Who decides who will judge you? The caller states, "If I use my concealed weapon, who will judge whether it was reasonable?"
If you are charged with a crime - a homicide in the context of the caller's question - you have a right to face your accusers and to have a decision made about the reasonableness of your actions (which ultimately determines whether you are found guilty or not guilty of the criminal charge or charges), and you have a right to a trial by a jury.
The term 'a jury of your peers' often leads people to believe that the jurors will be people of like interests and concerns. But the reality is that the jury of your peers in Madison, Wisconsin, for example, aren't going to be 12 members of the NRA, like you; they'll be a mix of men and women, old and young, some tied to the University and the vast majority from within the confines of the belt line.
Helpful information:
National Rifle Association
Wisconsin Criminal Defense Lawyers
Showing posts with label Jury Selection (Voir Dire). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jury Selection (Voir Dire). Show all posts
Friday, November 4, 2011
Friday, February 22, 2008
Murder Trial - Trials by Jury
For more than twenty-five years, I have been involved in murder trials. Without a doubt, they are the most serious, most demanding trials – for all involved. Murder trials involve a great deal of time, money, energy and emotion - from the moment a person is accused until the moment the verdict is rendered. The lawyers obsess for weeks before and during trial on such questions as jury selection, trial strategies, and points weak and strong in their case. But those burdens, undertaken willingly by the lawyers, pale in comparison to the burden placed on each of the jurors, which is – in essence – to determine a person’s fate. That burden- undertaken “voluntarily” but feeling more like conscripted service (we all must be willing to serve as jurors) – requires that jurors set aside their personal lives, their work and their families and listen to weeks of arduous and often emotional testimony before retiring to the jury room. In that room, of course, they must then shoulder the greatest burden – decide the facts, individually and then collectively, and without passion or prejudice for anyone. We ask no greater task of an ordinary citizen, and we each undertake that thankless job, because as a society, we wish to be known as the most beneficent and civilized society. From such momentous, important work from ordinary, everyday people do we hold on tightly to our freedoms.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jensen Trial - Jury Deliberations Begin
The trial of Mark Jensen in State of Wisconsin -v- Mark D. Jensen has come to a close, and the jury has begun deliberations. Over the course of a 7-week trial, the jurors have listened to more than 160 hours of evidence. And now, they carry the greatest burden of all - the burden of determining whether reasonable doubt exists.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
The jury in the Jensen trial is comprised of 7 women and 5 men from the local Walworth County area. The men's occupations include a truck driver, an engineering technician, production tester, facilities manager, and machine operator. The women's occupations include a medical secretary, a housewife, an unemployed female, a retired female, a certified nursing assistant, a proofreader, and a bookkeeper.
Thus far, the deliberating jurors have asked for certain testimonial transcripts and evidence: the letter allegedly written by Julie Jensen, testimony from Mark Jensen's co-worker, photos of Julie Jensen when medical personal arrived at her home, and both Mark and Julie's day planners.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jensen Trial Continues
Jury deliberations were expected to begin today at the end of closing arguments, but the closing arguments haven't ended. See Jury Deliberations.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.
At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.
A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.
The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.
So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.
The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.
In a criminal trial, the prosecution makes its initial closing argument, then the defense makes its closing argument, and then the prosecution gets the last word. That "last word" took more time than the judge anticipated, a fact he pointed out when commenting on his expectation to "send the trial to the jury" today.
At 6:20 p.m. tonight, the judge polled the jury, not for their verdict in Mr. Jensen's trial, but rather for the time that they wanted to start the trial tomorrow - they voted for 8:30 AM - and then he recessed the trial and emphasized his intent to "charge the jury" tomorrow and refrain from holding the jurors any longer than necessary. The defense agreed, and added that they were also interested in not having Mr. Jensen's life unnecessarily put on hold any longer.
A pool of 19 jurors were selected for the Jensen trial. Twelve jurors for the jury, and 7 additional jurors (called alternates) if needed. Alternate jurors are selected for very serious felony trials to prevent a mistrial in case one or more jurors is unable to serve.
The court ordered the defense and prosecuting attorneys to report at 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to answer the question, "How many jurors should be dismissed before deliberations begin?" The court posed that question to the attorneys yesterday, with the anticipation that the court would dismiss those alternates today.
So, why are closing arguments taking so long? The prosecuting attorney is giving his rebuttals to the defense's closing arguments, and to that end has prepared a list of the testimony and evidence in the state's case. For each item on the list, he is summarizing the state's case, as well as hypothesizing other possible reasons for past activities and evidence in the trial, a summation technique that met with a few objections from the defense and a motion for a mistrial.
The court denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.
The court indicated that the prosecuting attorney is expected to be done with his closing arguments by noon tomorrow, with deliberations beginning as soon as the jury instructions are done.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
In Voir Dire, Listen With Great Care
Still Seizing The Jury's Answers
Yesterday, Attorney Anne Reed posted in her BLOG:
September 04, 2007
Back To Basics: Nine Things To Look For In Voir Dire
Summer's over. It's time to refocus, and if the recent search traffic here is any indication, it's time to get ready for trial. Judges are back on the bench today, and a lot of this blog's readers spent some time yesterday researching their voir dire questions.
Which brings up a question I'm asked often. We're getting an idea of what voir dire questions to ask, readers tell me, but what do we do with the answers? We know we're supposed to get jurors talking and then listen, but what are we listening for?
I've been pretty clear about what I'm usually not listening for in voir dire. I set very little store by demographics, and I don't trust bias questions to bring out jurors' secret or unconscious biases. But I do have a list of the main things I'm listening for, the things I'm usually trying to figure out in voir dire. I use it both as a checklist to develop questions, and as a reminder of what I'm looking for as I listen. I keep tinkering with this list, but here's the version I'm using right now." Read her BLOG at: Deliberations - Back To Basics
Third Jury This Year, Second In A Felony Child Sexual Assault Trial ~ Still Seizing The Jury's Answers
“Anne:
Yesterday I picked my third jury of the year, and my second in a felony child sexual assault trial. Two experiences in yesterday’s voir dire reminded me of the critical importance to the DEFENSE of seizing voir dire answers and getting a major point across.
20 years ago, as a young state prosecutor in Trenton, New Jersey, I recall plea negotiating with ace NJ Public Defender Mike McConnell (who could sell air conditioning north of the Artic Circle) in a child sexual assault case. As he outlined his client’s claims of innocence, I responded that his guy ought to go to trial, if he did not do it (which, by the way, is precisely what I tell all my felony sex assault clients in today’s climate). He responded in words that had no real meaning for me as a “wet behind the ears” prosecutor, but ring so true in my current work. “Hey, Chris, you could try this case drunk. All ya gotta do [hey, this WAS Jersey, friend!) is put the baby on the stand and say her name and you will have every single juror ready to perform the castration on the spot! I can’t go to trial in this kind of case, Chris!”
Well, Mike Mac’s words came back to me last night, when I reflected on a spotlight moment yesterday in my latest voir dire effort. When the judge asked the potential jurors if the charges themselves would make it difficult for anyone to be fair and impartial, a woman raised her hand and said, “With these charges, I know he’s guilty already. I will find him guilty. He would have to prove his innocence to me, but I don’t think he can because of the fact of what he did.” Ouch.
She was excused, naturally, and before any attorney asked. The ADA, no doubt, was pleased. Then she – the prosecutor - gave me the answer I needed, in her own voir dire of the jurors. She used the phrase “in light of what the defendant did to these girls” as if the matter were a foregone conclusion. Double ouch?
Not at all.
Twenty minutes later, when the voir dire baton was passed to me, I seized upon the prosecutor’s ill-advised choice of words, and asked if any juror had heard her say what I had heard her say. An older, articulate female juror in the very front row – less than 5 feet from me – raised her hand and said she had heard that very phrase. I then honed in ad asked her how she felt about the phrase – even though for lots of reasons I knew I’d probably strike her if the AD did not.
She said: “I was very troubled and offended. I thought that the defendant was presumed innocent, and that it was OUR job to decide if he did anything to the girls. I found it uncomfortable that the DA was talking as if she KNEW he was guilty, and as if there were no presumption of innocence.”
[CVW to self: “Nice.”]
I then asked if anyone else had any other reaction or the same reaction to the DA’s ill-advised words. Half the hands in the box went up.
[CVW to self: “Very nice.”]
Then, just as another juror started speaking out about the same concerns, the prosecutor stood up and said that she thought she had said “what the defendant had allegedly done to the victims.”
CVW to jury venire: “That was not what I wrote down as a quote…
And then, I went right back to the “he’s guilty as sin” juror answer – with her long gone from the courtroom, asking they jury venire if they had heard HER answers. And if they had any reaction to HER views – i.e., “Fry the SOB!” The jurors then discussed for 10 full minutes – in their own words and with only a little prodding from me – the meaning and importance of the presumption of innocence AND the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor – after 10 minutes of this GREAT defense stuff – finally started objecting to the “discussion” – another point scored for the defense voir dire, since the jury liked the discussion and the DA tried to stop it.
Today’s lesson, reinforced: in voir dire, listen with great care to the BAD things jurors – and the DA– are saying, and discuss them openly with the rest of the panel. It can only help the cause. Mike McConnell’s viewpoint notwithstanding … although he won too often for my then-prosecutor’s tastes."
CVW
Helpful information:
Criminal Trial Proceedings
10 Rules For Jurors
Yesterday, Attorney Anne Reed posted in her BLOG:
September 04, 2007
Back To Basics: Nine Things To Look For In Voir Dire
Summer's over. It's time to refocus, and if the recent search traffic here is any indication, it's time to get ready for trial. Judges are back on the bench today, and a lot of this blog's readers spent some time yesterday researching their voir dire questions.
Which brings up a question I'm asked often. We're getting an idea of what voir dire questions to ask, readers tell me, but what do we do with the answers? We know we're supposed to get jurors talking and then listen, but what are we listening for?
I've been pretty clear about what I'm usually not listening for in voir dire. I set very little store by demographics, and I don't trust bias questions to bring out jurors' secret or unconscious biases. But I do have a list of the main things I'm listening for, the things I'm usually trying to figure out in voir dire. I use it both as a checklist to develop questions, and as a reminder of what I'm looking for as I listen. I keep tinkering with this list, but here's the version I'm using right now." Read her BLOG at: Deliberations - Back To Basics
Third Jury This Year, Second In A Felony Child Sexual Assault Trial ~ Still Seizing The Jury's Answers
“Anne:
Yesterday I picked my third jury of the year, and my second in a felony child sexual assault trial. Two experiences in yesterday’s voir dire reminded me of the critical importance to the DEFENSE of seizing voir dire answers and getting a major point across.
20 years ago, as a young state prosecutor in Trenton, New Jersey, I recall plea negotiating with ace NJ Public Defender Mike McConnell (who could sell air conditioning north of the Artic Circle) in a child sexual assault case. As he outlined his client’s claims of innocence, I responded that his guy ought to go to trial, if he did not do it (which, by the way, is precisely what I tell all my felony sex assault clients in today’s climate). He responded in words that had no real meaning for me as a “wet behind the ears” prosecutor, but ring so true in my current work. “Hey, Chris, you could try this case drunk. All ya gotta do [hey, this WAS Jersey, friend!) is put the baby on the stand and say her name and you will have every single juror ready to perform the castration on the spot! I can’t go to trial in this kind of case, Chris!”
Well, Mike Mac’s words came back to me last night, when I reflected on a spotlight moment yesterday in my latest voir dire effort. When the judge asked the potential jurors if the charges themselves would make it difficult for anyone to be fair and impartial, a woman raised her hand and said, “With these charges, I know he’s guilty already. I will find him guilty. He would have to prove his innocence to me, but I don’t think he can because of the fact of what he did.” Ouch.
She was excused, naturally, and before any attorney asked. The ADA, no doubt, was pleased. Then she – the prosecutor - gave me the answer I needed, in her own voir dire of the jurors. She used the phrase “in light of what the defendant did to these girls” as if the matter were a foregone conclusion. Double ouch?
Not at all.
Twenty minutes later, when the voir dire baton was passed to me, I seized upon the prosecutor’s ill-advised choice of words, and asked if any juror had heard her say what I had heard her say. An older, articulate female juror in the very front row – less than 5 feet from me – raised her hand and said she had heard that very phrase. I then honed in ad asked her how she felt about the phrase – even though for lots of reasons I knew I’d probably strike her if the AD did not.
She said: “I was very troubled and offended. I thought that the defendant was presumed innocent, and that it was OUR job to decide if he did anything to the girls. I found it uncomfortable that the DA was talking as if she KNEW he was guilty, and as if there were no presumption of innocence.”
[CVW to self: “Nice.”]
I then asked if anyone else had any other reaction or the same reaction to the DA’s ill-advised words. Half the hands in the box went up.
[CVW to self: “Very nice.”]
Then, just as another juror started speaking out about the same concerns, the prosecutor stood up and said that she thought she had said “what the defendant had allegedly done to the victims.”
CVW to jury venire: “That was not what I wrote down as a quote…
And then, I went right back to the “he’s guilty as sin” juror answer – with her long gone from the courtroom, asking they jury venire if they had heard HER answers. And if they had any reaction to HER views – i.e., “Fry the SOB!” The jurors then discussed for 10 full minutes – in their own words and with only a little prodding from me – the meaning and importance of the presumption of innocence AND the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor – after 10 minutes of this GREAT defense stuff – finally started objecting to the “discussion” – another point scored for the defense voir dire, since the jury liked the discussion and the DA tried to stop it.
Today’s lesson, reinforced: in voir dire, listen with great care to the BAD things jurors – and the DA– are saying, and discuss them openly with the rest of the panel. It can only help the cause. Mike McConnell’s viewpoint notwithstanding … although he won too often for my then-prosecutor’s tastes."
CVW
Helpful information:
Criminal Trial Proceedings
10 Rules For Jurors
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Jury Deliberations BLOG
Helpful Information About Jury Deliberations
Criminal trials are "procedural" (see Trial Proceedings). Before the jury can deliberate a case, certain prodecures must be followed, particularly where alternate jurors are concerned - they must be retained or dismissed before deliberations (see Jury Deliberations).
Jury Procedures provides a detailed information about the exact process for jury selection.
More Helpful Jury Information For Attorneys
Anne Reed, a trial lawyer and jury consultant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, maintains a BLOG regarding jury deliberations. Her BLOG includes very helpful information. Attorney Reed's BLOG: http://jurylaw.typepad.com/.
CVW
Criminal trials are "procedural" (see Trial Proceedings). Before the jury can deliberate a case, certain prodecures must be followed, particularly where alternate jurors are concerned - they must be retained or dismissed before deliberations (see Jury Deliberations).
Jury Procedures provides a detailed information about the exact process for jury selection.
More Helpful Jury Information For Attorneys
Anne Reed, a trial lawyer and jury consultant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, maintains a BLOG regarding jury deliberations. Her BLOG includes very helpful information. Attorney Reed's BLOG: http://jurylaw.typepad.com/.
CVW
Monday, July 9, 2007
A Jury Of Your Peers
If the jury will be my peers, does that mean that they will be about my age, same nationality, same economic position in life, and so forth?
ANSWER:
Maybe.
Under the Constitution of the United States of America, a person accused of a serious crime (one for which the penalties can deprive him or her of life or freedom), has a right to a trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment). Under the due process clause of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court has applied the Sixth Amendment guarantee to state criminal cases, and under the Seventh Amendment, the Constitution guarantees that right in Federal suits.
The Supreme Court has held that an "impartial jury" - a jury of your peers - means that the jurors are chosen randomly from the community and that no particular race, sex, national origin or other representative classification of the population is excluded. The random selection process, as with any statistical process, will result in a representative body being selected from the community. Over time, the entire jury pool will include members from each of the community's races, national origins and all other classifications of people, as well as the changes to the community.
The jury for a criminal trial is selected through a process called voir dire (for more information, refer to criminal trial procedures), which provides your criminal defense attorney an opportunity to eliminate some jurors. Even so, whether the jury consists of people of your same age, race, religious beliefs and national origin or not will depend upon the random selection process and whether people from those groups were selected to serve at the time of your trial.
ANSWER:
Maybe.
Under the Constitution of the United States of America, a person accused of a serious crime (one for which the penalties can deprive him or her of life or freedom), has a right to a trial by an impartial jury (Sixth Amendment). Under the due process clause of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court has applied the Sixth Amendment guarantee to state criminal cases, and under the Seventh Amendment, the Constitution guarantees that right in Federal suits.
The Supreme Court has held that an "impartial jury" - a jury of your peers - means that the jurors are chosen randomly from the community and that no particular race, sex, national origin or other representative classification of the population is excluded. The random selection process, as with any statistical process, will result in a representative body being selected from the community. Over time, the entire jury pool will include members from each of the community's races, national origins and all other classifications of people, as well as the changes to the community.
The jury for a criminal trial is selected through a process called voir dire (for more information, refer to criminal trial procedures), which provides your criminal defense attorney an opportunity to eliminate some jurors. Even so, whether the jury consists of people of your same age, race, religious beliefs and national origin or not will depend upon the random selection process and whether people from those groups were selected to serve at the time of your trial.
Helpful links:
Criminal Trial Proceedings
Jury Selection
Juror Rules
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)