Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Interesting title for a bill... | Main | Missouri Union militia during the Civil War »

I've heard of problems picking a jury, but...

Posted by David Hardy · 30 January 2008 03:35 PM

...but having to send police to round up jurors? 100 summonses were sent out, and not enough jurors showed up to hold a civil trial.

UPDATE: I'm very pleased with juries around here. The Ariz. Supreme Court, as a very successful experiment, allowed them to submit written questions that are reviewed by the judge and, if proper, asked by him. When the jurors are not passive spectators, they get more involved. And the questions are often quite good ones. In my experience, under 10% ask something inadmissible, and about an equal proportion leave one attorney or the other muttering "why didn't I think to ask that?"

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Tom | January 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply

"In Glenn County, potential jurors must be American citizens, reside in the county, speak English well enough to participate in a trial, and not be a convicted felon"

I suspect in some parts of the country the first might be a problem. Of course, I also oppose getting rid of intelligent people...say people who know a malfunctioning AR15 is NOT a machine gun, but I guess that's another story.

wrangler5 | January 30, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply

Reminds me of a situation I saw in London in the summer of 1966. I was a law student spending time observing barristers in criminal trials at the Old Bailey. The typical jury panel was 13. No voire dire or other questioning of jurors was allowed, each juror just read an oath individually and counsel had to challenge during the reading or forever hold their peace as to that juror.

In this case there were two women on the panel, and before starting both barristers suggested to the judge that the women be dismissed (it was a battery case involving two men with overtones which the judge and barristers considered inappropriate for women to hear at the time.) Anyway, the jury panel was now down to 11 so the judge ordered the bailiff to go get another one off the street. The bailiff came back in a couple of minutes with another man, the jury was sworn and trial began. It was over in under 4 hours (opening statement to verdict - typical of the trials I watched that summer) so it wasn't a big imposition on the new guy.

dvan | January 31, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply

When I was practicing law, I had a lot of trials in a small Missouri town. The town layout was typical of the region - a town square with the courthouse in the middle.

On the occasions when not enough prospective jurors showed up, the judge would send a couple of deputies across the street to the only restaurant on the square with instructions to bring all the patrons over to the courthouse. The judge usually knew many of the patrons and would ask a couple of qualification questions to those he didn't know. His theory was that anyone sitting in a restaurant at 10:00 in the morning didn't have anything better to do than serve on a jury.

Jury selection continued, utilizing these new additions to the jury pool, until we had enough jurors to proceed.

This practice continued until the restaurant owner complained to the judge that no one would come into his restaurant whenever the judge (who traveled a circuit) was in town. Thereafter, the clerk summoned twice the number of jurors as had previously been customary.

Mark | January 31, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply

California used a similar system during at least some civil trials the last (and only) time I was actually on a jury; I used the priviledge to ask who had to actually approve the modification of the safety equipment that was partially at issue. While the plantiff's counsel who asked the question commented that he didn't see the point of it, at least one other juror (and I) thought that the answer pretty well destroyed his arguement that the defendant was responsible for the modifications in question (and hence is client's injuries). I've always wondered what he was thinking.

Ian Argent | February 1, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply

When I was called for county petit jury (happened to be unemployed at the time, so no imposition - an open and shut case); the cat-herder-in-chief made a point to tell the pool to pass the word that the county made a practice of sending the sheriffs after people who ignored the summons...

Leave a comment