? for the legal eagles

[milliner]

With a handful of high profile cases getting ready to seat a jury, I have a question about the rights and responsibilities of the prospective jury pool.

My understanding is that the court may hand the pool of jurists a lengthy survey and ask that it bill completed and handed back in. What if I just print across the top of this survey 'I am 18 years of age or older and a legal resident of this jurisdiction. I have formed no opinion concerning the outcome of this case, and am willing and able to pass whatever sentence is necessary if a conviction is handed down.'

What would be the response of the court to something like this?

[alwynsw]

1. I am not an attorney.

I got one of those questionaires a couple of years ago during petit jury duty in U.S. District Court. It chapped my hide. Unless the judge seals the records, your questionaire becomes public record. It's your call, but as I understand it, you can't be forced to fill it out. I may be wrong.

Best case: your mark it as you describe and you either get selected or not - probably not

Middle case: the attorney whines, the judge barks, and you fill it out to avoid a contempt charge - then most likely don't get picked

Worst case: you get a contempt citation, fill the damn thing out (or not) and likely don't serve. Fill it out ant the citation likely goes away - don't and pay a fine or serve a couple of days so that you can be an example to the other girls and boys on the playground.

The big question is this: Do you want your answers to the questions to become a public record?

I know this is about as much help as handing a collander to someone in a leaky boat, but it's my 2 cents worth based on limited experience.

[beevul]

2. I have never seen...

a survey for jury duty before, though I have only served as a juror once.

This may be of interest to you, though I do not know how it is reguarded by DU'ers. Never seen a discussion about it on DU.


http://www.fija.org/

"Welcome

Welcome to the official web site of the American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association (AJI/FIJA). The AJI/FIJA mission is to inform all Americans about their rights, powers and responsibilities when serving as trial jurors. AJI/FIJA also seeks to restore the political function of the jury as the final check and balance on our American system of government."


Edited to add:


http://nowscape.com/fija/_brand.htm

"DIANA BRANDBORG V. JURY QUESTIONNAIRE"

"Showdown on Juror Privacy in Denton, TX

by Larry Dodge"

The dawn's early light had just barely given way to broad daylight on the morning of
February 10 when the first call came in to me regarding the case of Diana Brandborg.
Diana Brandborg had the day before been cited for contempt of court and sentenced to
three days in jail and a fine of $200 by Denton County Judge Ira Sam Houston for refusing
to answer some of the questions on a jurors' questionnaire sent to her as a member of the
pool from which a jury would ultimately be empaneled for the capital murder trial of James
Clark."


"But Mrs. Brandborg felt that the 14-page mail-back questionnaire asked several things that
were "too personal", and were not pertinent to the case, so she marked "N/A" to questions
about her income, her religion, and her organizational memberships, among others, and
returned the form with a letter to the judge explaining why she did what she did.
Thus began what has turned into a dramatic confrontation between parts of the legal
establishment and a growing group of citizens who have apparently long been looking for
someone with the nerve to tell the government, on this and other matters, "None of your
business!" "

And this:

http://nowscape.com/fija/_dbwins.htm

"DIANNA WINS!"

"Chalk one up for a juror's right to privacy
Dianna Brandborg, cited for contempt of court in Denton, Texas nearly a year and a half ago for refusing to answer several questions on a juror questionnaire, has apparently prevailed in her appeal of that charge. Hers was the first recorded case in the United States in which a contempt citation had been issued to a potential juror for refusal to answer voir dire questions on grounds that they were invasions of privacy. "

"Her argument was that the questions were not only too personal, but irrelevant to juror qualification for the murder case which she would have judged if she had been empaneled. On June 18, federal magistrate Robert Faulkner agreed, concluding that it appeared District Judge Ira Sam Houston had not considered the relevance of the questions, or balanced the defendant's right to an impartial jury with the juror's right to privacy. "


"Brandborg's victory didn't come easily. Her attorney, Rick Hagen, filed an appeal on her behalf immediately after Judge Houston issued the citation, so that she never had to spend the three days in jail or pay the $200 fine Houston imposed. So far, so good. But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals then decided not to rule on the case, so Hagen had to refile the appeal in federal court. According to Denton FIJA activist Ross Melton, who attended the federal court hearing this past January, it seemed then that Dianna's attorney made the better arguments, and that the judge was receptive."

"But months more passed before the decision was issued, at which point Houston tried to get Denton County to appeal the case on his behalf. But the county government had apparently had enough, especially with the Republican Party, dominant in the vicinity, applying what is alleged to have been "considerable pressure" to stop wasting taxpayer money and to spare Mrs. Brandborg further agony."


Is this a scenario similar to what you are asking?

[milliner]

3. Thanks

Yes, this is the scenario I was envisioning. I had seen this article mentioned a while back and kind of forgot about it. My feeling is that other than, can you be impartial, and are you legally qualified to set on this jury, the rest is an infringement on my privacy. I sat on two juries were small and did not touch on constitutional issues, but the voir dire process put me off and have considered doing in the jury box under verbal interview the same as this person did with the written questions.

I assume the questions are formed and worded with the agreement of both attorneys and app oval of the judge, is this assumption or fact?