Sad State of The US Federal Justice System

OK, this should give everyone a really good laugh. I'm still laughing.

Guess what? I am going to be sitting on a US Federal Grand Jury. Which is especially ironic considering how little I think of the courts and the federal government.

And this isn't the first time I've got dragged into it.

I am so proud of you! Represent well...


[me]runs the other way!

Roman, depending on what federal court district you're in, you could be quite busy.

FYI for everybody else -- in the U.S. federal system, the only way witnesses can be interviewed under oath and have the testimony received to determine if a federal indictment can be brought is to have the federal grand jury hear it. The grand jury gets to decide if the evidence it sees is sufficient to conclude that "probable cause" exists to believe that a crime was "probably" committed.

The criminal standard of proof at trial "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not apply at the grand jury phase.

Roman, you have my sympathies, it is a thankless task you take on.

I got dragged to sit for selection on a County Grand Jury not too long ago, ended up avoiding it because they managed to fill all the slot before they even got to my number. I was going to claim I had a bias too. >_>

Aside from lack of proper compensation and parking and such, why does everyone really hate doing jury duty? >_>

Lack of proper compensation seems motive enough.

Govindia:

Aside from lack of proper compensation and parking and such, why does everyone really hate doing jury duty? >_>

Click to expand...

Hehe - because in my instance, I keep getting called to serve on juries at all levels of government for some odd reason.

Grand juries are actually very interesting to sit on, much more so than run of the mill juries in criminal or civil cases.

In my state, regular juries in court cases (criminal in this instance) do not really determine innocence or guilt, per se. What they determine is whether or not, in light of all evidence and testimony given, the prosecution has proved its case that the defendant(s) are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have, in my state, the specific provision of 'jury nullification' (actually, every jury has that privilege) under the 'reasonable man' principle (that is to say, even though the defendant is guilty by the letter of the law, a jury has the actual option of deciding that the defendant acted in a fashion expected of any reasonable individual.

Essentially, a jury can acquit a defendant if they think the defendant was justified in his action or he was reasonable in his violation of the letter of the law (in this state, jury nullification is a common practice when the jurors do not agree with the prosecution's application of the law).

One of the most boring things to do is to sit on a jury in a very complex criminal case that goes on for weeks on end.