Posted on 01/11/2008 6:50:39 AM PST by Daffynition
Faced with a shrunken jury pool, a judge resorted to some sidewalk justice in hopes of filling it out. It worked.
Judge Harold Eaton Jr., discouraged when a 34-person pool of potential jurors for a sex case was reduced to 20 people, sent sheriff's deputies into the street Wednesday to summon people to join them.
Caledonia County Sheriff Michael Bergeron and three uniformed deputies stopped people on a sidewalk in front of the post office, asking if they lived in the county. Those who did and were 18 or older were given a summons to report to the courthouse.
According to Bergeron, "99.9 percent were just excellent" about being summoned.
"They were great. We certainly appreciate that," he said. "We hope it won't happen again."
Defense attorney David Sleigh objected to the impromptu jury pool, telling Eaton he should postpone the draw and start with a new pool. Eaton denied the request.
The 12 jurors selected will hear the case of a man charged with two felony counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child.
I would fight this with every bone in my body.
Clarification...
I would fight it if they forced me immediately against my will into the courthouse.
Next headline -
Vermont post offices close due to non-use
You must be a Dem as you won’t do your duty to your obligation as a citizen.
No. I simply own a business and have responsibilities. For instance, if they did it to me this morning, four people would not be getting their paychecks this afternoon and my son would not get picked up from school.
If they gave me a warning and allowed time to make arrangements, that would be a different story.
If it was just a regular jury duty summons that gives you a bit of notice to respond then this would be fine.
I've always been summoned to serve on grand juries, and because I cannot take months off of my job, I have always been excused. I always thought it would be interesting to serve on a trial jury though.
No. I simply own a business and have responsibilities. For instance, if they did it to me this morning, four people would not be getting their paychecks this afternoon and my son would not get picked up from school and driven to his last day of drivers training.
If they gave me a warning and allowed time to make arrangements, that would be a different story.
That's certainly fair.
I'm not and I would damn well put up a fight if they wanted me to do it then and there too. I'd tell them you better go ahead and get your guns to force me because that's what it's going to take. Now if I was asked nicely and had the time I would certainly do it.
Er, no, that's ot at issue here. This jury roundup is so completely bogus because it gives citizens absolutely no time to prepare for it - it has nothing to do with "being a good citizen" or not. What if some guy's walking back to his car to go to the hospital where his father is hours away from dying, or where his wife is going into labour? Oops, you're a bad citizen who just "doesn't fulfill your obligations as a citizen" if you'd rather see the birth of your child instead of being hogtied into an impromptu jury session? I don't think so, and I doubt any reasonable person would disagree with me.
I think it would be fun also.
But there is no way I could take time off work for it. We have not had even a one week vacation in the last five years.
If I am going to take time off work, I am not going to be sitting in a jury box arguing the guilt or innocence of someone who may be obviously guilty.
You are right. Is it legal or constitutional for them to essentially just nab people right off the street?? I guess in left wing VT it is.
—that happen in Breckinridge, Colorado about forty years ago—same situation, not enough jurors showed up—
(I know, they liely wouldn't say what the trial was about)
“This jury roundup is so completely bogus “
First of all, I had nothing to do with it!
I run a public utility, and have been on 24 hour emergency call for over twenty years. No way would I let them haul me in like this!
I don't think they'd shoot you, as that would reduce the number of potential jurors. They'd probably taze you, but not shoot you.
:)
But there are also plenty of attorneys who don't want to see society's older, wiser heads sitting on the jury and seeing right through their arguments. ;)
“You must be a Dem as you won’t do your duty to your obligation as a citizen.”
My county defines that obligation as applying to registered voters only.
Why? While inconvenient, it is your duty to serve on a jury. I was on a high profile case a couple of years ago and found it very interesting and informative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.