A juror is me!

[matthewdaly]

So, jury summons. Always a good time, forty bucks in found money, and killing a day around hundreds of strangers probably including probably at least one with swine flu. Plus, with my star-crossed luck I always get to play Voir Dire in the first pool, everybody's favorite game where two lawyers get to fight over which one is more eager to spend a peremptory challenge on me.

Well, today the lawyers didn't play the game quite right, and I actually got seated on a jury for the first time in my life. This is pretty fine with me, since civic duty yadda yadda yadda plus it gives me the opportunity to kill three or four days instead of just one. The downside is that the charge against the defendant is AFAIK (but am probably pledged against looking it up right now) the most foolish law in New York State, and there are no lack of candidates for that. Actually, even though I suppose I can't confirm or deny before the trial is over, just for lulz I should figure out how to create a poll to have folks guess what the charge is. Post a comment if you feel inspired. Of course, I can be objective and unbiased in examining evidence and testimony, but I sure hope it doesn't come down to the ethical quandary of determining the fate of a non-menacing person who violated the letter of a poorly written law.

Comments

[prairierabbit]

I'm guessing it to be indecent exposure, for public urination. Or as I explain it to the freshmen, you too can become a sex offender for peeing in public!

[matthewdaly]

Yikes! Does that actually happen? I knew that you can make the registry for a single youthful indiscretion of streaking, but urination? Even *I* know that urination isn't a sexual act, and I'm the most uptight sexually repressed person I know.

I will grant that misdemeanor sexual offender crimes is a very good entry in the stupid law sweepstakes. Perhaps I am biased by living in a Project Exile community, but I still give the edge to Criminal Possession of a Weapon charges that result from a simple search or turn up in the investigation of a non-violent crime. The disparity very starkly came up in our trial. A woman in a hospital hands her purse to a police officer, who finds a loaded handgun in it. That's a completely open-and-shut case that would subject her to a mandatory 3.5 - 5 year prison sentence. Except that she was never charged; they made a much less obvious (though still valid) case against her boyfriend, but there is no reason they couldn't both be convicted. There's just an extralegal part of the process that decides whether you get a stern lecture or very hard time, and that doesn't sit well with me. Minimum sentencing is teh suck.

[prairierabbit]

Oh, yes. Here, the state law only covers indecent exposure. In Normal, there is a town statute that covers public urination, and that is the charge that is usually used on drunk college students--a fine, court supervision, public service aka trash duty early on several Saturday mornings. Fair, reasonable, and everyone knows what really happened.

However, Bloomington (which flows right into Normal) does not have a public urination statute, so if the police wish to press charges, they use public indecency, assuming of course that the offender is male and is using the typical peeing stance. They actually only go on the sex offender list here once they have three convictions, but other states are not as lenient. Also, if it comes up under the check for potential teachers it's a red flag and potentially even one conviction can block certification.

[prairierabbit]

Minimum sentencing is teh suck.

Oh, yes. Definitely. I love how the "no discretion" argument is used for sentencing (lest judges not treat criminals identically), but prosecutors are assumed to be immune to subjectivity when they decide whether or not to file charges, and what charges to file.