Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:23 am, "Maxwell" wrote:

I've pondered that a few times myself Ross, and I think I would have
to agree. I think judges do a good job with their experience, but
they too often tend to get too anal with the letter of the law and
loose a bit of their ability to judge. Seems a trained panel could
do a better job of looking at cases from different angles, and
reaching the most reasonable conclusion. The way we select juries
today can often be a real turkey shoot.

Think about the type of people who are not excused from jury duty.
Depending on the judge juriors can be excused because they have a lot
going on at work, because they have a business meeting etc. The self-
employed are almost always excused. Especially in a long trial you end
up with welfare moms, state employees, and retirees. Hardly our
peers.

-Robert

That is the fault of the judges and in some cases the legislatures. We have
a judge around here that if you are called for jury duty you can pretty much
plan on being there because unless a close family member is expected to die
during the trial you will be up for selection and even then you will
probably be required to show up with a death certificate after they do at
which point you will be next up. He doesn't let anybody off.

When I was on the panel I saw him tell the CEO of a LARGE company who had
just explained that he had a stock holder's meeting scheduled that, "I know
your number 2 guy and he is more than qualified to handle the meeting and
luckily the trial will probably only last half a day."

This is the same judge that when after the jury pool was asked if we new any
of the lawyers or principles in the case and I answered "Yes, your honor, I
play golf with the defendant's lawyer as I often play with you." He said,
"Yes, Mr. Giacona, I've seen you allegedly play golf and I've seen you lie
on a score card but you weren't under oath so I won't hold that against
you."