JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
If it's a crime that involved a gun, seems to me one side or the other would like to have responsible gun owners on the jury. If it's in an anti gun zone, well, we can understand why so many repeat gun felons are on the street.:mad:
 
If it's a crime that involved a gun, seems to me one side or the other would like to have responsible gun owners on the jury. If it's in an anti gun zone, well, we can understand why so many repeat gun felons are on the street.:mad:

Well we saw how well Micheal Stricklands jury selection and case in general went....:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Michael Strickland, guilty of 21 counts
 
Only been picked and called for JD once. I was getting paid by my work at the time and it turned into a 2 day trial so it didn't bother me any.

Come jury deliberation I was the only person in the room to think the dad was not guilty and that every piece of evidence the prosecutor presented was shaky at best.

I got a unanimous not guilty plea for the guy in under 90 min.

When the verdict was read the prosecuter was so sure he nailed it that he turned purple and asked for a meeting in the judges chambers.

Judge shut him down and let the guy go.

I was tickled because the dad didn't deserve jail time for what they were accusing him of.

Learned a lot about how they can and will twist all of the facts in a courtroom and to bring a better lawyer then the other guy if I'm ever in trouble.
 
If you want to be on a Jury and I still do, it is important to answer any and all questions succinctly and honestly as presented by both attorneys. Sometimes the Judge will ask you a question. Rare, but it happens. Answer all follow up questions honestly but do not make a speech about it.

I believe the Oregon Constitution still demands that Jurors judge the Law AND the evidence as presented by the Court. But ... unless specifically asked about this, do not volunteer any extra information. Jury nullification still can be done. Being a Juror is a heavy civic responsibility and duty.

Respectfully. I am not an attorney.
 
During selection inwas asked simple questions like, "Do you have children?" - yes.

"Do you think it's right to disapline your children?" - yes

Etc.

During my JD the prosecuter showed a ton of evidence but none of it was by the book breaking the law, which is what I pointed out to my fellow jurors.
 
In all the times I've been called, and it has been several times, the trial was canceled in all but one. The one it wasn't, when they were weeding out jurors, they asked a bunch of questions, but firearm-ownership and CHL was not one of them. If asked, I would have truthfully answered.

Regarding if CHL is public information or not, this article on the Washington County site may be of interest.



Lying during voir dire can constitute perjury or obstruction of justice. A juror's rights to privacy is another topic though and there is case law on the matter. Interesting question.

Concerning written records, this article may be of interest regarding the jury selection process. But the odds of someone sifting through a mountain of old court records to find if you have a CHL is, imho, so remote as to be of zero concern.

Who were these two nimrods?

To date, only 2 people have expressed a desire to have their application and personal information released to the public.
 
While I do know how to get out of jury duty, I have not been called in Oregon. I was in a pool several times and selected and seated for jury duty three times in Oklahoma.

One we sat in the Courtroom, sworn in, and waiting for the show to start for 45 minutes when the judge came out, thanked us for our time, said the trial was canceled, Goodbye. I was happy yet miffed... I at least wanted to know what it was about. Turned out to be a embezzlement case. They plead out to save embarrassment and out of the press.

The second one was a child custody case. The state wanted the kids, (Three kids all different fathers, none wanted their child) the drug addict Mom wanted the kids, the Mom's Mom wanted the kids if she had legal custody. So lame lawyer for the mom, less lame, but still lame lawyer for the state and a very sharp lawyer for the kids. Grandma got the kids with scheduled and unscheduled visits by the state. Very complicated trial.

The last was Aggravated Assault, a Black man accused of viciously shoving a older white woman to the ground causing grievous injury. The two protagonists were vying for employee of the month, he won. The lady shoved and grabbed the man, he pulled away, the lost her balance and fell. All then seemed okay, but later she called the police. Ten witnesses for him, her best friend with zero credibility for her. Six jurors five for acquittal in five mines flat, the sixth juror, an older white lady wanted him in prison, because even if he wasn't guilty of this crime he was black and he was therefor guilty of something. If I had not been there I would not have believed it

I did not have a permit then and no questions about guns were asked.
 
I find this interesting again.

I'd reply the something like this...: "Would you ask me about my internet posts regarding any subject? Is my first, second, 5th and 8th amendment rights protected? Would you ask that I produce any and all writings related to a specific subject so you could dive deep into how I feel on every topic? Probably not so my religious preferences, firearm preferences and whether or not I quarter soldiers in my house is irrelevant."
 
last time i had to go to jury duty they asked if i was friends with any LEOs: yes.
what are your hobbies? i said building guns, hunting and making ammunition.

i was first to be excused that day. now im good for two years.

I am about to find out what they ask, if called. I have been summoned for duty this week in WA Co. I have to call in Wed. night to see if they want me to come in.

I have thought about whether to answer if they ask if I own firearms and about LEOs. I was once a fed. LEO (USCG) and I have a cousin who is NCIS, so that would be interesting.

Firearms? I would answer yes or no to owning them as the gov already knows this. Number and type and other specifics, I would probably decline to answer because the gov. doesn't know everything - can't get in trouble for declining to answer as it is covered by the fifth amendment.
 
I was selected but not called into serve this time. It was something I was really contemplating if asked what to say.
I do not know if it would be a crime even regarding guns, but I just wanted to see what some other people think/thought, or would possibly do/say.
 
I am about to find out what they ask, if called. I have been summoned for duty this week in WA Co. I have to call in Wed. night to see if they want me to come in.

I have thought about whether to answer if they ask if I own firearms and about LEOs. I was once a fed. LEO (USCG) and I have a cousin who is NCIS, so that would be interesting.

Firearms? I would answer yes or no to owning them as the gov already knows this. Number and type and other specifics, I would probably decline to answer because the gov. doesn't know everything - can't get in trouble for declining to answer as it is covered by the fifth amendment.
just say youre LEO biased if you dont want to be there. "they arrested him, he must be guilty!"

i have a buddy that said "hang'm" and he got dismissed
 
If it's a crime that involved a gun, seems to me one side or the other would like to have responsible gun owners on the jury. If it's in an anti gun zone, well, we can understand why so many repeat gun felons are on the street.:mad:

The lawyers for each side cannot vote for a juror, they can only vote against a juror, and if I understand the process correctly, they only get so many 'no' votes.
 
just say youre LEO biased if you dont want to be there. "they arrested him, he must be guilty!"

i have a buddy that said "hang'm" and he got dismissed

I do not intend nor do I want to get dismissed, but the chances that I will be dismissed are probably better than 50/50.

I know from experience that some LEOs lie in court and on reports, some plant evidence and so on, so I would not say that I have a bias for the LE side of any issue, despite having been one and having a close relative who is a LEO.
 
I do not intend nor do I want to get dismissed, but the chances that I will be dismissed are probably better than 50/50.

I know from experience that some LEOs lie in court and on reports, some plant evidence and so on, so I would not say that I have a bias for the LE side of any issue, despite having been one and having a close relative who is a LEO.
i have a different outlook. i dont want to be there. at all. yeah i know a lot of people want to do their duty which is fine!! but, not working doesnt pay the mortgage or put food on the table. i would honestly rather make $400 at work instead of $5 for driving to jury duty and waiting around all day. no, my work doesnt pay me to go to jury duty unless i am there for a week then MAYBE they might cut me a check
 
i have a different outlook. yeah i know a lot of people want to do their duty. buy, not working doesnt pay thr mortgage or put food on the table. i would honestly rather make $400 at work instead of $5 for driving to jury duty and waiting around all day. no, my work doesnt pay me to go to jury duty unless i am there for a week then MAYBE they might cut me a check

I sympathize with that and agree.

However, my employer pays 100% for the first two weeks - thereafter a decreasing pro rata amount over time. I also get to keep anything the court pays, which is a laughable amount ($10 the first day, $25 thereafter).

I don't look forward to jury duty, for one thing, I don't think it will be very comfortable sitting still for very long with my bad back. But I will do it if I can and they let me as I would hate to think that someone who should be found innocent or guilty, or a victim, will have to depend on a bunch of ignorant soccer moms who have nothing better to do to find justice in the system.

Unfortunately, I think I will be dismissed simply because I will answer truthfully when asked questions, or decline to answer others. I believe in justice more than rule of law, and therefore cannot guarantee that I would follow any and all instructions from a judge.
 
for sure, if my employer paid me to be there i probably would have a different attitude toward jury duty. one case i was selected to then dismissed(because he pled guilty) was a rapist who raped and murdered a 12 year old girl. i would have no problem givin that scum bag,waste of oxygen, the death penalty.


o wait, our governor.....UGHHH.
 
The lawyers for each side cannot vote for a juror, they can only vote against a juror, and if I understand the process correctly, they only get so many 'no' votes.
Each side can challenge any potential juror for cause. That means they have to have a good reason and the judge must agree that it's a good reason. Each side also gets a set number of peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges don't require a reason. The defense will challenge what it considers the 3 (number varies) worst potential jurors for its case, and the prosecution does likewise. That's the point of the questions: trying to identify who to spend peremptory challenges on.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top