May, 31, 2001 archives

one thing about the voir dire (questioning of potential jurors) process that intrigued me was the hypothetical scenario raised of being the one juror who didn't agree with the eleven others. the reaction the judge and lawyers were looking for, of course, is that the potential juror would not be swayed by the majority, only the facts in evidence. i think it would be more interesting to ask people how they would behave in the flipside -- what if you're in the majority? would you listen to that lone (or minority) voice and allow yourself to be convinced that their view of the evidence is correct, or would you just assume you must be right because most people agree with you?

so tired. things i learned today: apparently the entire bird population of los angeles gathers outside my window at 5am each morning to chirp, and i usually sleep soundly enough to miss it; the los angeles subway system still rocks; there appears to be an impressive dearth of restaurants in the downtown area, at least near the criminal courts building; i need to buy: cheap sunglasses, cheap time-keeping implement.

10:45am report for jury duty tomorrow. much more reasonable than today's 7:45am report. real observations when my stint is over.

yeah, i'm talking to you, you trash-eating stinkbags.