Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on May 29, 2007, to require county jury boards to add income tax payers to jury pools, and require the Department of Treasury to deliver to counties the names and addresses of taxpayers in the county. Jury boards would be required to order jury pools so that an proportionate number of residents of each community is represented in the pool. The operations of county jury boards would be overseen by the county board

The vote was 59 in favor, 49 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 488 at House Journal 56)

Click here to view bill details.

Why don't you just forget about juries, because most of the time they send innocent people to prison! No wonder why prisons are overcrowded?? Most juries don't want to serve or prejudice and they just want to finish an leave and care less who goes to jail plus all the money they cost tax payers. (speaking from an experience with a jury virdect who convicted an innocent young man with a lots of doubt and no evidence and they were not concentrating and falling asleep, sadly this person had a bad lawyer who thought the juries will see all the lies in the case) ...

bring up the lies in this case??? if not, why is he STILL A LAWYER????

Well, I sat in a jury pool just a week ago. The juriors are made up of 90% whites. The rest are just a few of each race other than White Americans. It was very upsetting to me and I am a white American. How fairly can people be judged by their peers if they are not of the same race? What is the meaning of the word peers? I would not do away with jury totally, I would re-arrange how they are done. First they need to be educated! I have seen too much false conviction. Many people spend years in jail over something they didn't do, and why? Because the jury could not conduct reasoning in any way, shape or form. I just saw a case on TV where the man was convicted of rape and murder. Guess what? Many years later DNA proved it was not him, however, even with the DNA evidence they judge would not re-tri the case? What is that? There was concrete evidence that this man was innocent!!! The whole system is corrupt! STOP THE MADNESS

black to be a black man's peer. it's not necessary, even though you think it is. all you have to do is decide, with the evidence in front of you, if the person is innocent, or guilty. if the evidence isn't there, or if you have reasonable doubts, don't convict. it's that simple.

they would do two things: 1. Abolish voir dire ("jury stacking"), which is the process by which jurors are handpicked by the state to ensure a conviction. It's supposed to be a random sample of peers, not a kangaroo court. 2. Put some legislative kickbutt behind the ancient common-law right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts. Also known as "jury nullification," this means the jury can refuse to confict if it thinks the law is unjust or stupid, regardless of whether the law was broken. It's been upheld by federal courts, it saved Wm. Penn's bacon, and protected our freedom of press courtesy of Mr. Zenger, to name a few examples besides stupid OJ.

first part so wrong and the second part so right? 1. Abolish voir dire ("jury stacking"), which is the process by which jurors are handpicked by the state to ensure a conviction. It's supposed to be a random sample of peers, not a kangaroo court. [voir dire is done AFTER THE JURY IS PICKED by the attorneys in the courtroom. it is a process by which jurors PREJUDICIAL to the defendants case are thrown out. some can be dismissed for no reason at all, known as 'for cause'.] 2. Put some legislative kickbutt behind the ancient common-law right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts. Also known as "jury nullification," this means the jury can refuse to confict if it thinks the law is unjust or stupid, regardless of whether the law was broken. It's been upheld by federal courts, it saved Wm. Penn's bacon, and protected our freedom of press courtesy of Mr. Zenger, to name a few examples besides stupid OJ. i say we KEEP voir dire, and put some kick butt behind 'jury nullification'. it would put an end to a whole truckload of immoral, illegal, and just plain unconstitutional laws on our books.

The place to do this is in the judge's instructions to the jury. Jury nullification is an understood part of the legal system, but judges are not currently required to mention this, so juries don't realize it is an option. Other classical example of jury nullification of bad laws are: Fugitive slave laws-juries refused to convict people helping slave to freedom, even though against the law. Drinking laws during prohibition-when everyone was drinking anyway. Draconian drug laws requiring more prison time for having a joint than for murder or rape.

Also, juries should be selected from citizens based on their home residence. They should be a simple, random pool and only challenged for cause, such as a relationship with the plaintiff or defendant, or an inability to discharge the duties (medical incapacity). Endless challenges allow the legal process to be gamed and juries to be screened for a particular outcome. That has nothing to do with justice.

They're both right. The jurors are suppposed to be randomly selected, not "picked"; only gross conflicts of interest such as kinfolk are supposed to get weeded out. That's the way it's worked in Anglo-Saxon common law since the ninth century, until now. Today, the picking process weeds out those informed jurors who will not promise to consider only the facts as the judge (a state employee) gives them, leaving only the easily-manipilated chowder-heads to fumble through the administration of justice. And so tyranny grinds onward.

based on geographical area, then give up racial equality, because if there are no people of the defendants race living in the area, then, in your opinion, he cannot get a fair trial. juries are pulled from the only jury pool there is, the people. jury duty is a real pain, but it's a DUTY. some people have reccomended that the state hire PROFESSIONAL JURIES, and this idea has gotten some traction in some jurisdictions around the country, but for the most part, lawyers on both sides are against it. what i see here is a failure to come to grips with the simple fact that you are upset because a group of people (jurors) all agree that the defendant sitting before them is guilty. now, if the people in your neck of the woods are liable to do that on a regular basis, no matter who is chosen, then either 1. the guy sitting in the defendant's chair has been proven guilty by the prosecutor beyond a reasonable doubt, and more importantly, beyond the ability of his defense attorney to defend against the charges. or... 2. everybody in your neck of the woods, and i do mean EVERYBODY just enjoys sending innocent people to jail for no reason. no only that, the prosecutors, police, judges, jailors, everybody, is in on it. (that would include you) now, which is it?