Posted by Wizard
Oct 05, 2018

Serving on a jury in a criminal case is on my bucket list. I have always enjoyed courtroom TV shows and movies, especially when I learn something about the legal system. I'm a very rules-oriented person, and I find the judicial process fascinating. I think I would have made a decent attorney. Recently, I came very close to sitting on a jury. The following story recounts the events of September 24, 2018 to the best of my memory.

My two previous jury summonses resulted in me sitting in the jury pool waiting room for about four hours and then being dismissed because they didn't need me. Last Monday, after sitting in the jury pool for about an hour, my number was called. About 99 of us were led to courtroom 15A, where judge David Jones (no relation to the member of the Monkeys by the same name) (http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/departments/judicial/civil-criminal-divison/department-xxix/) dispensed justice. The range of numbers called was roughly 100 to 199. My number was 192, which I would later find out meant I was almost the juror of last resort. Apparently, they consider jurors in numerical order.

Before the court was a burglary case. I feel comfortable giving out case details, because it is all a matter of public record found at the website of the 8th Judicial Circuit Court of Clark County Nevada. Here are the facts of the case:

  • Session Date: 09/25/2018
  • Courtroom: 15A
  • Department: 29
  • Time: 10:30:00 AM
  • Case Number: C-17-325192-1
  • Judge: David M Jones
  • Attorney: Lippmann, Daniel F.
  • Location: RJC
  • Attorneys for the State of Nevada: Samuel R. Kern, Michael Dickerson
  • Attorneys for the Defendant: Daniel F. Lippmann (Court Appointed)

After taking turns up the elevator, they lined us jurors in order outside the courtroom and led us in one by one. The judge and other officers of the court stood as we filed into the room. After everyone was in, the judge asked us to be seated and then explained some courtroom rules and what we could expect to happen that day.

I believe the 24 jurors with the lowest numbers were placed in the actual jury box and the rest of us were placed in the spectator seats. The low-numbered jurors in "the box" got all the attention. The lead prosecuting attorney went first, and he said the State would be calling a number of witnesses and asked the entire room if anyone knew anyone on the list. He then read off a list of about 20 members of the Las Vegas and Henderson police departments. Then the defense attorney said he had no witnesses to call and asked if anybody knew the defendant. One juror was excused for knowing some of the police officers. This did not seem like a good beginning for the defendant. I could picture a parade of cops coming to the witness stand saying, "he did it." and nobody on the defendant's side. Strike one.

I don't want to get called a racist in the comments (but I probably will be), but let's just say that the racial component of the jury and defendant looked not much different than that in Too Kill a Mockingbird. At the time, I wondered why the defense attorney didn't argue that the sitting jury did not look like the "peers" of the defendant. However, a little research after the fact, shows that the right to trial by a jury of your "peers" is nowhere in the constitution. The word "peers" just isn't there. We get the expression from the Magna Carta, from which the jury system is based on, but the United States is not bound by that document. Again, I know I'm going to get called a racist, but to think that this wouldn't matter would be a complete denial of reality. Strike two.

To get back to the case, the lead prosecuting attorney asked everybody in the jury box, one by one, a few simple questions, which I believe were:

  • What do you do for a living?
  • Do you have any adult children living in Clark County?
  • Have you served on a jury before?
  • Have you, or anyone you know, ever been the victim of a crime?
  • Do you have any friends or family members in law enforcement?
  • Do you have any strong opinions either way about the police or justice system?

If anyone said "yes" to any question besides the first one, he went a little deeper for more details. To get through everybody at this step took about an hour. Then we took a break for lunch.

The line to the Capriotti's counter in the building was very long, so I found my way to Ameribrunch on Bridger Street, between 3rd and 4th. Not only would I recommend this if you're serving jury duty, but also if you want some decent sandwiches or light food when cruising Fremont Street.

After lunch, the defense attorney occupied the rest of the day with an in-depth probing of the jury. He seemed especially interested in everyone's answer to the prosecuting attorney's questions, which he wrote down, often attributing quotes to the wrong juror. His areas of focus were about being the victim of a crime, feelings about the police, and the verdict in cases of those who previously served on a jury. The judge said several times the defense attorney couldn't ask for the actual outcome of previous criminal cases, but asking if there was an outcome was acceptable. The defense attorney seemed extremely interested in extracting as much information as he could about these old cases.

Not surprising to me, the jury had four or five people who had been victims of burglary and their cases were never solved. Vegas, it seems, has a high burglary rate. A house I owned and worked from was burglarized and nobody was ever was caught. Some other members of the jury, when asked about the police, proclaimed their great respect and gratitude towards them. I think two members proclaimed to not like the police and admitted a bias against them. These jurors were dismissed. Meanwhile, those proclaiming their affinity toward the police still insisted they would fairly listen to both sides.

The defense attorney seemed a bit exasperated that things were not going his way. It seemed to me. a jury teeming with police-loving victims of burglary who never saw justice served was being built. The defense attorney asked each individual, over and over, if he could render a "not guilty" vote if he believed the state didn't prove their case. Everyone said "yes." He didn't seem to believe them. At one point he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I remind you that at this point, neither side has submitted any evidence in this case. That said, if the judge asked you to render a verdict right now, how many of you would say 'not guilty'?" I was shocked that only one person in the jury box raised his hand. Strike three.

Evidently every other juror and alternate were already convinced of his guilt before the actual trial even got started. I thought "innocent until proven guilty" was common knowledge -- the basis of our criminal justice system. They say it at the end of every episode of Cops. I don't know about the rights of the defense attorney, but I would have asked the judge to throw out everyone who didn't raise his hand to that question. Maybe he did. Sometimes the attorneys approached the bench to speak privately with the judge. The conversations were drowned out by a static noise played at those times. However, he kept trying, one at time, to get the jury to admit a bias, but every one of them kept a good poker face and maintained they would be a fair juror.

Eventually, around 5:00 pm, the judge excused everybody who wasn't in the jury box, including me. There is a rule in Nevada that you can't hold someone for jury duty more than a day unless he is selected for a trial. Let me remind you that they called about 100 jurors into this room. Counting the 24 in the jury box and about six selected to replace those who didn't feel they could be impartial and one very pregnant woman, that would mean the court made use of only 30 of us. The other 70 just sat there wasting our time. The woman next to me kept sighing and looking at her watch. The man two seats away from me was texting through the whole thing, despite signage in the room and being told numerous times that cell phones were not allowed. I read an entire book (skimming parts) and solved the 5x5 Rubik's Cube at least a dozen times, neither of which I believe violated any rules.

This over-calling of jurors bothers me and is part of the reason I'm writing this article. I can see playing it safe and asking for 50 jurors, but 100? This was disrespectful of the time of half of the group, including me. Speaking for myself only, I don't mind serving my obligation for jury duty. In fact, I want to. I just resent my time being wasted. This is the third time it has happened. At least this time I saw the inside of a courtroom.

Getting back to the case, it came as no surprise to me when I looked up the verdict later. Here it is:

9/27/2018 -- Disposition


Sentencing is scheduled for November 15 ,2018.

That's the long story of my day on jury duty. The summary -- if you're ever charged with burglary in Las Vegas, take a plea.


VCUSkyhawk Oct 05, 2018

I am far more disturbed by the fact that only one of the jurors could proclaim him innocent before the trial started than the racial makeup. It is shocking to me that the judge didnt admonish the jury. If you can not look at a defendant before a trial and say he is innocent you have no business being on a jury.

FleaStiff Oct 05, 2018

First, you were NOT a juror, you were a venireman. You are not a juror until you take the oath for a particular case.
Second, why did you answer questions. You should have stated that you speak and understand English, have lived in the state for more than one year and have lived in the county for atleast thirty days.
Neither the state nor the defendant is entitled to a favorable jury only to an impartial one and if you say you will set everything aside and render a verdict only upon what takes place in the courtroom that is all the law requires. The information filed (or indictment presented) is only an accusation, it is not evidence and the defendant is presumed not guilty until some evidence is adduced. Your personal history, your bumper stickers, etc. are attempts to stack the jury in what they think might be a favorable manner. Neither side has a right to a favorable jury. A Grand Jury (not used in Nevada) has to be representative of the community; a Petit Jury does not.
Burglary means he had the intent to commit a felony inside the premises at the time he unlawfully entered it. It does not mean he took anything or intended to take anything.

odiousgambit Oct 05, 2018

I have the feeling I will never serve on a jury due to being rejected for looking too much 'white bread' yet the court loves to call me to show up for the selection process. My wife would like serving, they can't seem to find her name to request she show up.

JohnnyQ Oct 08, 2018

Is the transcript public record ? It might be interesting to read and see if you Agree with the verdict. I am a little surprised that there wasn't a plea agreement reached before the trial.

FleaStiff Oct 09, 2018

Usually guilt is rather clear cut but defendants are often over-charged and the deal offered is not really attractive. Often a defendant simply does not want to make a deal no matter what advice he is given.
Usually there is a tape recording and a six month limit on turning it into a transcript.

smoothgrh Oct 09, 2018

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

I served on a jury about 20 years ago, and it was fascinating to watch the process. I have also been called to the courthouse to await being called in, and it's not fun. My cousin brings her knitting equipment, which helps pass the time (check if your court allows it—sometimes plastic needles is OK).

Based on the evidence presented in the trial that I served on, it seemed clear that the defendant was guilty, and that the defense attorney was either not experienced, or trying anything she could. Throughout the trial, the prosecution had to state "Objection. Asked and answered." (Sustained!) I heard so many varieties of objections that I wondered if we'd get a "badgering the witness" objection that you see on TV. Eventually, we did.

We lost some jurors along the way, and were nearly running out of alternates. The worst part of serving on a jury is when you're an alternate, and you make it all the way to the end of the trial. You're then put in a separate jury room and not allowed to deliberate. You have no effect on the outcome!

When it came to deliberation, it seemed the other jurors wanted to find him guilty quickly so we could get it over with. We took a poll by putting paper into a hat and found only one person thought he was not guilty. One other juror stated that we should discuss the evidence to convince that person of his guilt. I played devil's advocate that maybe in the discussion, we would become convinced going in the other direction (even though I thought he was guilty too). In the end, we convicted the person on all counts.

It was a week-long ordeal, and afterward we were told it was only the first part of a bifurcated trial. One of the jurors exclaimed her disbelief and outrage, and we were promptly cleared from the courtroom by the judge. Apparently, that juror had tainted the next phase of the trial!

FleaStiff Oct 10, 2018

I like the idea of knitting a hangman's noose while in the jury box.
Some lawyers make frivolous objections so at least their client will think they did something. One defendant belted his PD when he found out the lawyer had not filed any motions, the defendant didn't have any specific motion he wanted filed and seemed a bit uncertain as to what a motion really was, he just felt the PD was selling him short.
In Lousisianna, a PD gets paid only if the verdict is Guilty. Yep!!

Mission146 Oct 10, 2018

Louisiana is also one of only two states in which a guilty verdict does not require unanimity.

Joeman Oct 11, 2018

I was picked for a trial on my one and only jury summons. Not only that, of the 600 potential called that day, and the 60 or so called my particular trial, I was seated (at random) next to a friend I had known for over 10 years! I had a feeling that I would get picked since I was in the front row of the gallery, and the attorneys kept coming back to me with their questions.

I am glad I saw how the process worked, but I don't think I need to do it again.

One interesting thing I remember from the voir dire process was this one woman's response to an attorney's question (I forget exactly what was asked): "I don't trust people of a certain race." That got her an immediate dismissal form the possible jury pool. So, remember that one if you are called, but don't want to serve!

Sandybestdog Oct 28, 2018

I was on a jury about 5 years ago. It was a civil case against an insurance company. Besides just conflict of interest questions, the judge and lawyers did not ask any questions directly to jurors. Once a few were dismissed it just went by juror number. I had a low number so I was picked. I don't know why people complain about jury duty. I found the whole process fascinating. Albeit it was hardly inconvenient for me. The trial lasted a day and a half. I missed just a few hours of work. The case was pretty easy. I have no idea why the insurance company dragged it out so long.

The best part by far was the judge. My experience with courtrooms and judges is limited to pretty much a traffic ticket or two. But overall I have found judges to be pompous and self righteous. They act like you're wasting their time. This judge however was relatively soft spoken during the trial. As soon as the trial was over, he actually invited the whole jury back to his chambers where we got to ask him questions and heard a few stories. I asked him why since it was a relatively easy case didn't the insurance company just settle it. He said there were negotiations but no agreement was reached. About 2 years later I was sitting at my desk at work and a gentleman walked by. It took me about 10 seconds to figure it out but then I realized it was the judge. I introduced myself and told him what a neat experience I had. I also said that I had argued to the other jurors that the award should have been about 2-3x higher. I'm a pretty realistic guy and I'm not going to go with a high award just to make a big company pay up. But the amount we ended up giving him was I'm sure not even enough to justify going through the trial. The judge acknowledged that and said that he's found that juries in my county are generally pretty stingy. I thought that was odd since I'm in a pretty liberal county.

Overall I was happy with the experience.

Please login or register in order to leave a comment