I was lucky (or unlucky) enough to be summoned for Jury Duty by our great state.  No one with half a brain would want to sit on a jury, especially if it was going to be a long trial.  But it's one's civic duty to help maintain society.  With that thought in mind, I arrived at the courthouse at the prescribed hour to do My civic duty.

Well, doing one's duty should not require twiddling one's thumbs for hours, but that's what I did until the bailiff finally appeared.  He selected and ushered a number of prospective jurors into a courtroom.  Now, I thought, finally.

Before a jury is paneled, the court goes through the "Voir Dire", a preliminary examination of prospective jurors to determine their competence or suitability.  The judge, prosecution and defense each have an opportunity to question the panel and remove anyone they feel would not render an impartial decision.

When the prosecutions questioned the panel, his first questions was "Would you be able to take a police officers testimony at face value and not give more or less credence to the testimony because it was given by a police officer?".  I almost laughed out loud, but contained myself.

While the Voir Dire continued, I couldn't get the prosecutions question out of my mind.  I thought of the police officers in New Orleans after the hurricane, looting big ticket items like plasma TV's, computers, etc..  I thought of Rodney King, pummeled by police officers while handcuffed, the officers lying under oath.  Then Mark Ferman, whose single handed testimony abetted O.J. Simpson, lying under oath.  No, I thought, I would most definitely have to take the testimony of a police officer with a grain of salt.

Some time later I raised my hand to address the court.  When the judge called on me I asked about the prosecutions question and all three parties (judge, prosecution and defense) recalled the question.  The judge then asked me a pointed question, "Do you believe that you could take the testimony of police officer at face value?".  Do I believe?  Face Value?  I lowered my head and immediately visions of New Orleans, LA and Mark Ferman raced thru my mind.  Shaking and raising my head I look directly at the judge and said "I believe the only difference between the police and the criminals is that we pay the police!".

Needless to say, I was challenged for cause by the judge and prosecution and not by the defense.

As a former prosecutor and defense attorney, if the question was raised exactly as you state, it was a lousy job of voir dire, and should have been re-phrased.  Of course, given your response, you were almost certainly going to be tossed from the panel as someone who could not be fair to the prosecution.
Moreover, if your belief is widely held by the folks in Phoenix, the streets will soon run wild  with guilty folks who were set free by people who won't believe police officers.  Tell me Trashy Cat, if someone you cared for was assaulted by some scum and the jury acquitted because they didn't believe cops, would you feel justice was served?

First, I do not represent the folks of Phoenix.

But lets look at the root cause of the problem, the failure of the law enforcement community to police itself.  Hundreds of examples can be cited through out history in almost every city in the US, Chicago, Boston, New York, LA, etc.  And yes, I'm sure there are honest, reputable officers in every city, but how does one know who to trust?  The law enforcement community has established a record for manufacturing evidence, lying under oath, and doing anything to "win" a case, and "win" is the opportune word here.

Law Enforcement and the legal system should not be concerned with the "win", but should be after "justice" and finding the "truth".  But, our political and judicial systems are less interested in the "truth" than they are in the "game" and the "win".  If it wasn't for the media, most all of the examples cited would never have come to light.  Thank heavens for the fourth and fifth estate.  It's sad, but they are the real hero here, they seem to be the only ones interested in the "truth".

Lets also delve a little bit into the legal industry, our crack establishment of lawyers.  These are individuals who charge a fortune to adequately(?) represent their clients.  Like the law enforcement community, I'm sure there are some good lawyers, but how does one locate a good lawyer when one needs legal console?  This is another industry that fails to police itself, just about the only way a lawyer can be disbarred is to be convicted of a crime.  Given a complaint before the bar, the bar will believe a lawyer in a preponderance of complaints.

And when actually caught lying under oath or fabricating evidence, what penalties does a police officer face before our legal system?  Well, Mark Ferman was allowed to retire with full pension. Boy, we really smacked his wrist.  Why is he not in jail?  If I lied under oath, I'm sure some prosecutor would go after me with both barrels, but a police officer, retire with full pension.  Some justice.  Our political, legal and law enforcement communities should be proud of the justice handed out in the OJ case.  I'm sure that justice that was handed out has Nicole Simpson resting more comfortably.

And to answer your question, no I would not take solace if an acquittal was returned in a case involving someone I loved, neither would I take solace in a convicted.  How could one take any comfort with a transgressions committed against a loved one?  The only ones taking solace in any legal proceeding is the legal industry, an industrial game of "wins" and "loses".

-- Modified on 11/10/2005 9:20:34 AM

Are you causing trouble again?  Wink!

Hugs,
Ciara

Wow, amazing.  A simple tale of dodging jury duty turns into a diatribe against cops, lawyers, the justice system and capitalism.  
   What you still haven't figured out is that your answer was exactly what the prosecutor wanted:  You got yourself removed for cause without having to waste a challenge.  I can assure you that the defense attorney was upset in seeing a person that might have favored his client removed from the panel.  That's the true tragedy.
  It's just as well, I guess.  Since you have so thoroughly rejected the judicial system (as if Mark Furman had anything to do with OJ's guilt or innocence, as opposed to a superior skilled defense attorney), perhaps the next time you find yourself in a conflict situation, instead of courtrooms, you can resolve the dispute with baseball bats or swords at dawn, like the good old days.

Much of what was said about those we pay to “Protect and Serve” is on point and their testimony in court needs to be credible and beyond reproach.  But it would be prudent to hold a little of that healthy skepticism for the media as well.  The Fourth Estate like the weatherman gets it wrong as often as they get it right.  No better and timely example can be found than former CBS producer Mary Mapes statements regarding Rathergate during her interview with Ross of ABC's “Good Morning America”; saying she had no journalistic obligation to prove the authenticity of the documents before including them in the "60 Minutes II" report and the news organization has no obligation "to authenticate such important source material": say what???  A major new organization reporting on a national story to discredit a sitting President during an election year has no obligation to authenticate crucial evidence supporting their story?  Ok, sounds totally logical to me, but then again I am the Village Idiot.  It's good thing to have heros and truth.

I agree with your assessment, however we do not pay the media to "Protect and Serve", if they get it wrong because they don't check the validity of the information, they will soon be out of business.  Watergate made bold assertions about the President and his staff, and the Post/Woodward/Burnstien were able to back them up.  Yes, we need the fourth and fifth estate, but we have no control over them, just as we have no control over the police force.

I suppose it was a "superior skilled defense attorney" who kept President Clinton out of jail when he lied to the grand jury.  Maybe Liddy should get Clinton's "superior skilled defense attorney".  BTW, what was Clinton's punishment as a lawyer and President of the United States?  Think he's still getting paid even though he was impeached and tarnished the office of the President.  So the moral of the story is if you lie under oath and you're a employee of the government, you'll still get your pension.  

What a country.

...not giving it more or less credence because a cop said it.  "Face value" means that you accept the testimony for its literal truth, without looking below the surface of the words themselves, e.g., "Honestly, officer, I had no idea this stuff was illegal."   Not giving the testimony special weight because it came from a cop is something else entirely.  Amazingly, some people STILL think that cops are grown-up Boy Scouts who don't lie.

One can only believe what is presented.  Our media has evolved or devolved depending on your point of view to seek out and report on the negative aspects of an issue.  So when a story goes to air or print that is all we tend hear.  This problem is only compounded given the 24hr new cycle.  I’m not naïve and understand that business is business and in the news this is the market.  But it colors our perspective and has little to do with the reality and reliability of our systems.  We don’t hear about all the things or instances that do work, only those individuals and circumstances where it didn’t.  Untold and unheard the good in our systems isn’t perceived and never reaches our collective reality.  So we as individuals are called to make judgment and with us goes our tainted reality.  In the day to day as we move about in our normal world collecting the information given to us, it is best to remember that it isn’t real.

This was a question supposedly asked on voir dire.  If it was phrased this way, it was a silly question.  Also,if so, it was designed to elicit the exact response that TC gave, which got him disqualified on the panel.  The only loser is the poor guy on trial that would have wanted TC on the jury.  Oh well.....

and kept him on?...I wouldn't want a juror that without question believed cops no matter what.

You also forgot the chandler cop that killed the gal at Walgreen's drive thru...NOT Guilty...
no way!
He is just like my ex-husband on a power trip and wants everyone to know it too!

There are some good cops, Key word some!!!

Sorry Terri, as soon as you answer as TC did, he is gone for cause.  Same if someone said they always believe the cops.  The best way to answer that question (if it was actually asked that way) is to say that you will give equal weight to all testimony, take into account their background, training and ability to perceive, and decide whose version is truthful.  That's how you stay on a panel.uh

..."Do you understand that you should judge a police officer or other law enforcement agent's testimony the same way you would judge anyone else's?  That a police oficer is no more or less likely to be telling the truth JUST BECAUSE HE IS A POLICE OFFICER?  That you should apply the aame standards to police as you do to any other witness?"  
Now, this SOMETIMES draws an objection from the prosecutor....  

You have indicated numerous times now that the defendent got screwed because TC answered the way he did.  In 9 out of 10 cases, it wouldn't matter.  At least when I've been on Arizona juries, I've found most people [a] give huge credence to cop testimony, and [b] tend to believe the person must be guilty because here they are in a courtroom.

What absolutely blows my mind is these same people will swear up and down they hadn't pre-judged the case.