So this morning, Emma picked up Rory's Nintendo DS. Rory gave chase, demanding that Emma put it down. Emma complies by throwing said DS across the room. The bottom LCD screen is, ahem, liquid. The question is, how is the most fair way to proceed? (For reference, Emmi does know how to play the DS. She has her own games that she plays on Sarah's. Emma has also been grounded from video games for a bit.) Contemplating a mild punishment for Rory for escalating the situation. She's been told time and time again to NOT CHASE Emma. Or am I being too hard on Rory with these choices?
How is the most fair way to proceed?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Jury Duty
Wow, so what a day yesterday. I actually got called in to serve for jury duty. It's not often that I get to go out and deal with the public at large. It's great to see that some people's idea of looking presentable is a white tshirt with their black leather vest buttoned up.
Anyway, I honestly thought that in no way would I be picked, as in the opening questionnaire, it asks if you "own stock, work, or know anyone close that works for an insurance company." As seeing how my mom worked in insurance for 35 years, that was an easy "yes."
So after a really bad video telling us what to expect for the day, I was called in for Juror Group #1. I was in the first round of people to be in the jury box. During voir dire, the defense attorney was gauging our opinion if the law was meant to be "the sword or the shield."
The example he gave was this:
"Let's say I go home after a bad day, and drink a whole twelve pack. And I'm really drunk, but I hear someone yelling outside. I go outside to see what the disturbance is, and I get arrested for Public Intoxication. How would that make you, as jurors, feel?"
I responded that in that specific case, I as a juror would move to use the right of jury nullification. In my mind, being arrested for public intox like that is not in the spirit of the law.
Wow, you could hear pins drop in that courtroom. Looking around, you could see people were completely clueless as to what I was talking about, and it just got worse as the lawyer tried to explain it.
He went on so long trying to get people to understand it, the judge called him on his time limit. At that point, the lawyers did their elimination, and guess what? I get to stay.
So at that point, we break for lunch. We get 45 minutes, and every restaurant around the City County building is packed, so I head into Subway. The lady 4 people in front ended up ordering about 25 sandwiches, and I had to leave before her order was even done. yay.
Back to work. The case we were hearing was a violation of a no contact restraining order. In a nutshell:
-Guy with order against him shows up at a mall, expecting to see his son.
-Son was supposed to be dropped off by a friend of the ex wife.
-Guy arrives at mall, only to see his ex wife there, but no son.
-He proceeds to go into the mall, to talk to ex, despite being fully aware of no contact order.
-Friend of ex arrives late, sees Guy, calls 911, cops arrive 46 minutes after call was placed.
-Cops arrive and arrest Guy on violation of no contact order.
So there it is. The case is fishy at best, and it honestly seems like the guy was set up by his ex. I went into the Jury Room expecting to let the guy off. After an hour of honest deliberation, all of us but one agreed that the guy was guilty, on two main points: One, he was fully aware of the restraint order, and even testified that he was aware of it; two, if he had simply asked where his son was and left the area, we all would have let him slide. He stuck around her for 45 minutes though.
After three more hours of pointless deliberation, the lady flat refused to find the guy guilty. She felt that he had been set up, and nothing else mattered. Throughout those three hours, she was rude, would ignore, or talk over others trying to make points. At almost 6pm, we turned into the judge a hung jury form.
The Judge called us all back in, thanked us for our time, and said we were free to stick around if we had any questions for him or the attorneys. All of us, sans dissenting lady, stuck around to talk to the Judge and persecutors. It turns out that the guy on trial was on probation already for violating the order. This second instance would have landed him in jail for violating the order again AND for violating probation. So, way to go, skeezebag. I was initially sympathetic to you, and you turn out to me a moran who habitually violates a no contact order.
Overall, despite going in with pretty terrible expectations, I had a mostly good time. The only saddening thing was to see the justice system derailed by one obstinate juror. It beyond frustrating to have someone rule as a juror on emotion. As jurors, we are only allowed to rule on the law itself and the evidence presented. She openly admitted that the guy was guilty, but since she felt he was "setup," she wouldn't convict. It's time like these that you should honestly be allowed to vote a juror out, when it's clear they aren't following the directions given to us by the Judge.
The good? Judge David Certo was outstanding. He was funny, personable, and professional. It was really nice to see the human side of the justice system. He answered all of our questions to the extent that he is legally allowed to do so, even questions that may seem obvious. Both the prosecutors and the defense did their jobs well, though there were things on each side of the fence that I may have done differently in their shoes.
Here's to my $54 pay for the day, and a minimum two year break from being called again.
Anyway, I honestly thought that in no way would I be picked, as in the opening questionnaire, it asks if you "own stock, work, or know anyone close that works for an insurance company." As seeing how my mom worked in insurance for 35 years, that was an easy "yes."
So after a really bad video telling us what to expect for the day, I was called in for Juror Group #1. I was in the first round of people to be in the jury box. During voir dire, the defense attorney was gauging our opinion if the law was meant to be "the sword or the shield."
The example he gave was this:
"Let's say I go home after a bad day, and drink a whole twelve pack. And I'm really drunk, but I hear someone yelling outside. I go outside to see what the disturbance is, and I get arrested for Public Intoxication. How would that make you, as jurors, feel?"
I responded that in that specific case, I as a juror would move to use the right of jury nullification. In my mind, being arrested for public intox like that is not in the spirit of the law.
Wow, you could hear pins drop in that courtroom. Looking around, you could see people were completely clueless as to what I was talking about, and it just got worse as the lawyer tried to explain it.
He went on so long trying to get people to understand it, the judge called him on his time limit. At that point, the lawyers did their elimination, and guess what? I get to stay.
So at that point, we break for lunch. We get 45 minutes, and every restaurant around the City County building is packed, so I head into Subway. The lady 4 people in front ended up ordering about 25 sandwiches, and I had to leave before her order was even done. yay.
Back to work. The case we were hearing was a violation of a no contact restraining order. In a nutshell:
-Guy with order against him shows up at a mall, expecting to see his son.
-Son was supposed to be dropped off by a friend of the ex wife.
-Guy arrives at mall, only to see his ex wife there, but no son.
-He proceeds to go into the mall, to talk to ex, despite being fully aware of no contact order.
-Friend of ex arrives late, sees Guy, calls 911, cops arrive 46 minutes after call was placed.
-Cops arrive and arrest Guy on violation of no contact order.
So there it is. The case is fishy at best, and it honestly seems like the guy was set up by his ex. I went into the Jury Room expecting to let the guy off. After an hour of honest deliberation, all of us but one agreed that the guy was guilty, on two main points: One, he was fully aware of the restraint order, and even testified that he was aware of it; two, if he had simply asked where his son was and left the area, we all would have let him slide. He stuck around her for 45 minutes though.
After three more hours of pointless deliberation, the lady flat refused to find the guy guilty. She felt that he had been set up, and nothing else mattered. Throughout those three hours, she was rude, would ignore, or talk over others trying to make points. At almost 6pm, we turned into the judge a hung jury form.
The Judge called us all back in, thanked us for our time, and said we were free to stick around if we had any questions for him or the attorneys. All of us, sans dissenting lady, stuck around to talk to the Judge and persecutors. It turns out that the guy on trial was on probation already for violating the order. This second instance would have landed him in jail for violating the order again AND for violating probation. So, way to go, skeezebag. I was initially sympathetic to you, and you turn out to me a moran who habitually violates a no contact order.
Overall, despite going in with pretty terrible expectations, I had a mostly good time. The only saddening thing was to see the justice system derailed by one obstinate juror. It beyond frustrating to have someone rule as a juror on emotion. As jurors, we are only allowed to rule on the law itself and the evidence presented. She openly admitted that the guy was guilty, but since she felt he was "setup," she wouldn't convict. It's time like these that you should honestly be allowed to vote a juror out, when it's clear they aren't following the directions given to us by the Judge.
The good? Judge David Certo was outstanding. He was funny, personable, and professional. It was really nice to see the human side of the justice system. He answered all of our questions to the extent that he is legally allowed to do so, even questions that may seem obvious. Both the prosecutors and the defense did their jobs well, though there were things on each side of the fence that I may have done differently in their shoes.
Here's to my $54 pay for the day, and a minimum two year break from being called again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)