SpawnPoint

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!

dwinx @ 2008-01-09 11:40:10
My wife is a lawyer and while she involved in criminal affairs, I always loved to anecdotes from law school she brought home talking about why the system works the way it does. Before I read the rest of your blog, I assumed a person would not testify because they would be concerned about perjuring themselves.

unholy @ 2008-01-10 19:51:32
God court would be so much easier if they had demos. :P
Law school sounds rly boring by the way.

SgtBullywog @ 2008-01-21 01:17:45
Hi Pwnzer!!

Having just started to catch up on some of your postings, i wanted to reply to this one.
I dont know the person involved in the case you were at, but consider this possibility:
Person X had a rough life...bad choices in his/her youth and some not so great ones in early adulthood. But he/she managed to correct course and start down a more fulfilling and rewarding path in life.
If Person X takes the stand and is subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, it is more likely the bad choices will be brought to light than any change for the better. The prosecution wants to win after all. And as people, we are quicker to believe the negative than the positive in others.
Sad, but true. In this circumstance, the defendant's right to NOT testify is a necessary precaution against an all too human response to people who are less than perfect.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people who are acting to hide a deeper life of crime or misconduct.
There is a lot that can be said about the limitations placed on evidence that can be presented at such trials, but there are some important protections there too.
Not many of us are wholy innocent, but that doesnt make us guilty either.

cheers

teh-pwnzer @ 2008-01-21 23:53:57
I fully agree with you Bully...well, if I knew the real reason why he was not testifying, (and if I was picked on that jury I would have found out on my own), I definitely believe that it would have hindered my ability to make a fair and unbiased decision. Not 100% certain but pretty sure he'd be going in with a strike against him. I know that that is not fair...it's not how our judicial system works...but that's human nature. Kinda messed up a bit, I guess, now that I think about it...but I guess I wouldn't make a good juror...or a good defense attorney!!!