Jury Duty Twice, got out of it

[onomatopoeia]

Maybe you need to describe it better then. The only person that the defendant talks to is his lawyer and that's in private. He gives the lawyer the details of the alibi in private. The lawyer then takes if from there. Not sure what the problem is.

What the defendant says to his lawyer is confidential. The lawyer telling someone else what his client said in confidence is grounds for the lawyer's disbarment. If someone testifies that 'I was told that so-and-so did such-and-such', that isn't evidence; it's called hearsay - the testimony would not be based on one's own personal observations and recollections.

Nothing prevents an accused from speaking out on his own behalf in Court, but there are limits to the amount of help his lawyer can do for him if a defendant takes the witness stand. The phrase 'everything you say can and will be used against you' applies in Court, as well as in a police barn.

Saying nothing at all ensures that nothing that one says can or will be used against them, unless a deaf mute takes the witness stand, and testifies in sign language.

Often a defense attorney doesn't want his client to tell him their version of events. If the client tells the lawyer that he did the deed, but wants to try to get away with it, a few lawyers will excuse themselves from the case out of moral principles, and many will raise their fee.

The defense lawyer is not necessarily trying to convince the Judge and jury that his client is not guilty. Usually the defense is looking to try to have prosecution evidence excluded because of procedural errors in the evidence gathering, or to cast doubt on the accuracy of an eyewitness' memory recall, or to present a plausible explanation of how the crime may have been committed by someone else. In a nutshell, the defense is often trying to create reasonable doubt,and nothing more.

In a case based mostly on circumstantial evidence, a degree of doubt should exist in the minds of the jurors. The jury's job is NOT to decide whether or not they THINK the defendant is guilty. Their job is to decide whether or not the prosecution has PROVEN the guilt, reasonably and sufficiently.

There is no place for emotion in rendering a verdict. No one should ever be convicted because the jury 'feels that they probably did it'. Lawyers will try to provoke emotional reactions from juries to cloud their judgement. Part of the job of the jury is to see through that sort of thing. Evidence, as defined by the Law, is the ONLY thing that matters in a criminal trial.The rest is theater.

 

[shack]

What the defendant says to his lawyer is confidential. The lawyer telling someone else what his client said in confidence is grounds for the lawyer's disbarment. If someone testifies that 'I was told that so-and-so did such-and-such', that isn't evidence; it's called hearsay - the testimony would not be based on one's own personal observations and recollections.

Nothing prevents an accused from speaking out on his own behalf in Court, but there are limits to the amount of help his lawyer can do for him if a defendant takes the witness stand. The phrase 'everything you say can and will be used against you' applies in Court, as well as in a police barn.

Saying nothing at all ensures that nothing that one says can or will be used against them, unless a deaf mute takes the witness stand, and testifies in sign language.

Often a defense attorney doesn't want his client to tell him their version of events. If the client tells the lawyer that he did the deed, but wants to try to get away with it, a few lawyers will excuse themselves from the case out of moral principles, and many will raise their fee.

The defense lawyer is not necessarily trying to convince the Judge and jury that his client is not guilty. Usually the defense is looking to try to have prosecution evidence excluded because of procedural errors in the evidence gathering, or to cast doubt on the accuracy of an eyewitness' memory recall, or to present a plausible explanation of how the crime may have been committed by someone else. In a nutshell, the defense is often trying to create reasonable doubt,and nothing more.

In a case based mostly on circumstantial evidence, a degree of doubt should exist in the minds of the jurors. The jury's job is NOT to decide whether or not they THINK the defendant is guilty. Their job is to decide whether or not the prosecution has PROVEN the guilt, reasonably and sufficiently.

There is no place for emotion in rendering a verdict. No one should ever be convicted because the jury 'feels that they probably did it'. Lawyers will try to provoke emotional reactions from juries to cloud their judgement. Part of the job of the jury is to see through that sort of thing. Evidence, as defined by the Law, is the ONLY thing that matters in a criminal trial.The rest is theater.

 

[shack]

What the defendant says to his lawyer is confidential. The lawyer telling someone else what his client said in confidence is grounds for the lawyer's disbarment. If someone testifies that 'I was told that so-and-so did such-and-such', that isn't evidence; it's called hearsay - the testimony would not be based on one's own personal observations and recollections.

Nothing prevents an accused from speaking out on his own behalf in Court, but there are limits to the amount of help his lawyer can do for him if a defendant takes the witness stand. The phrase 'everything you say can and will be used against you' applies in Court, as well as in a police barn.

Saying nothing at all ensures that nothing that one says can or will be used against them, unless a deaf mute takes the witness stand, and testifies in sign language.

Often a defense attorney doesn't want his client to tell him their version of events. If the client tells the lawyer that he did the deed, but wants to try to get away with it, a few lawyers will excuse themselves from the case out of moral principles, and many will raise their fee.

The defense lawyer is not necessarily trying to convince the Judge and jury that his client is not guilty. Usually the defense is looking to try to have prosecution evidence excluded because of procedural errors in the evidence gathering, or to cast doubt on the accuracy of an eyewitness' memory recall, or to present a plausible explanation of how the crime may have been committed by someone else. In a nutshell, the defense is often trying to create reasonable doubt,and nothing more.

In a case based mostly on circumstantial evidence, a degree of doubt should exist in the minds of the jurors. The jury's job is NOT to decide whether or not they THINK the defendant is guilty. Their job is to decide whether or not the prosecution has PROVEN the guilt, reasonably and sufficiently.

There is no place for emotion in rendering a verdict. No one should ever be convicted because the jury 'feels that they probably did it'. Lawyers will try to provoke emotional reactions from juries to cloud their judgement. Part of the job of the jury is to see through that sort of thing. Evidence, as defined by the Law, is the ONLY thing that matters in a criminal trial.The rest is theater.

So, if a defendant has an alibi, such as I was with so and so at the time of the murder, how does he get this entered as testimony/proof for the record.

 

[onomatopoeia]

So, if a defendant has an alibi, such as I was with so and so at the time of the murder, how does he get this entered as testimony/proof for the record.

So and so could testify that they were with the defendant somewhere else, and So and so could provide evidence that what they are saying is true.

The onus is on the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant was present at the crime scene.

The defense doesn't NEED to provide any evidence of anything. Many defense cases are based on showing that the prosecution evidence is unreliable, inconclusive, or improperly obtained.

You stated that the case had

...no direct evidence ...

To me, that says that the prosecution was able to place the defendant near, but not at, the crime scene. Very likely the defendant was not the only person who was at or near the crime scene.

They had set up a sting operation where a cop befriended the defendant who revealed some information which was used against him. There were footprints that matched shoes he owned.

The defendant may have hung himself by speaking to that cop.

Footprints should not be strong enough evidence to convict someone of murder.

As far as I can tell, there was no witness to the murder, there was no DNA evidence linking the defendant to the murder, there was no murder weapon found, which could be directly tied to the defendant, the defendant's fingerprints were not found at the crime scene, no blood of the victim was found on the defendant's person or clothing. The 'sting operation' cop could have been lying....

I'm not saying that the guy definitely didn't commit the murder, but the sort of circumstantial evidence you've mentioned shouldn't necessarily be enough to PROVE, WITHIN REASONABLE DOUBT, that he did the deed. If sounds to me like the prosecution presented a scenario where he could have, might have, or probably committed the crime, with an abundance of small pieces of evidence, but no 'smoking gun'.

Someone who own ten million dollars is rich. Someone who own ten million pennies is not - they only have scrap metal value now, and most would only have 4.5% copper content.

 

[The Mechanic]

Got nailed twice for jury duty both times, I was in my apprenticeship at school. The third time I had to show up and yes they ask you to address conservatively, jeans and a T-shirt. When I was interviewed I just basically told them to things first, I don’t want anything to do with this kangaroo court where someone is convicted of murder and he serves to three years. And second do like the Marines kill them all let God sorted out.

 

[shack]

So and so could testify that they were with the defendant somewhere else, and So and so could provide evidence that what they are saying is true.

After the defendant had named so and so to his defence lawyer in a private setting.

As I said, after that it is up to the lawyer.

Glad we agree.

 

[shack]

So and so could testify that they were with the defendant somewhere else, and So and so could provide evidence that what they are saying is true.

The onus is on the prosecution to present evidence that the defendant was present at the crime scene.

The defense doesn't NEED to provide any evidence of anything. Many defense cases are based on showing that the prosecution evidence is unreliable, inconclusive, or improperly obtained.

You stated that the case had



To me, that says that the prosecution was able to place the defendant near, but not at, the crime scene. Very likely the defendant was not the only person who was at or near the crime scene.



The defendant may have hung himself by speaking to that cop.

Footprints should not be strong enough evidence to convict someone of murder.

As far as I can tell, there was no witness to the murder, there was no DNA evidence linking the defendant to the murder, there was no murder weapon found, which could be directly tied to the defendant, the defendant's fingerprints were not found at the crime scene, no blood of the victim was found on the defendant's person or clothing. The 'sting operation' cop could have been lying....

I'm not saying that the guy definitely didn't commit the murder, but the sort of circumstantial evidence you've mentioned shouldn't necessarily be enough to PROVE, WITHIN REASONABLE DOUBT, that he did the deed. If sounds to me like the prosecution presented a scenario where he could have, might have, or probably committed the crime, with an abundance of small pieces of evidence, but no 'smoking gun'.

Someone who own ten million dollars is rich. Someone who own ten million pennies is not - they only have scrap metal value now, and most would only have 4.5% copper content.

Even with all that, the defining moment came when, after the verdict was read, and we were assembled in the juror's room, the magistrate entered and complemented us for arriving at the proper decision.

 

[yippie]

I was called in for jury duty in Peterborough a few years ago. When we all got there, we were told we could all go home. The reason? There were no jury trials scheduled for Peterborough County that month.

 

[unassuming]

I was called in for jury duty in Peterborough a few years ago. When we all got there, we were told we could all go home. The reason? There were no jury trials scheduled for Peterborough County that month.

If that was during the pandemic, there were no jury trials, judge trials only, IIRC, provincial regulations.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I just got selected as potential juror.
6% chance people get picked, but with my luck that'll be me

Anyone have any tips how to get out of this??

 

[dotdotdot69]

If you're working for someone bring a letter from your employer stating something like they need you or you can't afford to take time off work more. If you're self employed mention you can't afford to take time off. This generally works if you get called up to be potentially picked from the group you're in. You still have to show up for the actual day(s) to see if you get selected. Happened to me in the early 2000's in Toronto. Most of the time a legit excuse like that and the judge says something along the lines of it's your duty to be a juror but understands and either they let you go or you get seated again incase they pick you again for another trial that day or next day; I forget. Or the lawyers look at you and decide not go with you cause of the work excuse. I think I went 3 days and got selected once to be potentially picked but I was in my early 20s and just was honest saying I didn't care to be there so the lawyers didn't bother picking me lol. The judge wasn't happy with my remarks, but meh in my early 20s I didn't care much nor cared to vote in elections either lol. I didn't care at the time what the judge said to me about me being a citizen and have to do my duties. In my mind I was thinking whatever at least I didn't make up a lie. If it were to happen again I'll just white lie with the work excuse.

 

[Burldude]

I just got selected as potential juror.
6% chance people get picked, but with my luck that'll be me

Anyone have any tips how to get out of this??

Everybody got this. Nothing new. It does not mean you have been selected... it just mean you are part of a pool that can be selected (out of several millions that care to send this form back)

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

With my luck the trial will be about some serial killer who ate the victims intestines

 

[LTO_3]

Been there done that 2-3 times. The last time, I noticed the forms had changed a bit from the other times and had a medical exclusion/exemption section where you could indicate a medical condition/reason for being excluded from further jury notifications. Since I did that, I've received no further jury notifications.

LTO_3

 

[FrankenStrat]

I've gotten out of 4 or 5. Couldn't escape last summer though. Went down, sat around with a ton of other suckers, went to the washroom in the afternoon, came back after a few mins....NO ONE WAS IN THE ROOM!!!! Was told that they got jurors from the group that was in another room. DIMISSED!!! Got another letter few months later. Sent them a copy of my letter saying that I'm exempt for 3 years.

My co-worker was being excused from being called a 3rd time. He said the judge told him that he will eventually have to serve. They will keep coming for him until he does.

 

[FrankenStrat]

With my luck the trial will be about some serial killer who ate the victims intestines

Not criminal.
Just hungry...

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Not criminal.
Just hungry...

Who doesnt enjoy some intestines once in a while.

Goes great with fava beans and a nice Chianti

 

[FrankenStrat]

Who doesnt enjoy some intestines once in a while.

Goes great with fava beans and a nice Chianti

Ooooooh! You are animal!

 

[io2471]

I generally don't have to worry about getting selected. I own a small business....so the plaintiff's lawyer will generally boot me in a civil trial. I also have a past with the "conflict defender" (i.e. counter-part to the DA) in our county. I let it be know that I still (genuinely) hold her in super high regard, and the prosecution will excuxe me.

 

[james t kirk]

Received a notice to appear somewhere with respect to being selected for jury duty.

Just threw the letter in the blue box and never heard shit from anyone.

(I simply could not afford to be on a jury.)