Eventually almost everyone whose name is on some government record gets a summons for jury duty. It's a forced interruption of our daily routine, and most people would like to get out of it.
There are some statutory exemptions that can keep a person from having to show up at all, and there are excuses the judge presiding over the jury pool might accept. But then once the prospective juror gets sent to a trial it's up to the lawyers to decide who gets to go home.
And wouldn't you know, someone has made an online game out of it. The Jury Game puts the player in the lawyer's shoes and lets him/her pick a jury. The player as lawyer chooses either a civil or criminal trial then chooses which side to represent. Then the game presents 30 potential jurors with short personal descriptions. The player decides with 12 to put on the jury then gets a score based on some general principles about how good those jurors would by for that side of the case.
It's mildly fun, but it helps a prospective juror figure out what the lawyers like and don't like. And once in the courtroom, the prospective juror needs to make sure the lawyers know all the traits that might earn the juror a rejection.
Then again, some people might want to be on a jury. In that case our prospective juror needs sit there silently, not volunteer any information, and try to look as persuadable as possible.
The game is a great one and the rules and the regulations are also brilliant and superb and the task of criminal trial in a game,is great,eventually the Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated criminal law,and also the criminal procedure puts the burden of proof on the prosecution,so a great thing this is.
Posted by: Dissertation help | March 04, 2011 at 04:57 AM
On your entry about the jury's "only opnuitoprty" to render a verdict, I have found that all too often a lawyer's closing will make that observation about their verdict being the "only opnuitoprty" to provide justice to the plaintiff, but neglect to either (a) provide the jury with some assessment of the "value" of the case and/or (b) fail to proper support that stated "value." I've seen it on both the defense and plaintiff's side where the summation will simply ask a jury to do "what's fair". The problem arises with that is that you will have at least 14 different versions (from each of 12 jurors, you and your client) of what exactly is "fair." I think it is better to state specifically what is just/proper/fair, and why. The "why" portion is particularly important when supported by expert or other evidence that is highlighted in closing, since it then looks like it is not your opinion, but rather an objective conclusion based on the evidence (which we all know is the province of the jury to consider).
Posted by: Koji | May 17, 2012 at 11:46 PM
I served on a jury a few sumrems ago. It was a trial for a guy charged with armed robbery and related offenses. The prosecution just didn't have enough evidence, and in my eyes, didn't argue a good case (probably because of a lack of good evidence, but it seemed to me that the prosecutor was unable to elicit good testimony from the victim). Was the guy guilty? Most likely. But they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. While this pales in comparison to what happened in this rape case, and while it must be especially hard for the victim, I felt immense satisfaction, even pride, that I was a part of serving justice. And I recognize that, in my case, as with this rape case, it was justice for a guy that probably didn't deserve it. But this is our system.
Posted by: Salma | May 18, 2012 at 05:18 AM