Jury Deliberations

T

TahoeHorn

1,000+ Posts
Have any of you been on a jury? What was it like? Did you change your thinking about juries?

The OJ verdict got me thinking about this again. I was on a jury for a murder case in Houston in the early 80s. The victim was murdered in a highly publicized case of road rage on the West Loop (610). The trial lasted four and a half days and then we deliberated four hours and convicted.

Several things surprised me. IIRC all of the jurors were White. Most were professional. There was nobody whom I thought was clueless.

I was the only one who wanted to take a preliminary vote or have all give a preliminary summary of their thoughts. It was clear many wanted to kind of figure it out through discussion which I thought bizarre. The others wanted to go through a deliberate process. The judge told us later he'd never seen such a one sided case in his whole career. I believe he was not just saying that. The poor public defender had no chance. After the trial we found out about a lot of stuff which was not allowed to be presented but which we wondered about. It was very interesting.

After what I thought was an interminable length of time discussing ludicrous claims by the defendant (many contradictory) we took our first vote. It was at about the two hour mark. It was 8 to convict and 4 essentially "not ready". Later it was 11 to convict and 1 not ready. It was clear from the beginning that nobody thought he was not guilty but people had enormous reticence in doing the obvious. I could understand that if their deliberations began when we went in the room but I'd been thinking about it since the beginning. My overall conclusion was amazement at how hard it must be to get a conviction. Or to get a decision of any kind I guess. I will admit, though, that I'm this way in any kind of group meeting. "It's obvious. Let's roll it." But this experience was still unique.
 
The one time I was on a jury, it was a case of assault on a police officer. It was clear that the young man was a hothead and did beat up the officer. One old asshat on the jury held out because he didn't think the officer was hurt badly. That wasn't the point, the rest of us argued. He held out for a couple of days and we ended up with a hung jury.

Made me have a sour feeling about the judicial process.
 
I've been called several times, but never made the cut. I've been told by a couple of lawyers I work with that trial lawyers will always cut college professors.

One time I was at the end of the line in a gun possession trial, so I got to see this exchange:

Lawyer: Do you believe private citizens should be allowed to own handguns?

Old lady: No.

Lawyer: You don't think private citizens should be allowed to own a handgun in their home for their own protection?

Old lady: Oh yes, that's OK.

Lawyer to judge: She'll do.

I honestly wanted to protest.
 
I was just on a jury for felony DWI and it was a slam dunk.

We deliberated for 20 minutes and it was exactly as Tahoe described it. We took an initial vote and it was 10 guilty and 2 "let's talk about it". They just didn't want to pull the trigger that fast. One actually said "it seems like we should take a little time with this so it doesn't look bad."

I'm with Tahoe. If it's guilty or not guilty lets go. If you have doubts let's discuss them. If you just don't want to do the inevitable, sorry. Man up. Although in my case both were women.
 
I was in a capital muder trial (death penalty was not an option) and the defendants story was very poor - he said it was an accident (the gun went off accidently and he shot the victim during an armed robbery). None of his story matched the forensics. There was absolutely no evidence that he did not do it. Two of the jurors knew he was guilty but had a hard time sentencing him to 35 years. They just had a hard time taking someone's freedom even though there was no doubt that he was guilty. Luckily the foreman of jury did a good job of persuading the jurors. He was sentenced to 35 years (no parole)

Guy ruined two lives that day. He killed someone and he will be spending from age 17 to 52 in jail.
 
Only once and it was not a good experience. Assault with a deadly weapon. It was a pretty one-sided case, although neither attorney really impressed me.

Basically, it came down to one lady who from the very beginning said she didn't want to discuss anything because "he looks innocent." She proceeded to read a book and generally ignored all attempts at discussion.

We told the judge after several hours that we were hung and she sent us back a couple of times. Finally, they came in and said that the guy had pleaded to a lesser charge.

I'm still pissed that ***** refused to take things seriously and I basically wasted 5 days. If you think he's not-guilty, provide an argument, participate in the discussion. The good thing was, it dragged out long enough that the guy did plead guilty to something and had to do jail time because it was a repeat offense.
 
Served on a murder trial. Black kid (16 at the time, 17 during trial - was tried as an adult) killed an Asian shop owner. The shop owners wife witnessed and id'd him. No murder weapon, but the kid admitted he did it to his friends. We deliberated for an hour or so. No one thought he was innocent but a few had a hard time sending him away to be raped in prison for life (if we found him guilty it was an automatic life sentence with no parole). We talked it through and it was unanimous that he did it. Afterwards the judge and DA came in and gave us some more information that was not allowed in the trial that confirmed everything we thought.

What I was surprised about was the jury selection. They brought 40 of us in a room and asked if any felt they could not serve on the jury...the 8-10 African Americans in the room all begged off the jury for various reasons. So we were left with a jury that was about 75% white and 25% hispanic. I always found that strange.
 
One jury for public lewdness, exotic dancer accused of improper touching on an undercover cop. The two other cops didn't see it, they were busy drinking 2 of 18 budweisers the undercover party ordered. The bailif told us to pick a foreman and hit that red button when we had a decision. One dude says unless anyone else wants to "I'll be the foreman?" We say "great" he says I say she's not guilty," me too, me too all the way around the room. "hit the button"
 
Two times, one a civil suit by a truck driver against an employer trying to get disability pay and rehab for an injury he suffered. Once for damages from an auto accident.

On the first, it was his fault he got injured, but the truck company was also pushing their drivers to drive more hours than what was allowed. We had half the folks wanting to give him 100% disability (basically all the women on the jury), and the other half wanting to give him nothing. We finally compromised on everything (we had qute a bit of leeway on what we could find and award), pissing off both lawyers.
biggrin.gif


The other time was a guy who was hit and run in his car by a landscaping company truck, he just wanted damages, lost pay, and medical. All the guys in the truck were apparently illegals, because they scooted back to Mexico right after the wreck "to check on a sick [fill in a relative of choice]" and never came back (at least not to the Austin area). based on what the witnesses and the cops testified, it was pretty much an open and shut case.

After very little discussion, we gave the guy what he wanted. But like what someone else said, we goofed around for a while to make it look like we really had to think about it.
 
I served on a capital murder case with four victims (though we only found out about the first two in the guilt/innocence phase). The state did a very good job presenting the evidence, and the defense did little to discredit it. There was a large volume of evidence to go through, roughly a week of testimony. We deliberated for a few hours simply to go through the evidence. What took us the longest was simply putting everything together. The state had not done a great job showing us how the timeline and evidence all fit together. Once we had discussed all the evidence, we took a vote, and it was 11-1 guilty. The one remaining spoke up and had some doubts about one of the witnesses. We discussed that, and the holdout changed his vote.

The sentencing phase was much more difficult for several reasons. First, the state presented the other two victims, and how they tied the killer to them. They also presented footage of an unrelated arrest to show his violent tendencies. Then they talked about other threats the man had made to jail personnel, judges, and other citizens. The defense told us of his terrible childhood, his possible mental illness, and what treatment he had been given (or denied).

In sentencing deliberation, we first had to decide his guilt with regards to the other two victims. After examining that, we had to go over his medical records, discuss how his childhood may have effected him, and if his mental health posed future danger to society.

One thing that surprised me over the whole process is that much of the evidence was entered and logged, but we did not see it until deliberations unless specifically published by either side. For example, we saw crime scene photos during the trial, but were not able to read a signed confession or examine the medical records until deliberations.
This obviously could be much longer, as the trial lasted two weeks. We ultimately gave him the death penalty. It was one of the hardest things I've ever done, but I am glad I had the opportunity to serve.
 
As a criminal trial attorney, I really appreciate everyone's input on this thread. It is fascinating to hear what the jurors actually think and do once they're sent to deliberate. I would encourage anyone else reading this thread to post their experiences as well.
 
I will echo tough's remarks from the perspective of a former prosecutor and now civil defense attorney. I'll add that if you serve on a jury, take the option of talking to the attorneys after trial. It is always fascinating to me to hear firsthand what the jurors liked about the trial, and, after twenty years of trial work, what they liked, and didn't like, about the way I put on my case.

Most trial lawyers have a pretty tough skin, at least the ones who regularly do it, so I wouldn't worry about "hurting their feelings". And even when I disagreed with a verdict, I always listened, without outward judgment, about what jurors had to say about the case and what I, and the other attorneys, did during the trial.

I thank each and every one of you for serving on a jury. It is not a perfect system, but I remain convinced that it reaches the right result 90% of the time; which is to say, that justice was done to the facts.
 
I am pretty upset to hear a Judge and Prosecutor came back in after the trial to tell jurors abotu evidence that was excluded. That violates some rules of decorum and ethics about the itnegrity of the system. That evidence and testimony is excluded for a reason and to come back in and talk about it as if it were valid evidence that they "would have been able to consider if not for some legal technicalities" damages the integrity of the trial system.

Really poor form by a judge and if I knew who it was I would file a complaint with the judicial ethics board.

I do agree with the other attorneys who have posted, in that it is very helpful for us to be able to hear Jurors opinions and what you talked about in deliberation.

I will also say, that in any case, you owe it to the participants (plaintiff, victim, defendant, whoever) to discuss the evidence and why you feel it has erased all reasonable doubt in your mind (if you believe he is guilty) or discuss what evidence gives you doubt (if you think there are some reasonable doubts......remember, NOT if you think he didn't do it, but are there reasonable doubts). This attitude of "I think he did it, let's vote" is also a very dangerous and improper attitude to have when determinign things with such heavy implications. It just goes to show how few of our own citizens understand the burdens of proof in our system that are so vital to it being run fairly. The "I think he did it" juror is rampant in our society.
 
I was on one concerning a negligence case. the lady who was trying to get compensation made an honest sounding statement about her recent past that the defense turned out to have evidence to the contrary.

the jury to a person said that the lie she told on the stand tarnished the rest of her testimony and also a big deal was that she had turned down assistance from the very same people she was suing for negligence.

The plaintiff lawyer was weak. He tried to play up drama but the facts were weak. Even the expert witness was weak too.

we came back with a rejection of her negligence and therefore no compensation within about 1 hour. There were two people on the jury who wanted us to wait a little bit so we could order pizza.
laugh.gif
The rest of us said, heck no so we got out of there quick.

Don't tell lies on the stand that can be proven false.
 
LazyAttorney,

I think you miss the point. After the trial is over and the jury has reached a verdict based on the evidence and testimony presented, having a discussion with the Judge and attorneys has no bearing on anything.

In my trial the state proved to us beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants BAC was at least .18 at the time of his arrest. That was really the only element (legal term holla) that was in dispute. In fact, the defense pretty much conceded the other 5 or 6 elements.

According to the statute we HAD to convict. The guy flat out didn't look drunk on the video. If that had been the only evidence, we would not have convicted. But the law says that a man is intoxicated at .08. Blood evidence proved his BAC was more than twice that.

I was very proud of my jury. In fact, everyone in the courtroom from the Judge and attorneys to the bailiff and court reporter were nothing but professional.

After the trial the defense attorney had to leave for an appointment, but the prosecution and judge met with the jury and answered any questions we had. We definitely discussed evidence that was excluded, either by the prosecutions choice or legal motion.

It didn't matter. The case was decided. The system worked and the discussion afterward did nothing but provide the jury and the court officers insight into how the process works from both sides.

We learned some of the defendants history that wasn't relevant to the facts of the case, but very insightful into why he was where he was. The attorneys learned how we reacted to certain witnesses and evidence. The judge learned how we felt about the process and how the trial was conducted.

All of this can only make the system better. Personally, I was extremely impressed with Judge Charles Baird of the 299th district court on Travis county and if you think what he did was an ethics violation, then I strongly disagree. In fact, I think it was his strong belief in the system and improving the system that made the whole experience enlightening instead of a chore.
 
LazyAttorney,
You talk about proper decorum and ethics, then turn around and say jurors "owe" the particpants further feedback after rendering a decision. Where in the rules of the court does it say jurors have to do that? The jurors have done their task and don't "owe" anybody anything. They have served their duty. You're sounding a little self-serving.
 
LazyAttorney,

I was a prosecutor for many years and far more often than not, met the jury afterwords to discuss the case, usually along with the defense attorney, and sometimes the judge. Attorneys do this for a number of reasons, including thanking the jury for their service, answering any questions jurors may have had about the case, and finding out how the jury made their decision.

Not to be rude, but, umm, what kind of law do you practice?
 
I served on a jury several years ago for an intoxicated manslaughter case. The funny thing was that the defendant pled guilty on two counts, but not guilty on the third. I don't remember the particulars now, but it was akin to pleading guilty to stealing the cookie jar and eating the cookies, but not guilty to forgetting to put it back after the fact. Needless to say, we convicted the defendant on the third charge as well.

The defendant was a young mother with a small child riding in the back when she hit and killed the victim. She had gotten drunk after a fight with her hubby, and then took off in the car to her mom's house. I suspect the defense attorney didn't have a whole lot to work with, and simply advised her to plead guilty and beg for leniency from the jury. It more or less worked -- opinions on the jury for sentencing ranged from probation to max time (20 years) in prison. In the end, we settled on a compromise of about 2 years in prison plus 10 years of supervised probation.

One interesting thing was that some of the jurors intentionally voted not guilty the first time around, just to force deliberations on the remaining charge.

The trial really wasn't really all that exciting, as most of the facts were pretty cut-and-dried. The prosecution simply laid out what happened with testimony from the cops responding to the scene, and a lab expert testifying to the defendent's intoxicated state. I think the defense attorney mostly tried to discredit some of the evidence. After we found the defendant guilty and moved to the punishment phase, there were quite a few defense witnesses testifying to the defendent's character and the circumstances which led up to the events that unfolded.

You get a wide variety of personalities in the jury room. Everyone from the recovering alcoholics who were sympathetic to the defendent, to a person who worked for a motorcycle dealer (the victim was killed riding a motorcycle).

After the verdict and sentencing, the judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney all came back to visit with us in the jury room. They were all very nice, answered any questions we had, and understood that the sentence was a compromise. I wasn't really thrilled about getting picked to be on the jury at first, but I understood it is a civic duty that is necessary for our system of justice to function. I found the whole process itself rather interesting. As one who has never been in trouble with the law, it gave me a new appreciation of the process involved if I or someone I know ever ends up in that situation.

I didn't stick around for the victim's impact statements after the fact, though. I just found the whole case incredibly sad. Sad for the family who lost their loved one through the careless and negligent actions of another. Sad for the small child whose mother made some stupid decisions and wound up having to go to prison. I just wanted to move on at that point.

One interesting thing that came out in the newspapers after the trial was that the woman was high on painkillers in addition to being drunk. I guess the defense attorney successfully managed to suppress that part. Not sure if it would have mattered one way or another with regard to the final outcome, though.
 
If the court had proven the guy was .16, why even go to trial? Maybe some people aren't intoxicated at .16? That guy got some bad advice if .16 = auto conviction.
 
Ramathorn,

I never did figure out why the guy went to trial. The only thing I could figure was that he was on parole for a previous felony DWI and just figured he had nothing to lose.

His attorney (court appointed) tried a little to discredit the blood evidence, but he didn't really have much to work with and the forensic scientist was a VERY strong witness despite being an aggie and the chain of custody on the evidence was air tight. APD handled the case in a very professional manner.

I think the guy just figured "**** it" at least I can get out of jail for a few hours.

The only thing that didn't come out in the trial that we learned afterward was that he had 5 previous FELONY DWI convictions and that he was on parole from his last one when he got this one.
 
Unbelievable. I have heard of guys that have gotten off even with the breath test. So, you guys didn't know he had 5 priors until afterwards?
 
Was on a jury for a civil suit a while back. A pool company improperly installed the cool decking and drains during pool installation. They did not flush out the drains when they were done, so they were clogged with plaster chunks and after the first good rain, the pool flooded the house. The attorney for the plaintiff kept asking questions about the advertising and sales that the company had done to get the pool sale to start with and it was in our directions as well. It was puzzling to many of us, but later found out it had to do with false advertising claims. If we had found they had falsely advertised, the plaintiffs could have collected 3 times their damages (IIRC).

The pool guy really just did not know what he was doing. And the plaintiffs installed a new wood floor after the flood to replace their carpet. They wanted to cost of the wood floor as part of the settlement, we paid for the carpet. The judge and attorneys talked to us afterwards as well. Very interesting.

I was in Judge Yeoman's court years ago to get defensive driving for a traffic ticket. (back when you had to make a court appearance to get it.) He starts his proceedings with a little history lesson of our judicial system for the people there. He then informs us that he may have to stop the proceedings of traffic court to hear a jury verdict.

Bailiff comes in a short time later to tell him the jury is ready. Everyone for that case files back in. The defendants are a very middle class looking white couple. Very quickly they read the verdict, guilty. A collective gasp came from those of us in the traffic gallery. What could they have done??? After all was done and the parties left, Judge Yeoman asked if we wanted to know what that was all about? Jokingly, he said he could not tell us. But he did, it was a couple that were taken to court by Katy ISD for keeping their kid out of school. They were fighting to make home schooling legal. Very interesing to follow that case later.

Hubby was called once, downtown Houston, and went toe to toe with one of the DeGuerin brothers (don't remember which one). Hubby came home very proud that he got cut.
wtf.gif
Said DeGuerin kept asking the same questions of him, but 2 or 3 different ways. Hubby got annoyed and started answering him with "I already answered that question when you asked...my answer is still the same."
 
Ram,

We knew he had two prior misdemeanor DWI since that is a requirement to be charged with Felony DWI, but we didn't know until after the trial that he this was his 6th Felony DWI and that he was on parole after serving 5 years for the previous one.
 
I must not have been very clear as several of you misunderstood my post, so let me clear up what I said:

Sgt Longhorn: Having participated in 12 Jury trials (DWI, Assault Family Violence, Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Assault, Felony Theft to name a few) I am very aware prosecutors and defense attorneys (and civil plaintiff's and defense attorney in those cases) talk with Jurors about the trial. It is quite beneficial for us to be able to discuss things with Jurors to learn more about them and what motivated them in the decision making process, and to occasionally try and clarify things about arguments or discuss things that were presented into evidence.

What I am upset at is that a Judge or Prosecutor (or Defense attorney) would make a point to tell a Juror about evidence that was excluded and other facts that are not admissable in any part of the trial. As a trial attorney I end up spending considerable amount of money attending CLE (continuing legal education) seminars to hone my practice, and at the ethics portions of numerous of these events, Judges and DA's and other well respected attorneys will tell you that in order to protect the integrity of the judicial system and more importantly the Jury system, one shouldn't make comments that could potentially influence or affect a juror if he were to serve again. See Rule 3.06(d) of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct. Telling a juror in a criminal trial that there is other evidence of his guilt that we couldn't share leads a juror in future actions to be biased towards prosecution, that every time a defense attorney objects it is because we want to keep out evidence of guilt, whic is detrimental to a system that already heavily favors the State.

Maybe y'all don't think it is a big deal, but I can only personally tell you that after voir diring and speaking to hundreds of jurors, I am keenly aware of the weakened status of the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and the Judiciary should be sensitive to further eroding that standard.

I love Judge Baird and am in front of him almost daily, so I will be sure to mention it to him. He either will deny it, or more likely to look me straight in the eye and tell me that is perfectly ok, in which case I will share with him my frustration. However, i will say that since it was Judge Baird, I grant him much more latitude in this area since he is one of the few judges I have ever known, with stronng zeal for makign sure the system is balanced.

Steel Shank: Again, sorry if I wasn' t clear in my post, but I didn't say that jurors "owe" attorneys to stick around and talk with us. I said Jurors "owe" the system and the judicial process and the accused and the victim (criminal) or the plaintiff and defendant (civil) their best efforts in making sure they apply the law to the facts and fully discuss to make sure there are no reasonable doubts about any part of the statutory elements (or in civil cases applying whatever standard is being applied in that arena).

Believe me, I am the first to tell jurors to take off and not spend one more second listening to us if they got to go. You're right, they don't owe me or the prosecutor anything, but it is nice to hear from them, as it only improves the system for us to get feedback.

Johnny horn: If you are an attorney then I am sure you have been admonished numerous times by a judge before speaking to the jurors after a trial about your ethical duties, and hopefully you didn't violate 3.06 with any comments that may further prejudice a jury in favor of the prosecution/defense (which I must say can be a strong urge after losing a trial in which the Judge kept out evidence he didn't deem relevant but you felt helped establish your accusation/defense).

I'm curious Johnnyhorn, if you were a D.A. or county attorney, you never had ajudge talk to you before going to the jury room and remind you abou that duty ? Surely you have heard it discussed at the Advanced Criminal Law yearly CLE on one of the ethics tracks ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top