Posted on Aug 30, 2016
Does being a veteran keep you from serving on a jury?
125K
1.96K
477
95
95
0
I ask because yesterday I was called for jury duty. I was selected to a group of 28 potential jurors who went to a courtroom to be questioned by the judge and lawyers. When questioning revealed that I had served in the military I could see red pens come out on both sides to mark their spreadsheets. Ultimately I wasn't selected, but sure seemed vet status did me in early on in questioning.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 257
We are the Moral barrier they can not understand. We understand Honor, Duty, Sacrifice, Order, and disciple. We also have a better understanding of the Constitution and Amendments than the average person. This makes us a danger we are not easily swayed by emotional pleas, or easily distracted with court room grandstanding. Most of us have seen the world and been in some situations, so no amount of sob story or (im from a broken home) crap will work on us. look on the bright side, you wont be on jury duty lol.
(371)
(0)
SPC Jaime Monsalve
Makes a tremendous amount of sense, we tend to see through bullshit, and that's all that lawyers are, whether they are on your side or not, they are just actors who try to make a story fit the way they want it to
(4)
(0)
ENS Rob Bridges
Rarely is the question asked, but being an attorney I can't think of a time when I would exclude someone on a jury because of their military service. If the subject of the litigation had something to do with the military, national defense, etc. then maybe.
(0)
(0)
SGT John Kristjansson
I wouldn't say that military members have a greater understanding of the Constitution than the average person, but I will say that people with a military background tend to be a bit more rigid than the average civilian regarding the rules of law that don't have to be explained (no committing murder, don't burn your neighbor's house down, don't take things that aren't yours, etc). The military also does a wonderful job of taking away sympathy from the "but I was really drunk" defense.
(1)
(0)
No But My Big Mouth does...
When I was Called for Jury Duty I was challenged to be Dismissed... So I Challenged the Defense and Prosecuting attorneys...
1 to prove Beyond a Shadow of a doubt The Defendant was Guilty or 2 to provide the Shadow of doubt the Defendant was innocent...
The Judge looked at me and asked "Are You Drunk"... and I responded ... "Not Yet"...
The judge asked Me to leave and instructed the Clerk to Remove My Name from the lists for any further Jury Duty Calls....
When I was Called for Jury Duty I was challenged to be Dismissed... So I Challenged the Defense and Prosecuting attorneys...
1 to prove Beyond a Shadow of a doubt The Defendant was Guilty or 2 to provide the Shadow of doubt the Defendant was innocent...
The Judge looked at me and asked "Are You Drunk"... and I responded ... "Not Yet"...
The judge asked Me to leave and instructed the Clerk to Remove My Name from the lists for any further Jury Duty Calls....
(158)
(0)
Capt Joe Sylvester
The defense need not prove anything. The prosecution must prove that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Which is why the defense will try to manufacture doubt, whether there is any or not.
(2)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
Perhaps other's are neglecting their communication skills? Being that SFC Smith's point was to not prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that he would only vote the person guilty if they could remove ALL doubt thereby completely verifying they are guilty, or if they remove all doubt towards the person's innocence, disproving all evidence and claims to exterminate the possibility of "Wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt so they are innocent, but they could have done it, we just can't prove it." Or "There has been sufficient evidence to dictate to give beyond reasonable doubt, but it could be a rare chance that they are actually innocent."
I've once had police officers accuse my friends and I of something some other kids in my school did. Said they got the call literally like 38 seconds ago (yet for us to move at least a mile in that short of a time and not need to catch our breath is pretty fuckin' fast), said two fat kids and a skinny one (plenty of fat people in town), and the skinny one was wearing a BDU jacket (plenty of people in town own one, especially those of us who were in or had been in the Navy JROTC program, hunters and people that shop at the thrift stores). I continued to ask the officers how they KNEW it was us, said he doesn't have to tell me anything. They guy that made the call eventually showed up, said one he knows for sure, the other and I, he was sure, but couldn't confirm. Almost got arrested for kids smashing pumpkins on Halloween with the only evidence being a very common body size and wearing a common item that matched the descriptions, everything else was hearsay, which with all my time in civics, law and criminology classes, military and security officer experience, hearsay and rumors are not testifiable in court.
I've once had police officers accuse my friends and I of something some other kids in my school did. Said they got the call literally like 38 seconds ago (yet for us to move at least a mile in that short of a time and not need to catch our breath is pretty fuckin' fast), said two fat kids and a skinny one (plenty of fat people in town), and the skinny one was wearing a BDU jacket (plenty of people in town own one, especially those of us who were in or had been in the Navy JROTC program, hunters and people that shop at the thrift stores). I continued to ask the officers how they KNEW it was us, said he doesn't have to tell me anything. They guy that made the call eventually showed up, said one he knows for sure, the other and I, he was sure, but couldn't confirm. Almost got arrested for kids smashing pumpkins on Halloween with the only evidence being a very common body size and wearing a common item that matched the descriptions, everything else was hearsay, which with all my time in civics, law and criminology classes, military and security officer experience, hearsay and rumors are not testifiable in court.
(1)
(0)
My best friend from High School was a prosecutor for a long time.he told me Vets were tough. Sometimes very pro police and everyone is guilty but also a lot of folks who believe in the constitution much more seriously than your average American and would free someone on a tiny technicality. Too hard to read so getting us off there was the safe bet.
(115)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
at the same time, i feel as though vets have very reality oriented mindsets. and it DOES say in our laws that in a court of law, all people are to be assumed innocent until sufficient evidence has been presented and confirmed to prove them guilty. If the evidence is presented, but there is doubt as to the validity of the evidence, then the person may not be guilty.
(0)
(0)
SPC Pedro Pepin
Vets have logic on their side
We don't get bullied
And we also don't fall for tricks
Innocent until proven guilty
We don't get bullied
And we also don't fall for tricks
Innocent until proven guilty
(2)
(0)
Sgt David Churchill
From my experience it depends on the case. Once the prosecutor found out I was a vet and was security police they wanted me since many of the witnesses being called were law enforcement. Needless to say defense wanted me excused.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SSG Grant Hansen - It doesn't matter to lawyers who is guilty, or who bears responsibility in such a case. They ignore the guy who caused the damage because he has no funds, and instead take aim at the "deep pockets". of anyone who does have money.
(0)
(0)
Actually they don't like Vets because they follow orders, i.e. apply the yardstick the judge says to apply. They want jurors they can emotionally sway to fudge the line in their favor. They don't want to waste their ammo on a pillbox.
(96)
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
That would sure explain both prosecution and defense marking spreadsheet in red at same time after learning I had been in the military.
(7)
(0)
SFC Jeffrey Barber
You being a LTC didn't help your cause as well for being a juror - I was bounce as a SSG years ago.
(3)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
So very true and they do not play in the gray area which tends to frustrate the prosecuting or defending attorney
(1)
(0)
Maj (Join to see)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - True besides vets tend to not be suede with the colorful play on words or tolerate purposeful deceitfulness. They will cut through the nonsense and break things down to the basic facts and that scares everybody
(0)
(0)
Typically, District attorneys and defense attorneys who are paneling a jury look for people who are "malleable" or can be swayed for the plaintiff or defendant. Veterans generally have fixed opinions and playing to emotion doesn't sway them...
(65)
(0)
SSgt Boyd Welch
Colonel, I'd simply say that we've honed our directional skills so that fair or foul winds are easily discerned (TO -001-BS-1A detectors employed)
(8)
(0)
LCpl Roberto Estudillo
We work smarter not harder in the military, in turn it means we actually use our logical reasoning skills to come up with our opinions. Most civilians don't understand what common sense is as we hone it in the military really quick. I often feel there are more idiots in the world than there are supposed to be. We would either away the rest of the jury ourselves or make the trial prolong because we won't abandon our values and moral turpitude.
(8)
(0)
(0)
(0)
I served on a jury for arson. They didn't like that I swayed the vote in the end. I paid too much attention to detail. I didn't just assume the guy was guilty because of his economic status or the fact that he had 7 lighters (all broken) on him at the time of the arrest. I agree with most of the other posts, we are the unpredictable wild card. We stand for honor, integrity, etc., as well as having a firmer grasp on our constitutional rights. I tend to believe that if more vets were allowed to serve on a jury, mute justice would be served. Just my opinion.
(62)
(0)
Cpl Eric Martinez
This is very true but I'm glad that were aren't selected more often. I really dislike serving on jury duty.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Pao Xiong
SP5 Pao Xiong - I went to one jury duty, then we were told that whoever it was pleaded guilty and after that I never got anymore summon for jury duty. I dont know if it was a vet status though.
(0)
(0)
I was recently called for Jury duty on a Federal Case involving a former Military member of the Military being tried for possessing and distribution of Child Pornography, while they (the Lawyers) were questioning us, we were asked if we hadever sat on a jury and several of us stated never served in a civil trial, but on sevetal court martials, then the Judge interrupted and asked how many out of the 56 person jury pool had served in the military and over half of the room raised their hands. In the end there were 7 former members of the military on the jury, and in my opinion that is what led to the perpetrator to cop a plea for which he was sentenced to 240 years to be served concurrently.
(34)
(0)
"Jury Selection" is what wins a case. Veterans are "Unknowns." We can sway HARD on specific issues (Ethics, Morales, etc), meaning that a well reasoned argument from either side may mean nothing (we won't bend, because we won't be convinced). It is better to "disqualify" us (remove us from the equation) than to risk us. Since we have the potential to affect both sides (prosecution & defense) equally, there's no foul doing do.
I listen to a podcast where a lawyer speaks about jury selection, and in simple terms he refers to it as removing "bias." In your example of 28 people, each lawyer would get X "strikes" for specific reasons (they are biased against the client Positive or Negative depending on the side), and then combined they can remove jurors. The combined ones won't count against the strikes. When all is done, they get down to 12 + alternates (a jury of peers). This is a massive over simplification (as I understand his explanation).
I listen to a podcast where a lawyer speaks about jury selection, and in simple terms he refers to it as removing "bias." In your example of 28 people, each lawyer would get X "strikes" for specific reasons (they are biased against the client Positive or Negative depending on the side), and then combined they can remove jurors. The combined ones won't count against the strikes. When all is done, they get down to 12 + alternates (a jury of peers). This is a massive over simplification (as I understand his explanation).
(23)
(0)
SSG Marcus Brothers
Kennedy, you are spot on with a small exception. Both sides get infinite strikes for specific reasons. Those are challenges for cause. The X "strikes" can be for any or even no reason, subject to clarification only if the cause seems to be based on the same things that will land you in EO's arena.
(0)
(0)
I'm a veteran of 4 juries and subsequently 3 convictions and a plea bargain.
(22)
(0)
Read This Next

Legal Services
