[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: dismissed for cause
- To: noelle
- Subject: FW: dismissed for cause
- From: http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert (Robert)
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 10:01:21 -0700
- Keywords: http://www.cs..edu/~b
> From: http://www.cs..edu/~b
> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:00:04 -0700
>
> So we spent all day on voir dire. I was appalled at the opinions
> of some of the other potential jurors. Typical: If someone is paid
> below minimum wage, they entered into that agreement voluntarily, or
> they should work hard and go to college and then they'll be paid more.
> And then there were the ones whose opinions were incoherent, or who
> insisted on bringing up their own pet issues irrelevant to the case,
> such as the woman who wants the defendants to go through sensitivity
> training so the problem won't come up again, and no matter how many
> times the lawyers and the judges said "all this court can do is award
> money damages; could you agree to that?" she wouldn't say yes or no,
> just "but they should have training."
>
> I had an interesting conversation with the lawyer for the employer
> about my views about capitalism. She wanted to know if I could
> "set aside" my political views while hearing the case. I said,
> "I would try my best to be open-minded about the case, and if the
> evidence clearly favors the company I'd vote that way, but I can't
> stop being who I am! And I suppose that if the evidence isn't so
> clear either way I'd probably lean toward the workers." Finally she
> asked, "If you were me, would you be comfortable having you on the
> jury?" To *that* question I could give an unequivocal answer: no.
> So I was the second juror excused for cause, and I therefore can't
> tell you how the rest of the selection process went.
>
> But the most appalling thing happened before the lawyers got started,
> when the judge asked each of us a set of questions. One was about
> my job(s) and those of any present or past spouse and any adult
> child. And when I told him that Heath is a pizza delivery person,
> the judge said "That's an honorable job; you don't have to say it
> that way." And I still have no idea what I said or how I said it to
> attract that comment! I don't *think* I was sneering or sounding
> apologetic or anything. So mostly that's what I was thinking about
> during the whole rest of the process.