Wednesday, October 3, 2018

DC Politics vs Reality

This was a lesson that real life organized to reinforce in my mind this week.  The enormous difference between actual courts, actual laws and allegations vs. the DC circus we've been watching for weeks. 

I had jury duty this week in the circuit court.system, Florida's 18th judicial circuit which includes my county and the next one over.

The short version of the story is that much like the other four or five times in my life I've responded to a jury duty summons, I didn't serve on a jury.  The longer version is that the process has gotten more efficient in the county over the 36 years I've lived here and I reported Tuesday (not Monday for the whole week).  A first group of 50 potential jurors was called out and sent to a court to start their selection process.  After that, 30 of us were called to a case we had already been assigned to.  We spent the day yesterday going through jury selection and still didn't complete that.  We were instructed to report back at 10 this morning for the down selection.  10AM turned to 10:30 and then 11:00.  Finally, at almost noon, the bailiff who had been assigned to corral us came to bring us back to the courtroom.  We were then told that the state and the defendant had come to a settlement, told us not to underestimate how important our being there and being willing to go through the process was, thanked for our service and allowed to leave. 

The important part of the story has little to do with the actual case and jury duty selection process.  The important part is that every time we were addressed, be it by the clerks in the office coordinating the candidate jurors, the judge who was responsible for the case, or the state's attorneys, the story of our judicial system was emphasized.  The foundations of our system of trial by jury being established at the formation of our nation, how it's woven into our constitution, and how it's one of the major developments of the enlightenment, flowing down from King Henry the 2nd.  The state's attorney started by telling us how our job is to protect our fellow citizens from the immense power of the state - as wielded by him.  The state's attorney and the judge said over and over that we must presume the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we were asked to swear to being able to presume the defendant innocent, swear to treat the facts the same regardless if presented by the state or the defense attorney, and more. 

Every step of the way was couched in the terms of the presumption of innocence and that no one is convicted unless that state proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. 

And given the three ring circus of Spartacus and the Seven Dwarves we've been forced to watch for weeks, now, all of that sounded mighty nice to my ears.

11 comments:

  1. Who was found of saying "ALL Politics Is Local"?

    Even back in SoCal they stressed the same thing on your first day of reporting. I never objected to serving on jury duty even though most of the time I served it was in the "world famous" Compton courthouse.

    And then after our term of service was over we all went back to our lives.

    Gee....wouldn't it be nice if politicians did the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the way it was originally set up to be. Didn't last for long, though. I don't know when Congress was allowed to get away with voting themselves a life-long salary after serving even just one term, but it is obscene that they get away with that. Among a host of other dishonest and immoral things (like being free from prosecution for using insider information to become wealthy.

      Harry S. Truman: "No man [or woman, like Hillary] can get rich in politics unless he is a crook. It cannot be done."

      Delete
  2. SiG, if you are interested in part of the history of jury duty, check out FIJA.org. I believe it all started with Peter Zenger back in 1735, when he was charged with libel when he published a true account of the misbehavior of the corrupt governor. Back then, it was illegal to do so even if it was true, under the "concept" that the greater the truth, the greater the arm done. Jury nullification saved him from a long term in prison.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should have read "the greater the _harm_ done."

      Delete
    2. I thought that was a Cockney accent.

      Reg, drop me an email at the " sigraybeard at gmail " address when you get a minute.

      Delete
    3. SiG - I sent a reply about ten minutes ago, and got a mail not delivered/blocked message back. Usually you still get my comments and such anyway, but I'm sending this in case you don't get this one. (No 'arm, no fowl)

      Delete
  3. So you didn't get the lecture about how the Constitution is a "living document" from one of the great judges on the court? Did you get a chance to ask them why they chose to take no action against Judge Murphy, even with the video evidence???

    ReplyDelete
  4. My experiences as a juror in LA County Superior Court have also been favorable, with regard to the court's emphasis on following law and procedure, the presumption of innoncence, etc.

    Our schools, media, and politicians have completely screwed-up our constitutional republic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Of course they harp and wax eloquent on the glory and importance of our "jury" system. They have to maintain the fiction....they like to talk about
    the US having a "justice system" when what we have is a legal system. One TOTALLY under control of those in power. One where LESS THAN 1% of all criminal cases are herd by a jury....just enough to maintain the fiction. And with "voire dire" and peremptive strikes the rare jury that does get seated is molded and created to be the willing accomplices of the state. The rest are just a rubber stamp for the state. On rare occasions juries do what they were intended to. (Think the Bundy Brother trial in Oregon). Notable for how rare they are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. My observation is that the jury system is screwed up. If you have any knowledge of what the subject of the case is, they will not accept you as a juror. If you have any crimes against you or relatives, not accepted. No wonder it takes so many warm bodies to eventually seat a jury, they don't want anyone with any connection with real life. Damn frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That may depend on where you are or exactly what the crime was. They didn't want anyone who knew the defendant personally which seems pretty reasonable to me, but your (or someone in your family) having been charged with a crime was not an automatic disqual.

      Delete