence without reasonable doubt.
 
Wren said:
No, I definitely could not, can you imagine being on the jury at some of the horrendous child abuse/murder trials we have heard about ?

I would more likely put a contract out on the perpetrator, ending up in the slammer myself !
Click to expand...
Such was the case with me. Actually, I wasn't selected for the jury because I made it clear by my body language and facial expressions that the accused ( a registered and repeat sex offender that abused children) was scum and should suffer the worst fate possible. I could not possibly keep my emotions out of it.
 
I have been involved in military court-martials, both as judge and jury and just as a Juror. We have a matrix to go by when determining innocent or guilt. I was one of those jurors that gave the benefit of the doubt to the defendant, except in domestic issues. If a Marine was accused of striking his wife or girlfriend and it was proven to be true, he was in for a heap of trouble. The Marines do not tolerate abusing their female partner. At least, not in the court-martials I have been involved in.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Same here. I was in the jury pool, but not selected. I'm also a Registered Nurse, and for some reason, attorneys don't like us on juries.
Click to expand...
We’re you an R.N. when you worked for a living? I don’t know why, but I thought you were a schoolteacher.
 
I don' think most can totally control their emotions. But being emotional doesn't necessarily make it impossible to be fair and objective based on the evidence presented. I have been called for jury duty twice, but never served on a jury. If I had went through a major trauma in my life, e.g. having a loved one killed by a drunk driver, then I would ask to be dismissed if the trial was for drunk driving, as I would be biased.

But, if the trial was for rape, as an example, I could be objective, even though I have a daughter and wife. It would be emotional, but I could still be objective.
 
How would you like to be the jury on the Lori Vallow Daybell trial? It is going on right now and Court TV is broadcasting daily updates. To the best I can make out, it involves the following:
Lori’s brother killed her husband and her lover killed his wife.
Lori and her lover got married 17 days after he killed his wife.
They were frolicking on the beach in Hawaii while Lori’s children were missing.
Police found Lori’s 2 children buried in her lover’s back yard.
Her brother died of an embolism while sitting on the toilet.
Now Lori and her lover are on trial for murder.
They were all members of a Mormon cult and said they were favored by God.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top