2007 House Bill 4859 (Use tax records to establish geographically proportionate jury pools )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) 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.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 29, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on June 4, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 10, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 10, 2008.
Passed in the House (59 to 49) on June 10, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on June 10, 2008, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed in the House (60 to 47) on June 10, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 12, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 12, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

1) if you want jury selection [by Anonymous Citizen on June 28, 2007]
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?
Reply

Line

2) I can't. [by Anonymous Citizen on June 27, 2007]
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.
Reply

Line

3) Additional note [by Mike Hignite on June 26, 2007]
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.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation