Jury duty excuse: I'm a racist, homophobic liar

[nevadamedic]

Story Highlights

Daniel Ellis really, really doesn't to want to serve as a juror
He tries to get out of it, saying he is homophobic and a racist
He also says he's a liar
Judge is appalled, refers case to prosecutors

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/10/reluctant.juror.ap/index.html

:laugh2: What a jackass :laugh2:

[diuretic]

Story Highlights

Daniel Ellis really, really doesn't to want to serve as a juror
He tries to get out of it, saying he is homophobic and a racist
He also says he's a liar
Judge is appalled, refers case to prosecutors

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/10/reluctant.juror.ap/index.html

:laugh2: What a jackass :laugh2:

LOL - the old liar's trick - well, is he a racist homophobe or is he lying about it?

[waterrescuedude2000]

Well if he/she is sitting in this court they must be guilty.

[dan]

Funny! Reminds me of a great Sarah Silverman bit about jury duty:

"At first I was going to say "I hate Chinks", but that seemed rude, so I said "I love Chinks!""

Actually, now that I think about it, she said that on Conan a couple years ago and there was a huge uproar over it, so this guy should've known what was coming.

[jimnyc]

Yikes, I hope I don't get called in for jury duty, I guess I'll be in the slammer too! :)

[theHawk]

He should just say he is a Republican, he'll get dismissed!

[dan]

Yikes, I hope I don't get called in for jury duty, I guess I'll be in the slammer too! :)

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, Jim, but I could totally see you doing this.

[darin]

I don't get why folks who don't want to go, simply don't burn their summons. Around here, a jury summons isn't 'signed for'.

[Monkeybone]

what can they do if you don't answer the call for jury duty?

[darin]

what can they do if you don't answer the call for jury duty?

They'd have to prove you got the summons, first-off.

[Jon]

They'd have to prove you got the summons, first-off.

I don't know that I'd be willing to test your theory:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=2.36.170

You can be held in contempt of court and it's a potential misdemeanor.

[darin]

That holds to my theory - proof of summons. Nobody can be held liable for a summons they may or may not have received. The DA would have to prove the summons wasn't lost in the non-certified nor tracked Mail it's shipped with.

[Jon]

That holds to my theory - proof of summons. Nobody can be held liable for a summons they may or may not have received. The DA would have to prove the summons wasn't lost in the non-certified nor tracked Mail it's shipped with.

So you wouldn't have to take time from work to go to court if this happened? What would you have to gain by burning your summons if the result is that you end up in court either way? With a misdemeanor hanging over your head for your trouble.

It's much easier to ask to be excused for one of the many legal reasons. ;)

[glockmail]

I don't know that I'd be willing to test your theory:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?Cite=2.36.170

You can be held in contempt of court and it's a potential misdemeanor.


That proves nothing realitive to dmp's argument. The question is, if you get a mailed summons, or even a certifed mailed summons without a return receipt, can Govco nail you for ignoring it? I've always thought the answer was "no", as Govco can't prove you got it, unless yore fool enough to admit it.

[darin]

So you wouldn't have to take time from work to go to court if this happened? What would you have to gain by burning your summons if the result is that you end up in court either way? With a misdemeanor hanging over your head for your trouble.

It's much easier to ask to be excused for one of the many legal reasons. ;)

See Glock's reply. Personally, i'd love Jury Duty - it'd be neat. But - as said above, I could only be convicted it was proven (to some standard of proof) I intentionally neglected to appear.

[glockmail]

See Glock's reply. Personally, i'd love Jury Duty - it'd be neat. But - as said above, I could only be convicted it was proven (to some standard of proof) I intentionally neglected to appear.

*ducks the flying pig*

[Jon]

See Glock's reply. Personally, i'd love Jury Duty - it'd be neat. But - as said above, I could only be convicted it was proven (to some standard of proof) I intentionally neglected to appear.

You're missing my point. Regardless of whether you'd eventually be convicted, you would still have to appear in court if you chose to disregard the summons.

I've had jury duty. It's overrated. However, I did learn that The Catcher in the Rye sucks ass. ;)

[darin]

You're missing my point. Regardless of whether you'd eventually be convicted, you would still have to appear in court if you chose to disregard the summons.

I've had jury duty. It's overrated. However, I did learn that The Catcher in the Rye sucks ass. ;)

"Might" still have to appear in court. I'll grant that.

[manu1959]

You're missing my point. Regardless of whether you'd eventually be convicted, you would still have to appear in court if you chose to disregard the summons.

I've had jury duty. It's overrated. However, I did learn that The Catcher in the Rye sucks ass. ;)

if i never recieved a summons how could i disregard it?

[darin]

I believe he's saying "If you discard a summons, you could be arrested and brought before a judge".

[diuretic]

Some jurisdictions have an assumption in the legislation that once it's in the mail then it's delivered and received and the onus is on the receiver to prove they didn't receive it. Ever tried to prove a negative? Very difficult. It would be a real bugger if you really didn't receive it though. Courts get very cranky about contempt issues and will bang you up as quick as look at you.

[nevadamedic]

I bet Jury Duty would be fun, especially if it's an interesting case like murder not some white collar crimes. Also a high profile case would be great too.

[Yurt]

I just honestly answer what I do for a living, they never pick me :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

I just honestly answer what I do for a living, they never pick me :laugh2:

That is?

[Yurt]

That is?

If I told you.....

[nevadamedic]

If I told you.....

????????????

[Yurt]

????????????

................

[glockmail]

Some jurisdictions have an assumption in the legislation that once it's in the mail then it's delivered and received and the onus is on the receiver to prove they didn't receive it. Ever tried to prove a negative? Very difficult. It would be a real bugger if you really didn't receive it though. Courts get very cranky about contempt issues and will bang you up as quick as look at you. That's one reason we live in America: innocent until proven guilty. Its actually based on the concept that power resides with the people who in turn grant limited authority to the govenment. I understand it a strange concept in the rest of the world, and likely the reason foreigners are jealous of us.

[nevadamedic]

................

What do you do?

[Yurt]

What do you do?

I told you, I can't tell you. :)

[nevadamedic]

I told you, I can't tell you. :)

Sure you can!

[Yurt]

Sure you can!

I'm sorry, I can't. Only those that know, know. Those that don't, can't.

[glockmail]

I told you, I can't tell you. :)
Or you can tell him, but then you'll have to kill him. :salute:

[nevadamedic]

I'm sorry, I can't. Only those that know, know. Those that don't, can't.

How come?

[Yurt]

How come?

It must be. Only the one knows.

[manu1959]

I believe he's saying "If you discard a summons, you could be arrested and brought before a judge".

how would one prove i got something via US mail that i discarded?

[manu1959]

Some jurisdictions have an assumption in the legislation that once it's in the mail then it's delivered and received and the onus is on the receiver to prove they didn't receive it. Ever tried to prove a negative? Very difficult. It would be a real bugger if you really didn't receive it though. Courts get very cranky about contempt issues and will bang you up as quick as look at you.

they would need to prove it was mailed

[nevadamedic]

they would need to prove it was mailed

They couldn't unless they are going through your trash, which I doub't they would ever do that.

[manu1959]

i know what yurt does................

my excuse at jury duty.....my daddy was a criminal defense attorney and he taught me the police don't arrest innocent people.....

[nevadamedic]

they would need to prove it was mailed

They would also have to prove you recieved it.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Of course, I could get out of jury duty this way, and I think the judge would get the pie back in his face if he thought it was a ruse. An acquaintance in NYC who feels as I do about racial issues expressed some feelings during jury selection some years ago. The judge flipped (his or her) wig. The bailiff was called so that my acquaintance would not sit on that jury, or any other, per the judge's rant. Maybe they even struck his name from the rolls, who knows. But he was dead serious, as am I: races are different.

Racism: America's Only True Thought Crime. Commit it today --- it feels great. Because it's true!

[manu1959]

They would also have to prove you received it.

all i would have to do is introduce them to my mail man ..... makes Neumann on Seinfeld look like a workaholic...

[Yurt]

A summons has to have a POS.

Only the one can know.....

[manu1959]

They couldn't unless they are going through your trash, which I doub't they would ever do that.

my wife shreds or burns all our trash ... and she sorts the mail....i never touch the mail

[diuretic]

That's one reason we live in America: innocent until proven guilty. Its actually based on the concept that power resides with the people who in turn grant limited authority to the govenment. I understand it a strange concept in the rest of the world, and likely the reason foreigners are jealous of us.

It's not unique to America. I can't think of any jurisdiction that has booted the presumption of innocence (maybe China). You owe your thanks to the English common law for what you enjoy. Me too.

[diuretic]

It must be. Only the one knows.

Here I think your colleagues might refer to you as a "learned friend".

But I could wrong.

[diuretic]

they would need to prove it was mailed

Easy - the courts are meticulous with records.

[diuretic]

i know what yurt does................

my excuse at jury duty.....my daddy was a criminal defense attorney and he taught me the police don't arrest innocent people.....

The police always arrest innocent people. Then they're convicted :laugh2:

[diuretic]

They would also have to prove you recieved it.

Here (where I live I mean) it's deemed to be received because of the efficiency of the postal system (I'm not kidding).

[glockmail]

It's not unique to America. I can't think of any jurisdiction that has booted the presumption of innocence (maybe China). You owe your thanks to the English common law for what you enjoy. Me too. Bull. When this nation was founded the English law was guilty until proven innocent. We turned that on its head in 1776.

[Jon]

Bull. When this nation was founded the English law was guilty until proven innocent. We turned that on its head in 1776.

:link:

<iframe src="http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/01/12/153/23800" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Law508/InnocentGuilty.htm" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>

[glockmail]

:link.....:
From your source:
Clementi did not know that the maxim "Innocent until proven guilty" cannot be found in any English court case or any jurisprudential treatise before ca. 1800

Are pigs flying again?

[Jon]

From your source:

Are pigs flying again?

You obviously didn't read all of either of them. Great selective quoting BTW.

[nevadamedic]

Bull. When this nation was founded the English law was guilty until proven innocent. We turned that on its head in 1776.

Now days it seem's like your guilty until proven innocent, just like the old days. Anytime anyone is arrested the media basically convicts them before they are even arraigned.

[glockmail]

You obviously didn't read all of either of them. Great selective quoting BTW. I read enough. The quote I used is self-explanitory, and as usual, I'm right. :poke:

[Jon]

I read enough. The quote I used is self-explanitory, and as usual, I'm right. :poke:

Show me where it says,

"When this nation was founded the English law was guilty until proven innocent. We turned that on its head in 1776,"

or anything that even closely resembles that.

[glockmail]

Show me where it says,

"When this nation was founded the English law was guilty until proven innocent. We turned that on its head in 1776,"

or anything that even closely resembles that.


During the colonial times, there was no real law established except that of English common law. English common law stood on one ground - "stare decisis," which meant stand by decisions. Hofer states that the opinions of the judges were as good as written law unless they were overturned, an unlikely occurrence considering English judges did not like to undermine each other (27). When revolutionary lawyers wanted to find a way to overthrow English rule, they first looked to common law. The only problem with this was that English judges wrote the court records and would not incriminate themselves. This problem was very difficult to overcome; the English justice system was riddled with corruption. There was no set guidelines for common law as judges had the freedom to assert any punishment they deemed necessary or deemed not necessary. Another principle role that judges played was declaring the appropriate mode of trial whether it be compurgation, battle or ordeal (Rembar 228). Once that was decided, there was then the idea of pleading. The defendant was not considered to be innocent until proven guilty, but guilty until proven innocent (Rembar 338). http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/16071783/law.htm

:D

[Jon]

http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/16071783/law.htm

:D

Oh, good! Phew! For a moment there, I thought you said that *my* source proved you right. :slap:

So you found a source that asserts part of your claim is true. Good. How about the rest?

BTW, thanks for providing at least one :link:

Now, how about the one the mentions 1776 as the magic date that we switched over to the presumption of innocence?

[diuretic]

Well I've got a bit of egg on my face so I may as well own up to it.

I think I'm wrong.

I was under the impression that the presumption of innocence (I'll also refer to it as the burden of proof being on the prosecution most of the time) was ancient. It turns out it isn't. I knew it appeared solidly in Woolmington v DPP a 1935 English murder case when the phrase "the golden thread" appeared first in a judgement, where that golden thread was an allusion to the requirement of the prosecution to prove its case and not for the defendant to prove his innocence.

I know the English legal system has been, at times, extremely corrupt. The Star Chamber period is only one instance. Courts in the 18th Century were notoriously corrupt, vicious and venal. I remember reading the trial of William Penn and reading of the judge's corrupt behaviour in that trial.

It seems that at that time there was no presumption of much at all. The defendant was given a chance to explain himself and not much more than that.

Good source of documentation is here -

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/trial-procedures.html

and

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/

I live and learn :D

[nevadamedic]

Well I've got a bit of egg on my face so I may as well own up to it.

I think I'm wrong.

I was under the impression that the presumption of innocence (I'll also refer to it as the burden of proof being on the prosecution most of the time) was ancient. It turns out it isn't. I knew it appeared solidly in Woolmington v DPP a 1935 English murder case when the phrase "the golden thread" appeared first in a judgement, where that golden thread was an allusion to the requirement of the prosecution to prove its case and not for the defendant to prove his innocence.

I know the English legal system has been, at times, extremely corrupt. The Star Chamber period is only one instance. Courts in the 18th Century were notoriously corrupt, vicious and venal. I remember reading the trial of William Penn and reading of the judge's corrupt behaviour in that trial.

It seems that at that time there was no presumption of much at all. The defendant was given a chance to explain himself and not much more than that.

Good source of documentation is here -

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/trial-procedures.html

and

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/

I live and learn :D

:clap:

[glockmail]

Oh, good! Phew! For a moment there, I thought you said that *my* source proved you right. :slap:

So you found a source that asserts part of your claim is true. Good. How about the rest?

BTW, thanks for providing at least one :link:

Now, how about the one the mentions 1776 as the magic date that we switched over to the presumption of innocence?

You're a real anal one, ain't ya?

[glockmail]

Well I've got a bit of egg on my face so I may as well own up to it.

I think I'm wrong.

I was under the impression that the presumption of innocence (I'll also refer to it as the burden of proof being on the prosecution most of the time) was ancient. It turns out it isn't. I knew it appeared solidly in Woolmington v DPP a 1935 English murder case when the phrase "the golden thread" appeared first in a judgement, where that golden thread was an allusion to the requirement of the prosecution to prove its case and not for the defendant to prove his innocence.

I know the English legal system has been, at times, extremely corrupt. The Star Chamber period is only one instance. Courts in the 18th Century were notoriously corrupt, vicious and venal. I remember reading the trial of William Penn and reading of the judge's corrupt behaviour in that trial.

It seems that at that time there was no presumption of much at all. The defendant was given a chance to explain himself and not much more than that.

Good source of documentation is here -

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/trial-procedures.html

and

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/crime/

I live and learn :D

No egg on you. How's an Aussie to know about American history? :cheers2:

[nevadamedic]

No egg on you. How's an Aussie to know about American history? :cheers2:

Maybe he took a US History class or get's the History Channel? :laugh2:

[diuretic]

No egg on you. How's an Aussie to know about American history? :cheers2:

That's very kind of you but I was wrong. I had this idea that the presumption of innocence in English common law went way back. It doesn't. I do remember reading about William Pitt and how courageous he was to stand up to that bastard of a judge in England. I know Pitt wasn't a Founding Father but I think perhaps his experience with that judge may have been spread around the "colony". I'm corrected and I'm glad for it. Your Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing, they knew that the English law at that time (18thC) was corrupt and venal and they ensured it wouldn't happen in their new nation.

[diuretic]

Maybe he took a US History class or get's the History Channel? :laugh2:

:D I took two semesters of US Politics in my undergraduate degree (as a mature age student) so I should be smacked hard with a big piece of wood :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

:D I took two semesters of US Politics in my undergraduate degree (as a mature age student) so I should be smacked hard with a big piece of wood :laugh2:

How come you took a US class?