jury duty

[horsejody]

I was on a jury once for a murder trial. It was like watching a week long episode of CSI and very interesting. The jury pool was huge. They had selected about 125 people to be questioned. I couldn't believe how many people were automatically excluded. One guy was exclused because was on the witness list. He was never called to testify, but he was on the list because he was an employee at the lab that did the DNA testing. They asked everybody that was a police officer or closely realted to a police officer to stand. Each one was questioned about it and asked to leave. Then they asked for everybody that had been a victim of violent crime to stand. They were each quested. There were so few people left that the attorneys had to agree to let 2 violent crime victims stay so that they would have enough people for the jury plus 2 alternates. It was wierd. We all saw the assistant prosecuter smile and shake his head. We could also read his lips as he said to the main prosecutor, "I'm gonna love this jury." The guy on trial was so guilty that not even Perry Mason could have gotten him off. He was drug dealer boss and had his minions shoot a guy execution style. The hardest part was listening to the testimony of a totally innocent person that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was pistol whipped and had all of teeth knocked out. When the guy was shot he crawled over to him and held him while he died. The criminals and the victims friends scattered while he stayed.

 

[Crusty McPottydoodle]

Quote:
It isn't in the state of michigan. It might be the law in your state though.

yeah, don't we get the whopping $15 or $21 a day now. it's big money. big money folks!

We get $20/day for the first 10 days and then $60/day up to 49 days. I didn't bother researching further. Calculations told me I would lose 2/3 of my wages over that time period if I were to sit on the jury. Besides, the trial is too close to the end of term and I am taking 3 courses.

 

[scooter147]

Ok, that didn't take long.
It's over.
Basically this morning was one witness, closing arguements and jury deliberation.
The verdict: GUILTY on 63 counts of misdemeanor animal abuse/neglect.
The punishment recommended by the jury: $100 fine per count, 14 days in jail, animals awarded to the Humane Society.
The judge's final sentence: $50 fine per count, 2 weekends in the county jail (Friday at 5 pm and released on Monday at 6 am), animals awarded to the Humane Society and no more than two dogs allowed on the property for two years.

So here is the case in a nutshell. The man had 63 dogs of various breeds mainly small breeds in cages that were stacked three high. The cages below the upper cages did have plywood on them to prevent urine and feces from falling onto the dogs in the lower cages but the plywood was not cleaned and from what I saw not very often. This apparently is a violation of the Dept. Agricultures recommended method of housing dogs, not necessarily the stacking of cages but the method to prevent urine and feces from falling onto the lower animals.
The long haired breeds were not groomed properly and had horrible matting, tick and flea problems, most of the dogs did not have proper vaccinations for rabies (law in Missouri).
Most of the dogs had over grown toe nails which caused the animals pain as in some cases it was suggested that the dogs pulled toe nails out or pulled their toes out at the first joint as they would get them caught in the wire cages and do the damage in getting theirself free. Some of the dogs had mange and several had bad eye injuries do to the poor design and construction of the wire cages.
There were Numerous other health and care issues presented in the case.
Misdemeanor charges were all that could be filed as a felony charge required "willful intent" to abuse the animals and this was the guys first charge.
We were told after the case was closed by a Humane Society employee, one of the main witnesses and also acting as (some legal name) a cival litigant basically for the prosecuting attorney's office, that the reason the case went to trial was the guy wanted the dogs back and the prosecuting attorney and the Humane Society would not agree to that in an out of court settlement.

The verdict was 11 in favor and 1 against. The one against did not agree on 63 counts of guilt nor the recommended punishment so she withdrew her guilty verdict and would not sign the jury sheet.

In this case only 9 of the 12 jurors had to find in favor or against.

I was surprised how quickly we all came to an agreement. We elected a foreperson and within two minutes of that 12 hands went up for guilty, then 12 hands went up for guilt on 63 counts and then about 1/2 hour to give the judge a recommendation on punishment. The punishment part was pretty easy the law was pretty clear on what the maximum punishment could be.

 

[horsejody]

I hate people. How can somebody treat a poor, innocent animal that way.

 

[StupidBird]

Twenty plus years in this little county and I've never been called for anything. Guess I'm too boring.