Spreading Numismatics even in tough situations. UPDATE on pg3! YN Roll Find!

[AnkurJ]

So in late December of last year, I recieved a notice in the mail for Jury Duty! Great....has it been three years already? Obviously so.

So I filled out the form and really didn't have any excuse not to go, and mailed it out. The day came where I had to report to court. Most of the first day was spent sitting around, until the end, where I somehow ended up in the juror box. I'll be dismissed I thought to myself. This was a medical malpractice case, and since I come from a medical background, they wouldn't want me.

 

WRONG! I was picked as a juror for a FOUR TO FIVE week case! Thankfully my work paid for it, so I decided to make the best of it. There were a total of 10 jurors, and we all clicked rather quickly. After all, when you have to see someone on a daily basis for over a month, its better to be friendly. So eventually the discussion of coins came up. I told them I collected and why I enjoy it. The next thing I know, one juror brought his small collection in for me to look at. I gave him pointers and some non-pvc flips. I also brought the latest Goldberg auction catalog so they could see some amazing examples of early US coinage. Additionally, I brought some coins to share with everyone. Needless to say, they were facinated.

 

Eventually a discussion of gold and silver arised, and I told them about how coins before 1965 were 90% silver. I told them that people search boxes of half dollars and look for the silver ones. But warned them that many people do it, and silver is difficult to find. One of the jurors said they would love if their 9 year old son would spend time on something other than video games. It was worth a shot in my opinion. Jury duty ended on Valentines Day (started January 8th). Today I recieved an email from that juror, that she went to the bank and ordered a box of halves, and is opening 10 rolls every day with her son....and he is having a blast! And they already found two 40% Kennedys and a Proof! My next suggestion was to buy a lincoln cent album and try to fill the slots by roll searching. Cheap and easy fun.

 

Hopefully he will become a future YN

 

Ankur

[TomB]

Pretty cool! I have never been picked for Jury Duty. Each time I am called, one of the lawyers uses one of the automatic disqaulifications on me when they find out I have a scientific PhD.

[cpm9ball]

The last two times I was called for jury duty during the voir dire the ADA made a dumb statement, and when I smirked, the judge noticed and asked why. I explained to the judge the inaccuracy of the ADA's statements in each case, and I was sent home.

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

Pretty cool! I have never been picked for Jury Duty. Each time I am called, one of the lawyers uses one of the automatic disqaulifications on me when they find out I have a scientific PhD.

 

I guess you're too educated/intelligent to fall for their arguments, especially those that claim to be rooted in science.

[coinman_23885]

Great story Ankur, and I'm glad to see that your thoughtfulness paid off. Also, on another note, do you think that the cohesiveness of the jury affected the decision making/deliberation process? I am interested because I have read a number of cognitive studies about collective decision making, and I am interested into any connections that can be made with the law.

 

The last two times I was called for jury duty during the voir dire the ADA made a dumb statement, and when I smirked, the judge noticed and asked why. I explained to the judge the inaccuracy of the ADA's statements in each case, and I was sent home.

 

Chris

 

What is an "ADA"? Is this an assistant district attorney? Every time I here the legal abbreviation ADA I think of a very specific piece of federal legislation.

[AstroTrain]

I love it Mr. Rockstar!

[brg5658]

I was selected to be on a jury at the beginning of 2012 for a murder trial, and I am a research scientist for a living. I don't see how one's profession (or attained college degree) is an "automatic disqualification" as a juror??

 

And, I guess I also don't see how a murder trial can take 2 weeks, but a medical malpractice trial can take 4-5 weeks. Good lord, now I understand why our courts are bogged down...even the most complicated story of medical malpractice I can formulate in my head wouldn't require 4-5 weeks of testimony and witnesses.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

For anyone not interested in the law or the legal questions raised herein, please disregard this post:

 

I was selected to be on a jury at the beginning of 2012 for a murder trial, and I am a research scientist for a living. I don't see how one's profession (or attained college degree) is an "automatic disqualification" as a juror??

 

 

Actually there are very good reasons why scientists, doctors, and lawyers are often removed from the jury pool during voir dire. It's actually quite simple. When you have someone who has advanced knowledge of a field, the other jurors are likely to defer to him or her. Rather than weighing the evidence to arrive at the facts and then applying it to the law independently (as the process is meant to be), a jury of several effectively becomes a jury of one, making it subject to bias (i.e. what if the professional/advanced degree holder was wrong and swayed the other jurors; also as you know, sometimes even scientists disagree and could bias the pool; etc.).

 

And, I guess I also don't see how a murder trial can take 2 weeks, but a medical malpractice trial can take 4-5 weeks. Good lord, now I understand why our courts are bogged down...even the most complicated story of medical malpractice I can formulate in my head wouldn't require 4-5 weeks of testimony and witnesses.

 

I can also see why there would be a difference in timing here. In criminal cases the simple question is whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. whether he or she actually committed the crime with the requisite elements). Medical malpractice cases are different. Most medical malpractice cases are based on common law negligence torts. I won't go into a lot of detail here for fear of boring you, but the question in a medical malpractice case is not simply whether the doctor performed some act and whether harm some harm result. This is an important part, but there is also another fundamental element: standard of care. The next question is whether a prudent professional in the field would have thought the act to be part of acceptable medical practice in the field. Sometimes this is quite contentious. I worked on a $1 million + medical malpractice question where the threshold issue was whether the the surgeon had a duty to investigate the surgical site for sponges before closing the surgical site and whether he reasonably relied on the nurses' sponge count. Although the answer sounds like common sense, the law is not always that clear. To add to the problems, courts also have somewhat subjective standards in determining standard of care. For instance, there are cases in my state which effectively state that acceptable procedures in one hospital or practice setting (i.e. free clinic, VA setting) may be acceptable; however, the same conduct at an institution like Johns Hopkins would constitute medical malpractice. It is much more complicated than it sounds. Because of the elements of common law negligence torts, the question of reasonableness under the circumstances frequently comes into play and is or can be quite contentious.

 

 

 

[brg5658]

Kenny you will make a good lawyer. You can complicate things beyond what we mere mortals can digest. Or put another way, you can explain the simplest of ideas in a scant novella.

 

SO much for fear of boring us all.

 

 

[gmarguli]

And, I guess I also don't see how a murder trial can take 2 weeks, but a medical malpractice trial can take 4-5 weeks. Good lord, now I understand why our courts are bogged down...even the most complicated story of medical malpractice I can formulate in my head wouldn't require 4-5 weeks of testimony and witnesses.

 

It's not that the trial takes that long, it's that the entire court system is completely screwed up. I've been called in for jury duty twice. The first time (elderly landlord pushed down by a boarder and she broke her hip) the trial lasted 3 days. THREE DAYS. We maybe spent an hour in the courtroom each day. The defendant never took the stand. There was literally no defense other than the public defender suggesting that maybe the old lady lost her balance and fell... despite the witnesses. THREE DAYS comprising of maybe 2.5 hours total. It was the most insane misuse/abuse of people's productive time. I felt sickened by it. Oh BTW, five jurors initially voted not guilty for reasons like "My aunt lost her balance and broke her hip. No one pushed her. It could be the same here." and the fireman that said "I've seen old people misremember facts before.".

 

The second time we were told the trial could potentially last as long as 8 days. Fair enough since the woman was on trial for treason throwing a rock thru her soon-to-be ex-husbands window. EIGHT DAYS. Are you kidding me!!! Sadly I was the first person excused from the jury. I guess they didn't like my answers.

[WoodenJefferson]

I've been on quite a few civil/criminal cases and not once was coin collecting mentioned. Seems we were more worried about coffee & donuts, their kids, weather and the fact that the judge was nodding off during the trial. Twice I was asked to be Jury Foreman and twice I accepted. On the Court Ava-davit where you check off guilty/not guilty, I signed my name large and obvious, just like signers of the Declaration of Independence for the United States of America! I almost want to break out in song.

[BLive1972]

Ankur, I think the examples that you have are really nice looking, so I can see how you're getting people interested. Very cool stuff when you've never seen them before. Well done.

[physics-fan3.14]

For anyone not interested in the law or the legal questions raised herein, please disregard this post:

 

I was selected to be on a jury at the beginning of 2012 for a murder trial, and I am a research scientist for a living. I don't see how one's profession (or attained college degree) is an "automatic disqualification" as a juror??

 

 

Actually there are very good reasons why scientists, doctors, and lawyers are often removed from the jury pool during voir dire. It's actually quite simple. When you have someone who has advanced knowledge of a field, the other jurors are likely to defer to him or her. Rather than weighing the evidence to arrive at the facts and then applying it to the law independently (as the process is meant to be), a jury of several effectively becomes a jury of one, making it subject to bias (i.e. what if the professional/advanced degree holder was wrong and swayed the other jurors; also as you know, sometimes even scientists disagree and could bias the pool; etc.).

 

 

While your reasoning may be accurate in an ideal world, the fact of the matter is - educated and intelligent people are going to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The lawyers want sheeple who are easy to manipulate and will do as their are told, or believe what they are told.

 

Might be more cynical, but I'm sure its closer to the truth.

[AnkurJ]

For anyone not interested in the law or the legal questions raised herein, please disregard this post:

 

I was selected to be on a jury at the beginning of 2012 for a murder trial, and I am a research scientist for a living. I don't see how one's profession (or attained college degree) is an "automatic disqualification" as a juror??

 

 

Actually there are very good reasons why scientists, doctors, and lawyers are often removed from the jury pool during voir dire. It's actually quite simple. When you have someone who has advanced knowledge of a field, the other jurors are likely to defer to him or her. Rather than weighing the evidence to arrive at the facts and then applying it to the law independently (as the process is meant to be), a jury of several effectively becomes a jury of one, making it subject to bias (i.e. what if the professional/advanced degree holder was wrong and swayed the other jurors; also as you know, sometimes even scientists disagree and could bias the pool; etc.).

 

 

While your reasoning may be accurate in an ideal world, the fact of the matter is - educated and intelligent people are going to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The lawyers want sheeple who are easy to manipulate and will do as their are told, or believe what they are told.

 

Might be more cynical, but I'm sure its closer to the truth.

 

You're so far off I don't even know where to begin.

[EVillageProwler]

For anyone not interested in the law or the legal questions raised herein, please disregard this post:

 

I was selected to be on a jury at the beginning of 2012 for a murder trial, and I am a research scientist for a living. I don't see how one's profession (or attained college degree) is an "automatic disqualification" as a juror??

 

 

Actually there are very good reasons why scientists, doctors, and lawyers are often removed from the jury pool during voir dire. It's actually quite simple. When you have someone who has advanced knowledge of a field, the other jurors are likely to defer to him or her. Rather than weighing the evidence to arrive at the facts and then applying it to the law independently (as the process is meant to be), a jury of several effectively becomes a jury of one, making it subject to bias (i.e. what if the professional/advanced degree holder was wrong and swayed the other jurors; also as you know, sometimes even scientists disagree and could bias the pool; etc.).

 

 

While your reasoning may be accurate in an ideal world, the fact of the matter is - educated and intelligent people are going to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The lawyers want sheeple who are easy to manipulate and will do as their are told, or believe what they are told.

 

Might be more cynical, but I'm sure its closer to the truth.

 

You're so far off I don't even know where to begin.

 

By chance, I've never actually served. The closest I came was to drive to the courthouse, only to be sent home (not sure why) after signing in and waiting.

 

I bet both the ideal and the cynical cases happen in real life, but I wonder what the stats tell us...

 

I know every litigator wants to control the narrative. That's debating 101. As for jury selection, I have no clue what's real life and what's Hollywood. All I can think of is Runaway Jury and Law&Order stuff.

 

EVP

[wheat'swheats]

As a retired law enforcement officer, I have no problem being excused from Jury duty. My biggest problem is having to go down just to be excused.

wheat

[cpm9ball]

The lawyers want sheeple who are easy to manipulate and will do as their are told, or believe what they are told.

 

I tend to agree with this to a certain extent. Some of the ADA's are basically "Rookies-at-Law" and they don't like to be made to look foolish.

 

In one of the cases in which I was excused during voir dire, the ADA posed the question to the jury pool, "Have you ever been stopped by a police officer who wasn't using radar?" This is what caused me to smirk because 80% of the jury pool were senior citizens. So, when the judge asked me what I thought was funny, I told him, "Your Honor, I think most of the potential jurors were driving before radar guns were even invented."

 

Chris

 

[bsshog40]

Pretty cool! Hopefully another up and coming numismatist!

[Conder101]

You're so far off I don't even know where to begin.

I don't know about that. I've been called up for jury duty about six times (actually sat once). Several of the other times I was told by the prosecutor afterward that I was dismissed because I thought about the questions and answers too much.

[newprepper]

They wanted a quick decision, not somebody mucking up the process

[johnny9434]

i went for jury duty 4 times and never got picked. the first time i learned to bring a book or something to catch up on ( eg: back issues of a coin magazine ) and find a corner somewhere.

[coinman_23885]

 

Actually there are very good reasons why scientists, doctors, and lawyers are often removed from the jury pool during voir dire. It's actually quite simple. When you have someone who has advanced knowledge of a field, the other jurors are likely to defer to him or her. Rather than weighing the evidence to arrive at the facts and then applying it to the law independently (as the process is meant to be), a jury of several effectively becomes a jury of one, making it subject to bias (i.e. what if the professional/advanced degree holder was wrong and swayed the other jurors; also as you know, sometimes even scientists disagree and could bias the pool; etc.).

 

 

While your reasoning may be accurate in an ideal world, the fact of the matter is - educated and intelligent people are going to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The lawyers want sheeple who are easy to manipulate and will do as their are told, or believe what they are told.

 

Might be more cynical, but I'm sure its closer to the truth.

 

Jason, I respect your opinion, but unfortunately your view is quite sheltered. You are educated and likely surround yourself with educated people. Indeed, I would venture to say that most of the posters on this board are more intelligent than the average person on the street, and in many cases a standard deviation or more above average. I once thought like you, but in my seven years working in the legal field, I have changed that view considerably. There are some very intelligent people; however, there are (or at least it seems) an even larger population of not so intelligent people who will follow what others state blindly.

 

With regards to lawyers in general and the comments posted above, there are some lawyers (and a few types of cases) where a jury that is easy to manipulate is useful; however, I do not think that all lawyers want uninformed jurors who are sheep. I cannot think of anything more terrifying that having someone's fate (be it in a civil case or a criminal case) dependent on a group of people of varying intelligences. Since juries decide the facts (usually in the absence of gross distortion or obvious problem), jury trials can often be about what a group of your peers think and feel about your case rather than what the law dictates. This is particularly problematic in cases involving scientific evidence - there are many people on the street who simply do not have the cognitive ability to weigh and consider multiple views especially when dealing with a host of topics that are complex and that they do not know about and have never even contemplated. I am not the only one who thinks this, and I know of several lawyers who would agree with me. I personally would rather have an intelligent jury.

 

[coinman_23885]

Kenny you will make a good lawyer. You can complicate things beyond what we mere mortals can digest. Or put another way, you can explain the simplest of ideas in a scant novella.

 

SO much for fear of boring us all.

 

 

Thanks and . While black letter law can be boring to some, it has very interesting and useful applications.

[bartlesvilleok]

The one and only time I was called for jury duty they realized I am the one that provided the PD the video and signature slips of the crime. I have never been called back.

 

Glad to hear about the ladies son. They might look at getting a Kennedy half book(s) and fill that while they are roll hunting. Many dates can be found that were never meant to be released for general circulation.

[AnkurJ]

A small update!

So the juror I know got a box of half dollars for her son, and they open a few rolls every night. Today...they found a COLUMBIAN COMMEM HALF!!!!

 

I truly was speachless. I can't beleive this was still in circulation!

[Walkerfan]

A small update!

So the juror I know got a box of half dollars for her son, and they open a few rolls every night. Today...they found a COLUMBIAN COMMEM HALF!!!!

 

I truly was speachless. I can't beleive this was still in circulation!

 

How incredibly LUCKY!! That would excite even an expert collector!!