O.k. so I went back to look at my blogs and realized I never updated on what happened at Jury Duty. I was there for an entire 2 days and found it to be a rewarding experience. (If you can believe that)
Day 1: 64 prospective jurors get chosen for a criminal case. Out of those 64, only 12 jurors and 2 alternates were chosen. I was not one of them!! =)
I had a real problem with the case, when the defense atty said that his client was not going to testify because by law he didn't have to. =/ He also told us that his client was there and something did happen but he wanted us to look at what the prosecution was going to try to prove and see if it makes sense.
Charges: a whole bunch ~ robbery... burglary...assault with a deadly weapon...resisting arrest...and a few more that I don't even remember. I remember that a house, a car and some people were involved.
My concern is this: If you are being charged with such serious crimes and you really didn't do it...why not testify and tell us what happened? I was told by the judge that a defendant is not required to do that if he doesn't want to. That is the law. My question is WHY wouldn't he want to? The burden of proof is the prosecution's job. I know....innocent until proven guily. That's not true either apparently ---> it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.
I was quickly and quietly excused from that case (hehe)...I don't think that the defense atty was too happy with me =/ .
So when I got home I made a few phone calls and did some research. I wanted to know why the law stated that a defendant does not have to testify on his behalf. Afterall, it really didn't make much sense to me.
Well I got the surprising answer! The judge was not allowed to explain the law in court while the jury was being selected. Now I knew why!! It would have tainted the defendant's case! :O
Apparently, if a defendant testifies...the issue of credibility comes in. Therefore to disprove (?) his credibility, the prosecution may bring up anything that happened in the past (even though it has nothing to do with this case). The guy must have had a very, very long history of crimes. If that is ever brought forth in the trial, then that would in fact damage his case.
Yay me! I loved doing research and talking with different people about this. I have learned so much about how people bring in past experiences into everything they make a decision on. I learned that very early on by watching the lawyers question prospective jurors, who they keep and who they dismiss...
Perhaps I should think about law school!! :O
Hope this was interesting...it really was for me! And just to think that I will not be summoned again for at least 6 years!! Woot!
