S07.E21: Jury duty

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Main topic:  Jury Duty

Also: Kamala Harris birtherism; Qanon conspiracy theories; Georgia congressional candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene; Larry King, Master Salesman; Jim Kramer zoom boozie brunches

Original air date 2020.08.16

[Annber03]

"You don't want the real educated ones."

That clip of that DA. Woooooooooooooow. Just...wow. No words.

Why am I not remotely surprised that private companies are involved in even something like the jury selection process, and screwing it up besides? Also, regarding the bit about choosing people by voter registration, I'm also assuming that one reason POC don't get called up as much is because even when they are registered to vote, there's still people out there willing to try and suppress their votes and remove them from voter rolls and things of that sort. Hard to be asked to participate when your name doesn't show up on a voter list, after all. 

The bit about the potential QAnon member of Congress and the usual racist tactics against Kamala Harris is both infuriating and depressing as hell. And not even remotely surprising :/. 

Also, how is Cramer even still able to have a show on TV? 

On a lighter note, John's analysis of that HLN guy's "race card" bit had me in tears, I was laughing so hard. Particularly when he wondered why the word "card" needed to even be there at all XD. 

[scarynikki12]

Ollie's soliloquy about the HLN guy's Race Card card was killing me. Literally gasping for air during that bit.

The show should 100% produce a fake movie/tv show of Viola describing a murder in extreme detail. That would be hilariously disturbing.

I've always wanted to do jury duty because I'm weird that way but I've never been summoned. I didn't know there were companies making the selection so my guess is they figured out that I'd be super eager to do it and put me on a permanent No list. Not at all surprised that there's still a ton of racist bias in the selection but I was surprised that it was so extreme that even Brett was against it.

[Annber03]

Just now, scarynikki12 said:

The show should 100% produce a fake movie/tv show of Viola describing a murder in extreme detail. That would be hilariously disturbing.

I was honestly expecting a segment at the end with Viola popping in to talk about something like that, only to segue into support for jury duty reform :p. That would've been fun :D. 

[swanpride]

Count me in as being just as shocked about the "you don't want the educated ones" line as the (not surprising) "no black people" approach. Judging other people is a duty which SHOULD be done by people who are able to really examine the facts at hand and aren't easily swayed by emotional arguments (from either side). 

Honestly, WHUTTTTTT? I mean, it is shocking enough to consider how stupid the average human is, and then consider that half of the people out there is even more stupid, but if you deliberately get rid of the smart people, what kind of people are sitting on those juries? I was never a fan of the jury system (since I consider it wrong headed to have amateurs judge other people), but this is even worse than I thought. Oh, and, btw, I doubt that ALL the algorithm which just HAPPENED to exclude Black people happened by accident.

Also, how the h.... did this DA even elected?

Kind of disappointed that he didn't mention marble league....the last race was a really gripping event.

[Lantern7]

I’ve heard of QAnon. Isn’t that basically G.I. Joe for ultra-conservative nutjobs? I’m thinking John could have used his time on that, but he had already covered conspiracy theories. Also, I think he’d rather talk about paintings of clothes and humanoid rat erotica.

I have never served on a jury. I’ve never actively avoided it, either. As always, John shines a light on a darkened corner we’ve never noticed, and we see the roaches as they scatter away.

[MaryMitch]

I was once sequestered for a week on a jury which convicted a sheriff of 12 counts of misuse of funds. When I was "checking out", the clerk told me "you'll never serve on another jury". When I asked why, she said "honey, you just convicted a sheriff! No prosecutor will want you!"

And it's true! Twice I was put on the "first pass" of jury selection, but once they found out I was a juror on that trial, I was dismissed. Nobody asked if I felt I could be impartial.  (Not that I mind; I feel I've done my time.)

[Robert Lynch]

That whole birtherism thing is so stupid! Who would believe that? Unfortunately, people would believe those things and that's the sad reality. And that woman from QAnon can go where the sun don't shine...using that metaphor about if she was a black person about honoring Confederate statues....disgusting.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Robert Lynch

[PrincessPurrsALot]

4 hours ago, Lantern7 said:

I’ve heard of QAnon. Isn’t that basically G.I. Joe for ultra-conservative nutjobs? I’m thinking John could have used his time on that, but he had already covered conspiracy theories. Also, I think he’d rather talk about paintings of clothes and humanoid rat erotica.

I have never served on a jury. I’ve never actively avoided it, either. As always, John shines a light on a darkened corner we’ve never noticed, and we see the roaches as they scatter away.

I wouldn't say he'd rather talk about paintings of clothes and eratica as much as this show does a great balancing act between comedy and education around very serious topics. The jury duty topic continued the discussion of racial discrimination is the US.  They are building a case for the multitude of ways that the system is stacked against PoC. Things like tie paintings, eratica, the race card card rant, whichever town it was in Connecticut can eat John's "whole ass", etc. add laughter to make the show easier to consume. That has been an interesting shift in US TV over the last 10-15 years; the comedy shows are often doing a better job of exploring political issues than the news channels with their eternal talking heads that say nothing of substance. 

[Fable]

12 hours ago, swanpride said:

I was never a fan of the jury system (since I consider it wrong headed to have amateurs judge other people)

This is why I've always said, if I was to be charged with a crime, I would opt for a bench trial.  

[paigow]

4 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

That whole birtherism thing is so stupid! Who would believe that?

People that the magic jury pool algorithm selects...

[ahisma]

4 hours ago, paigow said:

People that the magic jury pool algorithm selects...

Which somehow ends up with, “We’d rather call up a 9-year-old white boy than a young woman of color.” Mmmm hmm.

[paigow]

8 minutes ago, ahisma said:

Which somehow ends up with, “We’d rather call up a 9-year-old white boy than a young woman of color.” Mmmm hmm.

The kid should have been interviewed while renewing his drivers licence at the DMV

[RedbirdNelly]

I had jury duty once for a one day criminal trial. It was actually a positive experience. We had a racially diverse group along with a variety of ages and professions. It was kind of like a movie--I mean we had the old retired navy guy, a nurse, etc. Every one of us got along. I expected people to be "she's guilty let's get out of here!" but everyone wanted to talk through the evidence and confirm we were all on the same page. When we left going different directions in the court house, it occurred to me we'd never see each other again--kind of like the end of some movie.  

So I guess Nashville doesn't use some bogus program to decide who gets called. I called a second time, but all the cases for the week settled and they just sent us home after a few hours. I was glad since at this point, I was busy at work and had a baby keeping me hopping. 

The DA statements didn't surprise me, sadly. I found it interesting he'd apparently engaged in some emails with the show.

I loved the part with J.Oliver taking on Danbury CT

[Gothish520]

I'm a Nutmegger so John talking about Connecticut was kind of awesome to me, lol. Damn, what did Danbury ever do to you, Mr. Oliver? 😆

[swanpride]

I never was on jury duty (since, as I mentioned, such a thing doesn't exist in Germany), but I went with my school class to observe a bunch of trials. Twice. And compared to what we get to see mostly on American TV shows, it was a truly surreal experience. It was more cooperative and less aggressive and often the punishment which were requested by the defence and the prosecutor wasn't really that far apart from each other. The prosecutor was less set on getting a conviction which was as high as possible. I think the only time where something like a "discussion" happened was when the defence tried to argue that their client (who had tried to rob a shop) deserved a milder punishment due to "taking a step back" from her actions and fleeing without the money...which lead to the judge saying quite sarcastically "that your client is too stupid to open a cash register is hardly a reason for a milder punishment" (since that was the actual reason why she left without the money).

Anyway, it is a way, way more communicative affair. And yes, there are dangers in this process too, since a lot depends on the judge you get (hence the inclusion of Schöffen in more highly prolific cases), but in order to minimize this, there are a lot of things the judge doesn't really decide on his or her own. For example the question if someone over 18 should be judged as a youth or an adult...there is always some sort of expert in such questions who gives a recommendation if the defendant really thinks like a full adult already or if his development has somehow be stunted.

[purist]

On 8/17/2020 at 9:43 PM, Lantern7 said:

I’ve heard of QAnon. Isn’t that basically G.I. Joe for ultra-conservative nutjobs?

This article from The Atlantic's June 2020 issue is a really good (and scary) backgrounder on QAnon.

[iMonrey]

Quote

On a lighter note, John's analysis of that HLN guy's "race card" bit had me in tears, I was laughing so hard. Particularly when he wondered why the word "card" needed to even be there at all XD. 

I love how he can just interrupt a serious topic to do a whole bit on something like this. When he was walking through how this card came into being there was a photo of the guy trying to explain it to a production assistant with a child-like drawing pointing to "me" and "camera." 

[Avaleigh]

4 hours ago, purist said:

This article from The Atlantic's June 2020 issue is a really good (and scary) backgrounder on QAnon.

You aren't kidding that this article is scary. I think the most shocking thing for me after reading it is that these people's faith in QAnon isn't at all shaken when something QAnon predicts doesn't come to pass. QAnon is never wrong it's all somehow just "part of the plan" or needs to be reinterpreted by believers.

On 8/17/2020 at 7:43 AM, Lantern7 said:

I’ve heard of QAnon. Isn’t that basically G.I. Joe for ultra-conservative nutjobs? I’m thinking John could have used his time on that, but he had already covered conspiracy theories. 

I'm kind of glad that John doesn't want to give QAnon too much time. It's already been given enough attention. 

[helpmerhonda]

I've only been called to jury duty once.
Them: Do you think you can tell when someone is lying?
My response: Well, I'm a high school teacher. People are lying to me all day long. 
Them: Thank you number 24; you're dismissed.
And then they kept a lady who was friends with the judge.
Okay.

ETA: My father (older white male) gets called ALL. THE. TIME. He once had to report for a grand jury once a week (maybe every other week?) for a year.

Edited August 19, 2020 by helpmerhonda
addition

[iMonrey]

Is it true that Sean Penn's new wife is a year younger than his daughter? I was about a half hour into a podcast interview with him when I saw this episode. If true, I'm sorry but . . . yuck.

[Robert Lynch]

8 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Is it true that Sean Penn's new wife is a year younger than his daughter? I was about a half hour into a podcast interview with him when I saw this episode. If true, I'm sorry but . . . yuck.

It is.

I wonder what next topic shall be?

[swanpride]

If you look at the YouTube version of this episode and read the comments under it, there are a lot of people sharing stories about reasons why they themselves or other people get rejected for jury duty….aside from all those people who have a degree in something like psychology, and one who apparently was once part of a jury which convicted a cop and was after that never called to duty again, the story which takes the cake was the one of a Hispanic women who got rejected after she admitted that she would be unable to make her judgement just based on what the translator said. Basically she got rejected because she would have been able to understand the accused defend himself in his own words.

Why is it that every time I just know that something in the US is pretty bad it turns out to be so much worse than I thought?

[Annber03]

Yeah, anyone who watches true crime shows (like I do), or follows high profile cases, or things of that sort, and wonders how and why certain verdicts came to be, definitely needs to watch this episode. It just explains so much. 

[lynxfx]

The one time I (white male, early 30s) was called for jury duty I tried to allude to jury nullification when asked if I would give a verdict based on the law as described by the judge. They didn't buy it even though half a dozen people before me gave the "I can't judge another person" and they were all dismissed. I was juror number 53 out of 54 in the pool. So I got to watch them dismiss pretty much everyone. Anyone that served before and came to a guilty verdict was dismissed. Anyone that worked in law or enforcement or military, dismissed. Final jury was made up of people over 50 and mixed race but screwed towards older black women. I think over half were women of color. I was to be dismissed but the lady next to me was picked as the second alternate and suddenly didn't understand english. It was such a crock but they just gave up, sent her home and made me an alternate. So I get all the fun of watching the trial but don't get to participate with the jury or go behind closed doors.

I did learn why our legal system is so slow and cost so much money. The crime was a guy that went down a street and slashed about 50 tires. He was caught redhanded by an officer but slipped into a convenience store where he was ID'd based on very unique shirt and had a big knife in his pocket. The whole defense was based on mistaken identity. The trial took up 5 full days! The defense even tried TV CSI mumbo jumbo about the knife used. They asked if they did forensics on the knife and compared tire residue. The officer witness just replied with "That's not a thing". Guilty on 30+ counts of vandalism after like 20 minutes of the jury convening.

I will say that the judge was very cool and talked with the jury a lot. Kept the mood light and even sent each juror a thank you note after it was all done. My only time serving so not sure if that is very common. This was in Los Angeles.

[Hanahope]

Lol, here us lawyers complain about juries expecting CSI and apparently that lawyer tried to use it.

as a lawyer I was shocked to get on 2 juries, and we got guilty verdicts each time.  I’m a civil attorney so my knowledge of criminal law is minor, but know evidence rules.  

but yeah some lawyers like dumb juries, some like smart.  They usually get it right, but if a witness/party is an asshole, the jury will punish them. 
 

[ahisma]

On 8/20/2020 at 7:08 PM, lynxfx said:

made me an alternate. So I get all the fun of watching the trial but don't get to participate with the jury or go behind closed doors.

This was my only experience on a jury, too! So frustrating to have to listen to everything and then not actually be a part of it.

Mine was a 2-week civil trial (lawsuit) in the ‘80s. I felt bad when the verdict came back. The guy had obviously read about people getting $1 million settlements in lawsuits so that’s what he was asking for. He had PTSD from a couple of accidents, but it wasn’t well understood at that time, outside of actual war. The jury came back with—I don’t remember exactly, but it was something like $17,000. Aside from the lack of recognition of PTSD, I thought that him being a Black man shaped some people’s opinions of his case, too.