Involuntary Servitude
Mar 12th, 2010 | By Linda Brady Traynham | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey
In theory the USA is a country which detests slavery. Well, not counting welfare, bonds, the IRS, the EPA, public schools, and addictive entitlements that remind us of opium dens in old San Francisco.
I am talking about being forced, literally, into involuntary servitude, complete with being told where you will be, when, what you will do at all times until you are manumitted–which could, theoretically, be your seventieth birthday if you annoyed the wrong overseer–what you will wear, when you may speak and what you may say, lockdowns, and restrictions on to whom you can talk and what you can read in some instances on pains of large, capricious fines and jail sentences.
I’m bound to have been busted by at least one of you. Yeah, I got a summons to be a juror and have been informed that if I am not there on the dot of 1:15 p.m. on March 16th I can be fined a thousand dollars–presumably a day–until I am in the appointed place at the appointed hour, properly contrite, wearing clothing “reasonably befitting the dignity and solemnity of the court proceedings.” Word of a Traynham, that is a direct quote. One immediate thought was of Charles Rangel, who is always impeccably and expensively garbed, something which is a great deal easier to do when one is on the take and does not pay taxes, no doubt. Perhaps Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi should be taken as examples of the connection between civic duty and haberdashery?
My next thought on mandatory duty uniforms/sartorial standards was that I lead a very quiet country life, these days. On my rare trips to town I am usually upholstered in a good velour “jogging outfit” by someone like DKNY (That being cutting edge around here for having “dressed” for those who do not wear suits to their offices. Garb most places runs to tee shirts, shorts, and flip-flops.) I’ve got my Madame DeFarge get-ups/widow’s weeds, if a black tunic and silky slacks are befitting the dignity of County Court at Law 2. Finally, for this time of year there is my “spring and summer weddings suit,” a symphony of peach, cream, and brown…but entirely too dressy for other daytime events, and it is “ladylike and traditional” but not “solemn.”
What does the well-dressed juror wear, and how many different outfits are sufficient to maintain the dignity of the court, given that we have no idea how long the trial will last? Is it contempt of court to wear the same thing throughout a trial? Are we supposed to go shopping every day after we are dismissed until nine ack emma to purchase something different until we have, say, two week’s worth of dignified, solemn outfits? Would the Judge disapprove of a nice black robe with a lace collar like Judge Judy? Almost certainly. Hmmm…I think the widow’s weeds with a seven by four foot swathe of black chiffon belly-dancing veil drapped mysteriously over my head and shoulders, go for the Indira Gandhi look? An ankle bracelet with bells would be a little over the top, as would zils (those tiny brass finger cymbols.) I could alternate with my black wool military beret with our clan badge in sterling where a military flash would go…if questioned I would reply regally, “My grandmother taught me that if you wear a hat it means you think the occasion is important.” Well, she did. It also saves time dressing one’s hair. Are young men who do not own suits obliged to buy them? Where does this stop? Are professional manicures and pedicures required? I certainly think so. A special trip to the dentist to have one’s teeth cleaned?
Now we have to get serious (while my mind mulls over the correct jewelry to look deliberately like elitist scum eager to oppress the accused to induce the Defense Attorney to issue a peremptory challenge…) It would be very easy to get out of this until May 11th, after which I am exempt by reason of age; I have a very cooperative doctor. Nyah, that’s too simple. What’s the old joke? “Do you want to be judged by a group too dumb to get out of jury duty?” Sprezzatura. Being dressed at least one notch more formally than others is a power play that goes back to the times of nomadic tribes, but has the government the right to demand that citizens add to the panoply? Never mind that we like being the best-dressed person in a room, should Shang-Haied citizens be forced to buy “suitable” raiment to underscore the might of the judiciary?
The more I consider the outrage of the County daring to force me into slavery, the more Jeffersonian I became. I would dislike it excessively if chained to an uncomfortable chair for days on end without my iced tea and ash tray, unable to use a restroom when I wished, threatened with jail and fines if I spoke, and thinking of deep vein thrombosis. It would upset my elderly rescue dog, too, having her beloved Mama gone.
I neither know nor care what they pay for jury duty and would not accept it; my mind and my body are not for sale, and neither is my patriotism. If necessary they will find they can command my body by charging me a thousand dollars a day for seven weeks until my birthday (plus, no doubt, assorted additional fines for contempt of court), but they can not make me tell lies and they can not force me to consider the evidence before me if I am determined not to. How ludicrous, to fine or jail me on a charge of “not thinking.” There’s a precedent we would love to see applied to Congress and government at all levels.
I am really most unsuitable for Jury duty and Sonia Sotomayor actually said something sensible. We are, indeed, the products of our upbringings and experiences. Put that way, nobody other than the other jurors, possibly, and spectators will ever want me sitting in a jury box. Particularly not if I am in a righteous rage.
1. The defendant is entitled to “a jury of his peers,” and that certainly isn’t a good description of me. Few of us are replicated under the actual meaning of that term, which is “equals.” They could probably search all of Texas and not accumulate a jury of my peers. Candidates would have to be Caucasian, Christian, widowed, and very articulate. They would be required to read Egyptian hieroglyphics, play most of Chopin well, have been elected public officials, never have had as much as a parking ticket, write regularly for national audiences, raise registered dairy goats, be experts at Free Cell, design ecclesiastical regalia, collect jade and spices, be able to make Toll House Cookies without a recipe, and possess highly reprehensible senses of humor to go with tons of ethics and principles. Darn…thought we had one in Mineral Wells, but she only had “grade” goats and had never made cheese…the lady in Dripping Springs looked good, but she didn’t score well enough on the Miller Analogy Test for graduate admission. The man in Hondo almost made it, but he can’t tailor or teach phonics…
2. I cannot, in conscience, say other than that of course I am prejudiced against that surly fellow in orange prison coveralls and shackles on trial for robbery and aggravated assault. We have to believe (against considerable historical evidence) that all Sheriffs and Police are honest, well-trained, intelligent, thorough, and confident the evidence they will present is overwhelming. I don’t care how many people assure judges that they are capable of being fair and impartial, I don’t believe it–no matter what their life experiences have been. Do consider the OJ trial. I’m an equal opportunity bigot when it comes to those accused of murder, burglary, arson, and child and animal abuse. I don’t care what age, color, or species they are when it comes to violent crime.
It will be reasonable to suppose correctly that the lowlife in front of me is a very rotten apple, even if his previous offenses and juvenile record cannot be revealed to me because his records are sealed. Forcing me to be a juror puts him under the Code Napoleon, thereby violating his civil rights, not that I suppose he deserves any if he is guilty as charged, and if that doesn’t disqualify me nothing will. His lawyer would have to convince me of his client’s innocence unless it were obvious that the elected coroner were a fool and the arresting officer a liar, which has certainly been known to happen.
3. The Defending Attorney–particularly in a criminal case–will take one look at me and my curriculum vitae and shriek a peremptory challenge, thereby wasting everyone’s time and all that effort to look exotic, but solemn, dignified, and well-manicured and jeweled. He/she won’t have any doubt that I have not even a modicum of sympathy for lawbreakers, and that is more subtle than the traditional, “Sure, I think he deserves a fair trial and then we can take the guilty s.o.b. out and hang him.” (An acquaintance made that as a joke and the court martial was thrown out.)
4. However, that isn’t going to let some Assistant DA off the hook, either. If he has much sense or experience he will look at the same life and think, “Loose cannon!” Chortle. No foolin’ buddy. I’ve spent a lifetime around “terrorist types” like career military men, chairing committees and boards and being President of things and if I can’t get myself selected as Foreman of the Jury I will be very surprised. I will make the ADA’s life a living hell–legitimately–asking questions and demanding explanations couched in plain English, even if that means sending the Jury to the Police Academy or the local cow college to take classes. In general it takes three times to convince a new doctor that we aren’t going to quit asking for explanations in ordinary language until he provides them and I am relatively certain that the Court is obliged to produce all the information or tutors a jury requests. Spontaneous laughter…perhaps I should ask for Linda Goodman’s Sun Signs. Sun Tzu on the art of war…I’m Okay, You’re Okay…to call in an expert in handwriting analysis (for character traits, not to determine if a check is a forgery.)
5. The Judge might like me, but he isn’t going to approve of me. Actually, I expect he is going to throw me out of his courtroom about fifteen seconds after I am asked if there is any reason I cannot be a fair and impartial juror, supposing I haven’t terrified one of the lawyers into excusing me. Goodness, no, I’m not going to run through items one through four.
I’m going to fling a piece of legal Kryptonite on the floor by saying that I must be assured there will be no jury nullification. At least many Judgies will flush beet red, begin banging their gavels in near apoplexy, and order the courtroom cleared and the entire jury pool dismissed because it has been “tainted.” Juries have enormous power but few jurors know that. Life is much simpler for the, um, justice system when we are ignorant. In the classic phrase, a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich. This IS a serious, valid issue, and if you are going to disrupt your life for days, weeks, or months it is reasonable to expect that your verdicts will be honored.
Any jury I serve on is going to be very well-informed because I will infuriate everyone by insisting upon it.
I don’t want to hear any charges that I intend to shirk my “civic duty.” For one thing, it is my carefully-considered analytical opinion that I would make a dreadful juror, over and above falling asleep constantly because I’m a night owl who is rarely asleep before dawn and arises at the crack of noon if the matter is urgent. Imagine the poor Baliff having to nudge me awake frequently, and the Judge puzzling out whether or not my involuntary somnolance constitutes contempt of Court. (I have always wondered what would happen if someone said, “Judge, please double that fine. The one you imposed does not begin to express my contempt for this Court!” Possibly 18 months in prison and a $25,000 fine…or perhaps the Judge would prefer not to be a laughing stock nationally. I hope I have enough sense not to test the issue.) This is a matter of my personal freedom to spend my time as I choose and not be subjected to my ideas of cruel and unusual punishment, including disturbing my sleep, refusing to allow me to smoke, threatening my vascular health, requiring total rigidity, and possibly reprimanding me for the frequent sneezing fits “dead” buildings always cause.
If I am “impressed,” like an American citizen by the British–a basic cause of the war of 1812–I will, of course, comply by showing up dressed with great formality…with a different needlework project every day to occupy my hands until the Judge says flat out that they can only remain folded in my lap, and I fire back that Miss Manners says that a lady may, with propriety, take her hand work anywhere.
If they treat me kindly I may not hang the jury. Goodness, if they can’t hang Khalid Sheik Mohammed after he confessed joyously or figure out that Nidal Hasssan was a terrorist, how can any DA hope to convince me beyond any doubt one way or the other? Malice? Heaven forfend! I would be surprised if it were not possible in any trial to find a rationale for voting for the outcome most likely to annoy big government. This is a matter of principle, that we must guard our freedoms zealously. Dr. Peter Haynes of the University of Hawaii’s Philosophy Department smiled approvingly when I embroidered or knitted in his classes rather than scribbling notes frantically…and I don’t think the current jury protocols even allow us to play cat’s cradle or paint our nails, far less do anything productive. Laughter…all right, I admit it: a major issue here is that I cannot abide just sitting and listening/watching. I read in my bath and while cooking and play computer games when on the telephone.
It is my opinion that government has no right to demand my compliance in the ways enumerated. If they want to compromise and give me a comfortable chair, freedom to walk around, an ash tray, a glass of wine and hors d’oeuvres at five, my lap top, possibly a jigsaw puzzle, and valet parking they may borrow my admittedly prejudiced mind between the hours of four p.m. and ten p.m., good dinners catered, since I am quite capable of attending to legalese and eating simultaneously.
They can broadcast the (archived) proceedings and I will watch on my laptop and send in my opinion. I think better between dark and dawn than I do before noon.
What they cannot do is seize my body, stuff it in a sealed building full of allergens, deny me my ubiquitous glass of iced tea while the Judge and the lawyers have glasses of water, and tell me I must sit there without moving or speaking, as though I were a child in Kindergarten, in defiance of several items on the Bill of Rights.
At least, they can’t do it without suffering the wrath of a very fertile, very determined mind.
The better part of valor would have been not publishing this article, lest the local Jury Coordinator and Judge take offense, since we all know they can make my life miserable. Somebody bail me out if I get thrown in the clink, please. Delighted laughter…my darling Charles would surely take my side (right or wrong) and end up in jail with me.
This is both funny and serious, and my idea of civic duty is standing up for the rights of the law-abiding amongst us, not coddling criminals by demanding complete rigidity and abuse of the citizenry. I won’t make a good automaton. Any mother of three can be an Air Traffic Controller while dispensing the high, the middle, and the low justice to her brood and making potato salad. Put that way, yes, I am quite capable of rendering judgement on someone’s behavior even if my idea of a good punishment for children is reading Bill Bennett’s complete Book of Virtues and that Sheriff Joe Arpaio tends to be a little solicitous of the comfort of his prisoners.
Judge Whatsis and the Brazos County District Clerk do not have to appreciate my odd sense of humor and justice, they have only to accept that some of us are not inclined to swear oaths that we cannot honor.
Search your own minds and hearts. Are you capable of dispassionate, implacable decisions concerning the actions, motivations, and intentions of others, based upon the testimony of those whose job it is to seek retribution and justify their behavior? Are you capable of discerning lies from truth? Are you willing to accept the burden of decreeing life, death, or imprisonment on the basis of the testimony of strangers? Are you willing to stand up and insist that the decision of the Jury is final–at least until the first of numerous appeals?
What I find odd is that I think far too many of the guilty are let off on “plea bargains” to reduce the number of court cases. I support the death penalty and God help anyone I am called upon to render judgement against who has abused a child or an animal. All of which proves my point: by current standards, I am not anyone’s idea of an ideal juror.
Pfui. Perhaps I will take the easy way out and check myself into the cardiac ward of St. Joseph’s hospital next Monday.
Regards,
Linda Brady Traynham
Whiskey & Gunpowder
March 12, 2010
Linda Brady Traynham
Linda Brady Traynham is a former editor and analytical project report writer and is now a Whiskey & Gunpowder field correspondent on a ranch in the Republic of Texas. She studied Counseling at Boston University and got her Masters degree in Philosophy from the University of Hawaii.
ShareThis
LInda,
Do you make your Toll house cookies with butter or shotening? And yes I can do it without a recipe.
You had me laughing, nodding my head in agreement and reaching for the dictionary. Socicitous, manumitted great choice of words. Yes the dreaded jury duty. I have been an “expert” witness and my opinion of the legal system is not very high. Your point about jurors and their powers are correct. Most people do not know that jurors have great power. It really upsets judges when they learn you know more about those powers than they thought. I have always said if you find a jury of my peers, let me know. Good points on a serious subject, even when you were being making light of it.
The best,
Kenny
Jury duty is great. Look what they did for OJ!
I think men and women, at least the hetero ones, react and respond differently to The Summons.
Me, I just figure I won’t bathe or shave for about 4 days, lose the toothbrush and the hairbrush, and eat pickled eggs and chile verde smothered in sliced scallions, with a soupcon of grated parmesan, topped with chopped chives, with a side of BBQ beans for about, oh, three days prior.
Jeez, Linda, some of us got drafted and sent to ‘nam, you may recall.
Count yer blessings, sister.
Me too!
Oh–if they arrest you, tell them @ arraignment that you can’t understand them unless the radio they put in your head stops broadcasting Pakistani music.
Then, when they send the shrinks to evaluate you, tell one that you want to kill her; tell the other how horny you are for him, and does he have a radio in his head, too? They can’t medicate you until you lose in the courtroom, thank goodness.
When the Judge tells you what your options are, spit on the floor and tell him/her that you want a jury trial, and that you want to represent yourself, in pro per.
You will get to wear manacles, and chains, too, and will be the baddest dudette ever to be in the courthouse and jail.
Worked for me!
Screw ‘em!
I don’t understand if a Jury is a cross-section of our peers, why do we always bash a jury? I guess if they were not smart enough to get out of jury duty, how can you think they are smart enough to make a decision of law..
Dear Steve F: I am SHOCKED that you would ask such a question! Butter, of course, and I do mean the golden stuff that comes out of cream, not the plastic byproduct known as margarine which will give you cancer and isn’t even unsaturated after hydrogen has been bubbled through the vat to make a product stiff enough to form into sticks. Congratulations on mastering one of life’s simple but vital skills.
Thanks, Kenny…and please pass on any other good tips upon how to gain knowledge and amenities for my fellow, um…detentees? detainedees? There must be more elegant ploys than claiming cruel and unusual punishment and a hostile work environment. Another point is that I wasn’t chosen as a registered voter but out of the driver’s license pool! We do have a problem, though, because could we trust a “professional” juror class? Doug Casey’s great article today saddened me with the thought that some readers will not grasp “I grok it.” “Stranger in a Strange Land” wasn’t one of Robert Heinlein’s best books, but even his worst are entertaining and instructive. In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” the plaintiffs are obliged to pay both the judge and the jury, all of whom have to agree to serve. I never forget the “Fair Witness,” who, if asked what color the house across the street is answers, “White. On this side.”
Steverino, you always lift my spirits and make such good sense. We could start a real brouhaha if we began to discuss the complex subject of the draft. Even I am not totally rational on the matter! I think boot camp and a couple of years’ service before young people go off to college or the workaday world would be very beneficial for them, if only because they would appreciate how much less trouble it is to go to school and make good grades than it is to work in an office, far less getting shot at. I think that it is beneficial to a nation (Switzerland and Israel come to mind, naturally) to train all citizens as soldiers against time of future need. Intellectually, then, we might say that I am in favor of mandatory military service…but “mandatory” is where the wheels come off. The very idea of forcing all citizens to do ANYTHING other than the most basic “Thou shalt nots” offends and outrages me. We have every right to ban and punish murder, rape, robbery, and arson (and that if and only if the fire-starter does not own the building and attempts to claim insurance; other than that, so far as I’m concerned a fellow can burn his house if he wants to and doesn’t endanger his neighbors.) Protecting the freedom of others to do as they wish short of injuring others in demonstrable, physical ways is essential to maintaining freedom for all. We have very little freedom left, partially because of the apparently irresistible urge to “protect” others from making their own choices and assessing their own risks. We can wrap it in one instance: motorcycle helmets and seat belt laws. The unacceptable rationale is “Well, if people get hurt we have to pay their medical bills.” No, we do NOT “have” to morally, and we don’t actually do so, either. It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that we have the right to take such risks as we choose and that we are NOT responsible for the bills of others–and that includes a collective “we” expressed as government. I’m reminded again of my beloved Robert Heinlein, who said, “When a society gets large enough to use IDs it is time to emigrate.”
Dear Steverino, again: in theory I appreciate your entertaining suggestions on how to deal with the courts, but I must consider all the ways Big Brother would control me if I were ajudged insane! I don’t think I’m being given the benefit of any doubt, but at present no one has managed to pin anything on me…funny about the “voices” in my head. I have very keen hearing and am plagued by the emissions of overburdened electrical wires and ubiquitous cell towers. I can HEAR the buzzing and crackling…and call the presence of high tension wires around a corner before they are visible. No, it isn’t tinnitus. Pakistani radio? I love it!
Kenny, dear, and Steverino on your first comment…the SPAM filter grabbed my replies. Hmm…what do you suppose happens if we say, “Judge, we’ve heard enough. The fellow is clearly guilty?!” How long does “due process of law” oblige us to listen? Silly question: as long as the Judge and lawyers insist. Hoot of laughter at myself. We all know that I’m going to be a perfect little lady, although by sheer smiling providence I have an appointment with my doctor late in the afternoon when I am due in court. That doesn’t stop me from considering a burka wistfully…diversity…solidarity…sounds very comfortable…
Linda, around here “the powers that be” routinely rejected anyone for jury duty if they identified themselves as members of or directly related to anyone in the “media”. Your work here obviously qualifies. This used to work wonders for my family when Dad and Grandpa were working mailer’s union members, pulling shifts at the Chicago Sun-Times and the Trib, getting the paper ready for the trucks after it came off the presses. Old media, dying industry, by-gone days.
I suggest that you make it clear to the judge that you intend to write both a documentary and fictionalize your jury experience in order to profit from having your valuable creative time wasted by the solemnity of court. I’m confident that both parties counsels will nod silently to the judge who will forth with order the bailiff to escort you from court house.
Enjoy!
When called for jury duty I went, the job paid.
It was fun watching the lawyers.
Was picked for one jury in a month.
Curiously, the other jurors were willing to find him guilty.
I said I had doubt and all day, we all quickly agreed that he was innocent.
One of the jurors teared up when talking about his old bird dog.
The judge thanked us, said it was great that we all agreed.
There are worse things than jury duty.
Linda,
Great column, I do understand your irritation, I only hope that you would reconsider your position and realize you may be the only one in that jury with the common sense and understanding to keep a regular joe shmoe from being railroaded by an over zealeous prosecuter. Its a funny world we live in, you can hand out condoms to 12 year olds, but if you make a comment about someones “lifestyle,” you could lose your job and charged with a hate crime. Anyway my point is, we need jurors like you now more than ever. (Especially if its my trial, I hope to see you in your DKNY garb.)
Thanks
Dave C
Walt, what a great idea, thanks! I have copied your comment so I can paste it in over on my e-mail for use. Wonder if the Judge would smack me with contempt of court if I e-mailed him a copy of this article?! Our own “Essie” over at TTR sent me a wonderful tale of getting an exemption on the ban against wearing hats. Hugs, Linda
Dear Robert: I vent my frustrations by writing, but you should all know that I’m going to be a perfect little lady and behave myself. A friend came by and gave me the latest local statistics: only 43% of those who are summoned even bother to show up! I really don’t mind the duty, just the physical constraints. When was the last time most of us have spent many hours in a row sitting still in a straight backed chair? Without even a doodle pad?! Laughter…it really isn’t fair to the defendent to have a sleepy, sullen juror having a nicotine fit! One reader said he solved the problem by telling the defense attorney that he had already formed an opinion based on what he had heard so fare. He was out of there. The best part is that he had decided the guy was innocent!
Dear Dave: You really know how to hit where it hurts! Ooomph. I hate to be hit in the “duty.” You’re right. Judging from the verdicts and the awards it is hard to field a jury of intelligent, rational, competent adults who will make any effort to understand the issues or the evidence. Oh, woe. You have discovered my secret weakness. I have never been able to withstand an appeal to any part of duty, honor, country. I joked about the clothing, but it IS important to take all of this seriously. This isn’t about the Judge’s dignity, it has to do with recognizing that we hold someone’s freedom and possibly life in our hands. I had already arranged (murmphf grumpf) to go to town and pick up a couple of good suits–Kasper, if I can find them. Chortle…and then I’ll slip my shoes off in the jury box and wiggle my toes so everybody there can admire the reddish orange “Sweet Revenge” nail polish and the swathe of “almost diamonds” and wisps of glittery paint that always grace the nails! Not when testimony is being given, of course. If I ever show up at your trial…remember the old commercial about “It’s not NICE to fool Mother Nature?!” You guys are all so great. Hugs, Linda
Linda
As always, you got me thinkin’. What if we had voluntary jury duty and it paid well. Volunteers could only quailfy if they passed a test measuring the ability to maintain psychological objectivity, etc. Dispense with the hand-picking of jurors by both sides. Do you think that would result in a fairer system? What is wrong with it? Perhaps unconstitutional? Of course, it might be difficult to find enough people who could pass the test, but , hey, it’s certainly American to curve the scores.
Thank YOU, Madame Foreperson!
Dagnabbit, Steverino, you tryin’ tuh make me cuss? “Foreman” and “Chairman” are perfectly good words, and nobody had better address me as “Ms.,” either.
This whole notion of “Jury Duty” has always confused me. We are told by our betters in the political classes that there is no way a bunch rubes from “flyover country” could ever understand anything as complex as the heathcare bill, bailout bill, [insert any one of the miriad of new laws being debated here]. Whenever we bring up a point of arguement that a new bill being debated is unconstitutional, we are told that we are not smart enough to understand what the Constitution is really saying.
So, if I am too stupid to understand the Constitution, and the Constitution is the basis for EVERYTHING that happens in a courtroom, why on earth would they want my opinion on a jury? I’m just sayin’…
Bill, I love your idea, except if we had a professional juror class someone would find a way to taint it, don’t you think? I have always loved Robert Heinlein’s “Fair Witness,” who testified only to things he or she had obeserved personally. “What color is that house?” Answer: “White. On this side, which is North.”
I think what you really want is to get on a GRAND jury – you know, the kind that gets to forage and explore? I think, with a little creativity, one could probably get a grand jury convened, perhaps, to look at a corrupt county official, to look at the ENTIRE county government – and maybe some of the state! True, no one wants the job of being janitor to a government – but what alternative do we have?
The judiciary won’t look unless two opponents can be found, and one persuaded to sue the other.
The executive won’t even look, in case its part of the corruption.
The legislative usually IS the corruption.
So a grand jury is about the only mechanism left to root out the corruption.
I wouldn’t want the job either – but God help them if I ever got it.
There sure would be a lot of changes around here – and little “status quo” left.
But I dream – all this will implode long before significant reforms could be implemented. Time to go buy some more gold and silver, for the rebuilding.
And maybe the next Constitution will actually have a “right to privacy” in it – nothing to do with just abortions, but a restriction to keep the Feds out of everyone’s business.
Splendid ideas, James! A quick report on my antics in court. I got lucky with the random drawing and was 20th out of 24 to seat a jury of 6. I enlivened a dull, idle period in the hall and charmed the others so that they decreed unanimously that I should be Jury Foreman. I terrorized the DA and the Defense Attorney, and as we left the Judge shook my hand (as a special favor?) and told me with a twinkle that I’m a menace. I thanked him cheerfully. Best of all I wasn’t selected to determine if the fellow all shined up and looking like co-counsel is guilty of committing assault with bodily injury upon persons at present undisclosed on the night of December 14, 2008.
I’ll bet you haven’t cussed on this site since God was a little girl!
Oh—so glad you didn’t object to the “Madame”!!
Keep up the great stuff, OK?
Thanks!
Is it contempt of court to wear the same thing throughout a trial?
No. I wouldn’t say that we see it often, but we see it regularly. Proper dress for jurors is much more relaxed than the attorneys (see My Cousin Vinnie). Generally, long pants and collars on men, pants or skirt for ladies, and keep your hoo-hoo-dilly and cha-chas covered. That’s about it. Almost all judges allow bottled water in the jury box now, and most allow anything that’s got a cap and isn’t alcoholic.
County Court at Law is all small beer stuff. Class A&B misdemeanors and civil stuff that falls between small claims court and state court (between $1,000 and maybe $100,000 at the top end.) I would be astonished to hear about a County Court at Law trial that lasted more than three days.
BTW, honesty is always fine, but if the judge thinks that you are answering questions a certain way just to get off the jury, that is considered contempt in our Republic, and you might get hammered. The problem with contempt, too, is that you don’t get a sentence. The judge just tosses you in the dock until he or she thinks you’ve had enough.
It could be worse. We used to pick juries by sending the sheriff out to grab the first twelve poor souls walking by the courthouse that he saw. And we have AC now. 50 years ago, they held court without it, and the lawyers still weren’t allowed to take off their jackets. Of course, they were allowed to smoke cigars and there were spittoons every five feet, but I’m not sure that’s a plus in a room full of sweat soaked wool.
Dear (Mr.?) Phelps: Thanks for the info and advice, Very interesting. My little excursion was very informative, and I was horrified when Judgie-wudgie told me that my “peer” is defined as a citizen, at least 18, capable of reading and speaking some English, who has never been convicted of a felony, and is not under indictment. Both attorneys told us the general rule is “You talk, you walk!” Who knows how “random” the first list was? Who knows what determined the second, when I stayed 20th? I questioned the Judge about contempt and he says he almost never does it because it involves too much paperwork! Common law courts have their charms; our Texas Constitution is for an appointed or elected judge, the first six citizens who are willing to do it, and no lawyers allowed!
Dear Mike: The ways of the filter are mysterious and your interesting thoughts just popped up. I have been restraining myself for quite some time about blasting the Democrats’ boast that they are “the best and brightest of the best and brightest,” another of the big lies they push constantly and one I find offensive in many ways. Attending Harvard or one of the seven sisters is far more likely to be a legacy or the result of political or financial clout, and certainly no guarantee of intelligence, achievement, or ethics. Teddy Kennedy’s scholastic career comes to mind easily. “Temporary” went to the big name school, but he was mocked as a yokel and dumb, leading us to suppose that only liberals can benefit from going to Yale, Harvard, or even the London School of Economics. I”ll put up an article on my experiences, the tenor of which was that what they were looking for was nice, docile jurors who would accept simplistic presentations and believe that they had only one duty: to vote guilty or not-guilty. Understand the issues? Ask for clarification or second opionions? Horrors, no! There was worse going on, as you shall see. Thanks for writing. Cordially, Linda
Somone said: Worse Things Than Jury Duty?
May I inquire, WHAT that would BE?! Six Root canals for uppers and another set for lowers, inflicted sans novocaine?
Actually, it probably depends on the luck of the draw on one’s ‘peers’ on the jury how good or bad it IS. Get one heavily peopled by…men…of the Uneducated-And-Damned-Proud-Of-It-Ilk, and a few sharp femmes, and you’ve got a mean mix of misogynistic undercurrents that can absolutely and totally derail ANYthing smacks of justice. Especially if the one being prosecuted is a bimbo who could clank -trip you around the ankle with a hooker’s type high-heeled shoe, beat ya to the ground, and her hardened wizened street-smart-system-wise face hidden behind a skirt flown up and we all know Da Guys are more Visually Stimulated than Da Wimmens, LOL.
OR…reverse the gender numbers, fill it with NOW attitudes, and see what you’ve got to persecute some normal decent dude who wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell with the Man-Haters. Voir Dire is how they can stack such ugly decks of people…. IMO they oughta herd juries in like sheep – what ya get is what goes past the gate. The FUNNIEST and dearest juror I ever watched was one who had Tourette Syndrome and was seated ANYway, and the more exciting things got, and the louder the attorneys became, the more this darling little girl about age 21 barked and howled like a demented hound-dawg.
Oops. Sorry. Bet the filter that controls these responses just upchucked my words that’ll never see the light of day as they’re enroute to be removed from the Bowels of the System, heh, heh.